report nr. 4/78 hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline storage and distribution systems Prepared by CONCAWE's Special Task Force on Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Storage and Distribution Systems P.V. Hadley F. Devos W. Esty P.G. Gommel U. Ising R.H. Lilie G.P.M. Verbeek LJ. Williams This report does not nessessarily represent the views of any company participating in CONCAWE Reproducticn permitted with due acknowledgement ©CcONCcAWE Den Haag December 1978concawe CONTENTS Page 1. SUMMARY 1 1a GENERAL. 1 1.2 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS 1 1.3 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DURING DISTRIBUTION 1 1.4 GOOD HOUSEKEEPING 2 1.5 CONTROL TECHNIQUES 2 1.5.1 Hypothetical Distribution System 3 1.5.2 3 1.5.3 Depot Storage Tank Emissions 4 1.5.4 Transport Loading 4 1.5.5 5 1.5.6 5 1.5.7 6 1.6 CONCLUSION 6 2. INTRODUCTION 9 2a OBJECTIVE 9 2.2 UNITS OF MEASUREMENT 9 2.3 ASSUMED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 9 2.4 REFERENCE SOURCES 10 2.5 TYPICAL QUANTITIES OF EMISSION 10 2.6 GASOLINE VAPOUR COMPOSITION 10 2.7 costs uw 3. PRINCIPLES, TYPES AND MAGNITUDE OF VAPOUR EMISSIONS 13 3.1 PRINCIPLES 13 3.1.1 Vapour Pressure 13 3.1.2 Product Temperature 44 3.1.3 Turbulence 15 3.1.4 15 3.2 16 8.2.1 cement Emissions 16 3.2.2 Breathing Emissions 16 3.2.3 Withdrawal Emissions 16 3.2.4 Filling Emissions 16 NOTE ‘The disconinuity of the page numbering is due to some blank pages that had been normally numbered in the original hard copy but left out of the scanned file in order to reduce the digital file size.concaw Bee sane oe b&b Bebb BE BAR Rob as be be w MAGNITUDE Bulk Storage Tanks (Fixed Roof) Quantity of Displacement Emissions Quantity of Breathing Emissions Quantity of Withdrawal Emissions Interrelation of Displacement, Breathing and Withdrawal Emissions Bulk Storage Tanks (Fitted with Internal Floating Covers) Bulk Storage Standing Storage Vapour Emissions Wet Wall Emissions Transport Filling E sions (Truck, Rail and Barge) Factors Affecting Filling Emissions Preloading Vapour Evolution Vapour Calculation of Filling Emissions (Truck and Rail) Calculation of Filling Emissions (Barge) Breathing Emissions (Truck and Rail) Breathing Emissions (Barge) rvice Station Storage Tank Em sions Automobile Refuelling Emission: TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EMISSIONS GENERAL, TRANSPORT LOADING EMISSIONS Barge Loading Rail Car Loading Truck Loading ‘Transport Breathing Truck Breathing Rail Car Breathing Barge Breathing STORAGE TANK EMISSIONS Displacement from F: Storage Tank Breath: Non-Working Tanks Working Tanks Service Station Storage Tank AUTOMOBILE REFUELLING ENISSIONS FROM A TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page a7 a7 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 45 45 46 46 46 47 48, 48, 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50Page 5. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING 53 Bal GENERAL 53 5.2 DEPOT STORAGE 53 5.2.1 Fixed Roof Tanks 53 5.2.1.1 Pressure Settings 53 5.2.1.2 Surface Condition 53 5.2.1.3 Tank Gauging and Sampling 54 5.2.1.4 Air Entrainment 54 5.2.2 Internal Floating Deck 54 5.2.2.1 Peripheral Seal 54 5.2.3 Open Top Floating Roots 35 5.2.4 Variable Vapour § Tanks 35 5.2.4.1 Lifter Roof Type 55 5.2.4.2 Diaphragm Type 55 5.3 ‘TRANSPORT MEDIA 35 5.3.1 Barges and Tankers 55 5.3.2 Trucks and Rail Cars 36 5.3.2.1 General 36 5.3.2.2 Loading 36 5.3.2.3 Discharging 87 5.3.3 Sp: 87 5.3.3.1 General 87 5.3.3.2 Pipelines and Fittings 87 5.3.3.3 Tank Water Draw-Off 58 5.4 SERVICE STATIONS 58 5.4.1 Gasoline Receipt Storage 58 5.4.2 to Automobiles 58 6. ONTROL TECHNIQUES 63 6.1 DEPOT STORAGE TANKS 63 6.1.1 Storage Tank Painting 63 6.1.1.1 General 63 6.1.1.2 Benefits 63 6.1.1.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 64On Ca we Boe Bowe Bebe Bobi Storage Tank Pressure Setting General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Capital Costs nt nal Floating Co} General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Capital Costs Vapour Balancing General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Capital Costs Vapour Holder or Variable Vapour Spac Tank General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Capital Costs Storage Tank Insulation General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Capital Costs TRANSPORT LOADING Top Loading (Truc General Benefits Capital Costs ‘Top Loading General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Vapour Volume Growth Influence of Vapour Volume Growth Capital Costs Page 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 70 mn nm nm 72 72 73 73 74 74 14 14 14 75 15 75 16 76 16 16 17 7 7 17 1B 79 79 79cone Page 6.2.3 Bottom Loading (Truck and Rail Car) 80 6.2.3.1 General 80 6.2.3.2 Benefits 80 6.2.3.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 81 6.2.3.4 Capital Costs aL 6.2.4 Truck and Rail Car) 82 6.2.4.1 General 82 6.2.4.2 Benefits 82 6.2.4.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 83 6.2.4.4 Capital Costs 83 6.2.5 Vapour Recovery (Truck and Rail Car) 84 6.2.5.1 General a4 6.2.5.2 Benefits 84 6.2.5.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 86 6.2.5.4 Capital Costs 87 6.2.5.5 Running Costs 87 6.2.6 Vapour Recovery (Barge Loading) 87 6.2.6.1 General 87 6.2.6.2 Benefits 87 6.2.6.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 38 6.2.6.4 Capital Costs 88 6.2.6.5 Running Costs 89 6.2.7 Combustion 89 6.2.7.1 General 89 6.2.7.2 Benefits 89 6.2.7.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 90 6.2.7.4 Costs 90 6. SERVICE STATION STORAGE AND HANDLING 91 6.3.1 Vapour Balancing (Bulk Delivery) a1 6.3.1.1 General ot 6.3.1.2 Benefits 91 6.3.1.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations a1 6.3.1.4 Costs 92 6.3.2 ontrol During Automobile Refuelling 92 6.3.2.1 General 92 6.3.2.2 Benefits 93 6.3.2.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations 93 6.3.2.4 Costs o4conce' aan o Bab B wee Wa eS INFLUENCE OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES IN TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Vapour Balancing General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations Vapour Recov General Benefits Practical Considerations and Limitations ‘Typical Distributior Costs Summary Emission Reduction, Costs and Individual Transfer Points ‘Typical Distribution Systems SYMBOLS USED_ LIST OF REF) APPENDICE! APPENDIX 1 TO CHAPTER 3: DERIVATION OF DISPLACEMENT EMISSION EQUATION APPENDIX 2 TO CHAPTER 3: ANNUAL AVERAGE TRUE VAPOUR PRESSURE APPENDIX 3 TO CHAPTER 3: DERIVATION OF FILLING EMISSION EQUATION AND OF THE FACTOR Vg APPENDIX 4 TO CHAPTER 3: GASOLINE VAPOUR/LIQUID VOLUME EQUIVALENCE Page 94 94 94 95 95 96 96 96 96 97 97 99 99 100 a7 11g 424 123 35 41 43‘SUMMARY GENERAL This report examines the current European situation in respect of hydrocarbon vapour emissions from storage and distribution of Basoline. Chemicals, solvents and various volatile special products have not been considered. Crude oil production, shipping, storage and refining have also been excluded from this report. The quantity of vapour emission is shown to relate to the gasoline volatility and the method of storage and distribution. Vapour emissions from other products, e.g. kerosine, gas oil, fuel oils and bitumen are relatively low because of their low volatility. The distribution pattern of gasoline between refinery and customer would typically include storage at two different points (depot and service station) and five separate transfers. At each transfer point and storage tank there is potential for gasoline vapour emissions, the quantity of which will depend on the type of tank ‘the method of transfer and the true vapour pressure at ambient temperature (TVP) of the gasoline. The factors concerned are discussed in section 3. of this report. For European gasolines the annual average TVP is 350 mbar approximately which is the value on which the emissions quoted have been based. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS Losses can occur at several stages of distribution; the main losses are evaporation losses which can be classified as displacement and transport filling losses. Of these the majority are due to displacement which occurs when in-coming liquid displaces hydrocarbon rich vapour from the container. Filling losses occur due to the vapour evolved from the previous tank contents and the vapour evolved as a result of splashing and turbulence during filling. Other emissions will occur due to breathing and withdrawa: as defined in the main body of the report ‘The study has shown that on average the emissions from a typical European gasoline storage and distribution system are 0.6% volume of the gasoline distributed. These emissions are shown in tabular form in section 1.3 and diagrammatically in the bar chart (Fig. 11). SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DURING DISTRIBUTION The following table indicates an assessment of emissions from a typical current European product distribution system as described in section 4.5.concay Emissions % Liqui 1. Refinery Despatch Rail car loading 0.061, Displacement 0.140 Breathing/withdrawal (working tank) 0.020 Depot Despatch Truck loading 0.055 4, Service Station Receipt and ‘Storage Displacement, breathing and 0.170 withdrawal 0.175 0.621 For despatch of product direct from refinery loading point to the service station, points 1. and 2. above would be omitted reducing the total emissions to 0.40%. Many depot storage tanks are now fitted with internal floating covers. These devices reduce the depot receipt and storage emission from 0.16 to 0.03% (see section 6.1.3) giving a revised emission total of 0.49% liquid volume. A recent emission inventory for the UK (20) showed that the above total of 0.621% represented approximately 5% of the total hydrocarbon emissions from man-made sources. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING The method of operation of existing equipment has a significant influence on the quantities of emission. A full discussion of the pertinent points is given in section 5. CONTROL TECHNIQUES Hydrocarbon omissions from gasoline storage and distribution systems are a small percent of the total throughput. There may, however, be economic or environmental reasons why these emissions should be reduced.GC fa Of the methods available to control emissions some are proven, such as internal floating deck, but many others are still in the development state. As such there may be problems with hardware reliability, safety and fiscal factors. The report looks at the cost of these various techniques and discusses some of the practical and safety aspects of their implementation Hypothetical Distribution System In order to make an assessment of the influence of control techniques the following hypothetical distribution system has been assumed: Refinery Despatch Barge, pipeline or block train Terminal Receipt Barge, pipeline or block train Terminal Storage Capacity - 2 x 5,000 m3 fixed roof tanks, 20 m diameter x 16.8 m high. Throughput - 200,000 m9 p.a. Terminal Despatch Truck loading arms - 4 (road loading) Trucks - 33 Service Stations 400 service stations, each with 2 tanks and 4 dispenser pumps. Average throughput 500 m? p.a. Delivery to each tank by direct connection (no offset fill). It should be noted that there may be significant local variations and it is recommended that each distribution system should be individually assessed. Costs The costs shown below are taken from the body of. the report and are generally based on prices ruling in January 1977, It should be noted that they refer to capital costs only and no allowance has been made for either running costs or for the value of recovered product or vapour emission prevented.NGM Depot Storage Tank Emissions The most effective control technique for the prevention of displacement emissions from depot storage during refilling was found to be the use of an internal floating cover (section 6.1.3), which will prevent an emission of approximately 0.13% liquid volume throughput for a typical case at a cost of $ 60,000. This device will also reduce the small amount of breathing emission. An alternative technique (not possible for pipeline delivery) is to return the vapours displaced during transfer to the transport compartment from which delivery is made (vapour balancing). For the typical case, the vapour emission prevention during barge reloading is 0.01% liquid volume at a cost of $ 173,100 rail reloading is 0.03% liquid volume at a cost of $ 86,700 See section6.1.4 for a full discussion. Transport Loading For top submerged loading, the normal emission is estimated at 0.055% liquid volume. By transferring this vapour to the storage tank, it is possible to prevent the evolution of a similar quantity of vapour from the product within the tank. For the typical case the vapour evolution prevention by vapour balancing from top submerged loading is 0.015% liquid volume loaded at a cost of $ 44,300. See section 6.2.2 for a full discussion. Alternatively, the vapours may be transferred to a vapour recovery or vapour incineration plant (see section 6.2.5 and 6.2.7). To date, information on the practical application of both vapour recovery loading arms and on the vapour recovery plant is limited Experience in the USA indicates that the significant features which must be considered are the design of a satisfactory loading arm and the safe, efficient operation of the recovery plant The recovery of vapours emitted during top submerged loading (0.055% liquid volume) by means of a compression/absorption type recovery plant will prevent an emission of 0.039% liquid volume and by a refrigeration plant an emission of 0.05% liquid volume. For the typical case, a plant capable of processing 360 m3/n complete with vapour return loading arms and pipework would cost $ 261,000.Cone CaWwe The incineration of vapours emitted during top submerged loading will prevent the emission of 0.055% liquid volume and, for the typical case, a plant capable of dealing with 335 m3/h complete with loading arms and pipework would cost $ 169,000. The emission of vapours during refilling the service station storage tank can be controlled by returning the vapours to the truck from which delivery is made (vapour balancing). This vapour will be displaced to atmosphere when the truck is reloaded provided no emission control techniques are applied at this point However, as the truck compartment will contain a saturated vapour (returned from the service station tank), it will inhibit vapour evolution during loading. For the typical case, the vapour evolution prevention during reloading is 0.03% liquid volume transferred. The cost at a single service station would be $ 4,200 and for the complete distribution system comprising 400 service stations $ 1,970,000. See section 6.3.1 for a full discussion. Automobile Refuelling Vapour displaced from automobile fuel tanks during refilling can be controlled by returning them to the service station storage tank. Due to variations in the automobile filler connection size and location and to temperature variation, the efficiency of vapour balancing is limited to 70-80%. The emission from the automobile fuel tank of 0.175% liquid volume is, therefore, reduced by approximately 0.13%. This vapour, when returned to the underground tank, will prevent the evolution of a similar quantity of vapour from the gasoline in the tank. For the typical case, the vapour evolution prevention of 0.13% Liquid volume transferred by vapour balancing would cost $ 3,900 for a single service station or $ 1,560,000 for the complete distribution system comprising 400 service stations. ‘To improve the control efficiency at this point vacuum assisted recovery systems are currently being developed in the USA. With these systems, efficiencies of 90% are claimed, in which case a further recovery of 0.027% liquid volume emission is possible at a cost of $ 7,500 per service station or $ 3,000,000 for 400 service stations. There are no examples in Europe of this technique, which is recognized to present significant operational and safety problems. For a full discussion see section 6.3.2.To permit an assessment to be made of the influence of control techniques such as vapour balancing, vapour recovery, floating decks, etc., on a complete distribution system, many assumptions have been made as to the nature of that system. A distribution system would in practice be significantly more complex and contain many more variables than those considered in this report. Care is therefore urged in the application of the costs and emission reductions shown as they could vary significantly. Table 8 summarizes the cost and emission reduction of the various control techniques considered, for a complete distribution system CONCLUSION It is concluded that even with the best current technology the emission reductions achieved with high efficiency vapour recovery are small and the costs are high. The technology for vapour recovery/disposal/handling systems is still evolving. There are problems concerning design, performance, long term reliability and safety of a number of elements. Devices to prevent vapour emission such as floating roofs or internal floating covers offer a good control technique with reasonable cost. ‘The report examines various techniques, the technology of which may not be acceptable in some countries due to local safety regulations. Due consideration should, therefore, be given to the application of these techniques to specific distribution systems. The oil industry has taken steps to reduce emissions where these have been shown to be effective. Typical examples include the increased use of pipeline transfers, internal floating covers and floating roofs on storage tanks. Additionally, the importance of correct operation of existing equipment has been recognized, particularly in respect of the elimination of splash loading of transport compartments, the maintenance of pressure settings on fixed roof storage tanks and the avoidance of spillage and leakage These measures have been reinforced by suitable personnel training programmes.concawe wr] ose | ie oss | ose | ose | ee | ooo] ose | ose | coz | avo! iv | see | ose | woe] — isco | zero | tero | seo | zzeo | esvo | evo | evo | cao | veeo | aso | iz00 190 | v0 | ve00 | sero | sero | vo | 00 | sero | euro | woo | woo | woo | exo | suo toro | to} so | so} to] to!) too] wo) wo] too} wo} too] soo} oo sioo | soo | 100 | 100 | a0 | si00 | vio | a0 | 0 | ico | soo | sico | sioo | ao sivo | o100 | oro | ovo | ss00 | o100 | ovo} oro | ss00 | a100 | si | aco | sio0 | sso | Supe} yen uoredsep rodeq -P coo | 00% | cov | cov | coo | covo | e000 | eovo | coo | zoo | wo} zoo| zoo| zoo rewerpiai pur Bunseaag sexs rodeg -9 seo | zoo | szoo | seoo | azoo | szoo | seo | azoo | zoo vo} so} va] evo usuisaedp :adipoesyodag a == a 5 = | 1990 | 1900 | 100 | te00 aro | 1900 | i900 | 1900 | spiedsop suey -€ ve wz fi | a | a] w fe} a| ow ‘uN BuNDIS (esp) ve fomauy | 1020us pao | p-b | p—5 | po | ov pas | pmo | ov ene | m6 | one | reo husnoy Burousieq une, Supvereq node, SurouH}e@ node, Buroueieq anode, ‘902 bun) jevoneUrmL eau 9-102 + 4001 peg wonide weg 10H ‘auinjon pinby papeo] 9% — warss uonnquasig e wy suo OH Jo sojdwiexg — g 21424,concaws Fig, 11 — Distribution System Emissions Typical Example — Emissions: 0.621 % (1242 m? p.a.) 2 ovo £ -3 8 . aI i ‘rP07 stone c ey’ Quad lieconcawe 2.1 OBJECTIVE This report has been produced t - Provide a common oil industry assessment of hydrocarbon vapour emissions from product distribution - Establish the causes of hydrocarbon emissions - Identify the points at which emissions occur - Quantify these emissions - Examine the influence of operations techniques ~ Examine the influence of emission control equipment + at individual transfer points, and + on a complete distribution system - Investigate the cost and cost effectiveness of control equipment UNITS OF MEASUREMENT Product distribution normally employs quantity measurement in terms of liquid volume. The report has, therefore, provided all emission factors in terms of percent by liquid volume. If these factors are required in terms of percent by mass, the quantity shown should be multiplied by the relative density ratio of vapour phase liquid equivalent to liquid, e.g. 0.60 74 % mass = % volume x = % volume x 0.81 2.3 ASSUMED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM To permit a full assessment of omissions during distribution and allow potential emission reductions and control -equipment costs to be estimated, a theoretical distribution system comprising refinery despatch, depot storage and despatch, service station storage and dispensing into automobiles, has been assumed. It is recognized that distribution systems will not conform to a common pattern, particularly with regard to numbers of service stations per depot, the size of service stations and the size of depot. However, without these assumptions it was not possible to quantify the influence of various control techniques on the distribution system and the cost effectivenessConcé We suggest that for any specific distribution system including refinery storage and handling, the cost elements and emission reductions should be individually assessed. 2.4 REFERENCE SOURCES The report is based on a wide range of information obtained from oil industry and other sources, and is intended primarily to reflect the European hydrocarbon emission situation. The series of reports published by the American Petroleum Institute dealing with this subject were found to be particularly relevant; however, since their publication work has been done by other bodies on various aspects of distribution emissions, indicating a need to modify some of the correlations originally established. Comprehensive studies now underway to update the API publications should be completed by 1979. A full list of references is given at the end of the report. The emission factors, correlations and costs shown are based on information felt most relevant to the European situation; however, these would also be relevant to other areas of the world. 2.5 TYPICAL QUANTITIES OF EMISSION The emission quantities shown are based on a typical gasoline distribution system and an assumed gasoline true vapour pressure (TVP) of 350 mbar and show an annual average vapour emission of 0.62% by liquid volume of the quantity of gasoline distributed; i.e. for every thousand litres (cubic meter) distributed from the refinery to the automobile in the manner shown, 6.2 litres (6.2 x 1079 cubic meters) are discharged in the form of a vapour to the atmosphere, An emission inventory of hydrocarbons that could be important in photochemical oxidant formation shows that the emissions occurring during the storage and distribution of gasoline account for approximately 5% of the total emission of hydrocarbons in the UK (20). 2.6 GASOLINE VAPOUR COMPOSITION The method of manufacture influences gasoline composition in respect of hydrocarbon types present, i.e. paraffins, olefins, naphthenes and aromatics. The light ends of a gasoline, necessary to ensure the desired vapour pressure and volatility for ease of engine starting, are predominantly composed of C4's and C5's. 10This is reflected in the composition of the vapours generated from a gasoline which consists principally of light paraffinic or paraffinic/olefinic hydrocarbons (15). Because of their reletively low volatility, naphthenes and aromatic hydrocarbons are a very small proportion of a gasoline vapour. cosrs The capital costs given in this report have been gathered from various sources. In some cases they refer to actual costs based on experience, but many have been theoretically assessed and may well vary in practice. Every effort has been made to ensure that the costs given are reasonable, but in the case of those theoretically assessed, the reader is urged to exercise caution. In the case of both theoretical and actual capital costs, it should also be remembered that these relate only to the examples given. Practical application may well reveal significant variations from these examples. To ensure uniformity the costs have been quoted in US dollars. Where the origins of the costs were other than the USA, both currencies are given. Currency conversions are based on exchange rates ruling in January 1977. Unless otherwise stated, costs are based on those ruling in January 1977. 1concawe 3.1.1 PRINCIPLES, TYPES AND MAGNITUDE OF VAPOUR EMISSIONS PRINCIPLES Evaporation is the movement of molecules from a liquid to a vapour. If the liquid, e.g. motor gasoline, is a mixture of compounds having different boiling points, the tendency will be for the lower molecular weight compounds to evaporate preferentially, leaving the heavier compounds in the liquid state Evaporation occurs whenever liquid is introduced into a tank that has a vapour space. The vapour evolved, unless contained or suppressed by some means, gives rise to some loss of product Motor gasoline being volatile accounts for most of the emissions to the atmosphere from product storage and distribution systems. The quantity of vapour emissions is far smaller for the less volatile products (kerosine, gas oils, fuel oils and bitumen), even when these are heated to maintain their fluidity, ‘The main factors affecting evaporation and emissions are: Product Properties - Vapour pressure - Product temperature Vapour/Liquid Interface - Turbulence - Area Environmental Characteristics - Volume of vapour space - Temperature changes in vapour space - Operating pressure range for tank (pressure-vacuum relief valve settings, vapour tightness, etc. - Operating pattern and time cycles (whether withdrawals coincide with vapour space temperature rise, etc.) Vapour Pres: ‘The vapour pressure of a product is determined by a standard laboratory method - vapour pressure Reid method (RVP), 1P/69/ASTH D 323 - which measures its inherent tendency to evaporate. 13con IGA This method gives the pressure exerted by the product when contained in the apparatus at a temperature of 37.80C (100°F). Since some of the vapour evolved has to fill the apparatus, the RVP is about 10% less than the true vapour pressure which is an important derived value. Figure 1 is a nomogram from which the true vapour pressure at any temperature can be determined from the RVP. When a volatile product is introduced into an empty fixed roof tank up to a fixed level, air is displaced to the atmosphere both by the liquid and by the vapour which evaporates. Assuming constant temperature, a state of equilibrium is eventually reached in the vapour space, in which a mixture of gasoline vapour and air is present at a constant ratio. The concentration of gasoline vapour present is proportional to the true vapour pressure of the gasoline liquid at its storage temperature. It can be seen from Figure 1 that gasoline with an RVP of 680 mbar at 37.8°C (100°F) will exert a true vapour pressure of 354 mbar at a storage temperature of 15°C. The gasoline vapour displaces air, creating a partial pressure equal to the true vapour pressure The balance of the partial pressure, which makes up the total pressure in the vapour space (assuming atmospheric pressure of 1013 mbar), is due to the air remaining. The volume of gasoline vapour in the vapour space is given b; 354 Fors * 100 = 35% volume gasoline vapour In this condition the vapour is said to be saturated (100%) with gasoline at the conditions stated. If the vapour is less than saturated (say 40% saturated), the concentration of hydrocarbon vapour in the vapour space is given by: 40 AS x 35% = 14.0% volume io x 355 4.0% voll Degree of saturation is sometimes expressed as a factor, e.g. 40% saturated is expressed as 0.4. In the foregoing example the concentration of hydrocarbon vapour in the vapour space would be given by 0.4.x 35% = 14.0% volume Product Temperature The true vapour pressure of a product, and therefore the partial pressure exerted by it when mixed with air, falls with temperature 14cone awe For example, using Figure 1, it may be shown that gasoline with an RVP of 760 mbar has a hydrocarbon vapour concentration in the saturated condition of 39%, 33% and 28% by volume, corresponding to storage temperatures of 15°C, 10°C and 5°C, respectively Figure 1 can be used to obtain the partial pressure exerted by gasoline vapour at various temperatures, and from this the percentage volume of vapour present in a saturated condition in a vapour space at near atmospheric pressure can be calculated. Gasoline liquid storage temperatures should be kept low to avoid unnecessary emission of vapour in storage and during subsequent handling. Turbulence Turbulence in the liquid or in the vapour space above the liquid increases the rate of evaporation, and reduces the time necessary to reach 100% saturation in the vapour space. If gasoline liquid is introduced to fill partly an empty fixed roof tank, it is mainly the light molecules (butanes and pentanes) that evaporate The thin surface liquid layer becomes momentarily deficient in these molecules, slowing the rate of evaporation. However, as fresh gasoline from below moves into this region by diffusion, evaporation continues. This process is accelerated by mixing or by turbulence of the liquid. The gasoline vapour molecules are heavier than air and tend to accumulate as a layer just above the liquid surface, suppressing further evaporation. In time the molecules diffuse throughout the vapour space and evaporation continues. Evaporation is accelerated by other movements in the vapour space, such as thermal convection currents or a pressure vacuum valve air intake. In the case of excessive turbulence, the concentration of gasoline in a vapour space may be more than saturated, i.e. super-saturated due to the presence of fine droplets of liquid, which may be carried away from the bulk of liquid and lost, but this is not likely to be of significance in large bulk tank operations where bottom filling is used. However, it does occur in road, rail or drum filling operations, particularly if "splash" filling is used or if submerged filling arms are only partly inserted. Liquid/Vapour _Interfacs Area The rate of evaporation from liquid gasoline is proportional to the area of liquid/vapour interface. Devices such as floating roof tanks or floating screens effectively reduce the interface area in storage tanks and thereby reduce the rate of evaporation.2.3 ‘TYPES The main types of vapour emissions causing product loss and air pollution, and their source in a typical product storage and distribution chain, are illustrated in Figure 2. The relative magnitudes are shown in Figure 11. From this figure it can be seen that displacement and automobile refuelling emissions are the major sources and breathing and withdrawal emissions are relatively small. Emissions can be classified as follows Displacement Emissions Displacement emissions occur from fixed roof bulk storage tanks and from service station tanks due to vapour displacement by the incoming gasoline. The vapour emitted originates mainly from evaporation from the previous tank contents during storage. Breathing Emissions Breathing emissions are caused by variations in the tank contents temperature day/night and by changes in the barometric pressure, which in turn cause expansion and contraction of both liquid and vapour within the tank. Meteorological factors such as wind sunshine and rain will tend to enhance the temperature variations Withdrawal Emissions Withdrawal emissions from storage tanks occur following the pumping out of product, causing intake of air via the pressure/ vacuum relief valves or vents. Dilution of the hydrocarbon vapour/ air mixture previously contained will lead to further evaporation to restore the equilibrium. This causes an increase in the vapour/ air volume and hence pressure, which in turn leads to an emission when the pressure valve setting of the tank is exceeded. Filling Ei ssior Filling emissions occur when gasoline is transferred from storage tanks into transport vehicles, i.e. truck, rail car or barge, and when dispensed into the automobile. The emission is usually a combination of the vapour from the previous tank contents and the vapour evolved as a result of splashing and turbulence during filling. 16concawe 3.3.1.1 MAGNITUDE In the following paragraphs, emissions are quantified for each individual transfer and storage point in a distribution system. Bulk Storage Tanks (Fixed Roof) These tanks are subjected to displacement, withdrawal and breathing emissions. Two important factors affecting the quantity of emissions are: True Vapour Pressure The TVP of gasoline within the tank will be determined by the Reid Vapour Pressure (RVP) and temperature of the product. In the event of product temperatures not being available it is recommended that the bulk liquid temperature be taken as 2°C above the average monthly ambient temperature. Vapour Saturation Level Measurements have been taken of the rate of hydrocarbon concentration increase within the vapour space of a tank after pumping down. These show that the vapour space will reach an average saturation level of 90% within a period of approximately 65-72 hours and become near fully saturated within 100-140 hours. The rate of saturation is governed by diffusion and convection of the hydrocarbon vapours through the tank vapour phase. A graph showing the rate of saturation increase v. time for a typical tank is shown in Figure 3, Quantity of Displacement Emissions The following equations (see Appendix 3.1) may be used to calculate the emissions from the receipt of relatively large batches into a standard fixed roof tank: Eqr = 0.4 x 10-3 P a Eg: = Displacement emission as a percentage of the liquid volume transferred into the tank True vapour pressure of the gasoline liquid in the tank in mbar (see Figure 1) 47G Of Quantity of Breathing Emissions ‘The American Petroleum Institute (API Bulletin 2518 "Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks", June 1962) obtained data on breathing emissions from a large number of fixed roof tanks in gasoline service. From these data an equation (their reference 2) was developed whereby breathing emissions may be calculated for various tank dimensions, vapour pressure conditions, etc. The metric equivalent of this equation is: t 1.73 40.51 ,p0.5 Where Ey Breathing emissions (liquid equivalent) in n3/year tank including an allowance for the tank roof) AT Average atmospheric temperature change in °C Paint factor NOTE: Recent work (22) shows that this correlation, when applied to a crude oil storage tank tended to overstate the emission by approximately 35%. It is important to note that this correlation will apply only to standing storage tanks to which product is neither added nor withdrawn, In practice this is a situation which will only apply to special tanks such as those reserved for strategic storage. Tanks employed in normal depot operation will have frequent product movement, the influence of which is discussed in section 3.3.1.4, For convenience in application it may be preferable to apply the above equation in the form of a nomogram (Figure 4). It is applicable to tanks operating close to atmospheric pressure, with a pressure vacuum working range of about 6 mbar (+2.5 - 3.5 cm water). This was the typical working range (API 650 standard) of the tank used in the API study The equation was derived from observations on 64 tanks in the USA having a diameter of 6 metres or more, from which no liquid was withdrawn during the test period. A practical survey has also been carried out on evaporation emissions from 127 bulk gasoline storage tanks in the United Kingdon (refer Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, Vol. 41, No. 382, October 1955, p. 297-325: “Evaporation Losses from Petroleum Storage Tanks in the United Kingdom ~ A Practical survey") 183.3.1.3 cawe In the UK and in Europe it is normal practice to design and operate many fixed roof gasoline storage tanks at significantly wider pressure vacuum relief valve working ranges than is applicable for the API 650 standard. From data obtained during the survey it was established that breathing emissions became significantly less as the pressure vacuum relief valve working range is increased (refer IP article Table V). Taking an 18 m diameter by 9 m high tank as an example and assuming the breathing emissions apply for a 60% full (innage) condition, the following gives the annual thermal breathing emissions for standing storage tanks (% of tank capacity in liquid equivalent) that were calculated to apply under the UK conditions for various relief valve (P/V) working ranges: Case 1 Case 4 P/V range mbar Negligible 12 26 56 Emission % of tank 1.21 0.97 0.69 0.17 capacity For this particular case it shows that the standing storage breathing emission may be reduced by as much as 42% and 86% respectively, at P/V valve working range of 26 and 56 mbar as compared with the breathing emissions that are expected to apply for a negligible P/V valve working range. Quantity of Withdrawal Emissions Substantive experimental data on the magnitude of this type of omissions is scanty. The API in its Bulletin 2518, "Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks", Appendix 1, developed on theoretical grounds a working loss factor to be applied to its displacement emission equation to incorporate withdrawal losses following the pumping out of product. They are presented in graphical form in its Figure I-1 Taking motor gasoline of 350 mbar true vapour pressure as typical for the European case (see Appendix 2), this figure indicates that the working loss (displacement plus withdrawal) for a tank emptied in a series of relatively small increments (Case A) would be about 1,5 times that for displacement loss alone, For a full tank emptied rapidly (Case B) the working loss would be about 1.2x that for displacement loss alone Work carried out by the DGMK (15) indicates that, for typically operating depot tanks, the length of time between withdrawals was a much more important factor than the quantity of withdrawal. 193.3.1.4 concawe For the particular depot tank studied, these losses were negligible and the factor was very close to 1.0. Interrelation of Displacement, Breathing and Withdrawal Emissions The correlations to assess the quantity of the various emissions (displacement, breathing and withdrawal) such as given in the preceding sections, tend to separate these into independent events. Under typical operating conditions in product distribution some interrelationship must occur. There is no known correlation based on experimental data which is claimed to assess the total quantity of vapour omissions for all practical cases. Undoubtedly, the displacement emission equations can be applied with a considerable degree of confidence. The breathing emissions correlations may be applied with a reasonable degree of confidence provided the tank contents are stored in a static condition for extended periods. However, for most practical cases there is a relatively short period of standing after filling before withdrawals are made. In other cases fillings and withdrawals may occur simultaneously in one tank along with considerable variation in stock level. The times when filling and withdrawal occur may also have a significant influence on the level of emissions. For example, air is likely to be drawn into a gasoline tank when product is withdrawn for loading a number of trucks at the start of operations early in the morning. For some time this air, having a density lower than a saturated air/hydrocarbon mixture, will tend to stay in the top of the tank near the P/V valve nozzles. Near midday, when the ambient temperature rises to the daily maximum, the pressure in the vapour space may rise to the relief valve maximum setting, and an emission would occur. This emission would probably be below fully saturated. Therefore, in practice, the breathing emission for a tank operated in this manner may be well below that calculated from static storage breathing correlations. The same phenomenon could also result in a lower withdrawal emission, since a lower quantity of hydrocarbon liquid evaporation would have to occur subsequently to restore the vapour space to near fully saturated. Caution should therefore be exercised when considering the application of breathing and withdrawal emission correlations to working tanks. For the example described above one would expect these emissions tobe lower in practice than derived by calculation. Bulk Storage 1 nal Floating Covers) Internal floating covers are designed to be installed within fixed roof tanks with a minimum of disturbance or structural alteration 20S They have a good vapour retention efficiency by creating a barrier between the liquid product and the tank vapour space, which reduces greatly the rate of evaporation, Some covers are constructed in the form of a steel pan by welding sections together inside the tank. Others are assembled without welding from prefabricated sections, which are introduced through tank side manholes. These are necessarily of lightweight construction. A flexible seal is attached to the periphery to reduce evaporation through the annular space between the cover and ‘the tank shell. Vapour emissions occur through spaces and imperfections in the peripheral seals, and in the cover itself (prefabricated section type), and from the liquid film of gasoline adhering to the tank wall following pumping down, The diameter of the tank has a direct influence on the cover effectiveness as, with an increase in tank diameter, the relative seal area will decrease and the efficiency will, therefore, tend to increase There is limited data on actual performance standards. In the case of working tanks the evidence is that total vapour emissions are reduced by more than 90% by installing a steel pan. Reductions of 80% or more are possible with the lightweight type of internal cover (prefabricated sections). The evidence is that a high efficiency is attainable with this type provided it is of a good modern design, it is properly installed, and it operates under favourable conditions. It is also reasonable to assume that emissions from tanks fitted with a good design of internal floating cover will be similar to those from a conventional type of tank (open top) fitted with a pontoon type of floating roof. Bulk Storage Tank (Floating Roof) A high vapour retention efficiency is obtained with this type of tank due to the virtual elimination of the liquid/air interface. The annular area (assume a nominal width of 125 mm) around the roof in a 20 m diameter floating roof tank is approximately 23% of the total tank cross section area, The flexible seal also effectively reduces the annular area by hindering evaporation and diffusion of vapour molecules. Storage emissions will occur due to the evaporative action of wind, etc., near the seal. There will also be loss by evaporation from a film of gasoline liquid adhering to the tank walls following pumping out of the product. 21concaw 3.3.3.1 Standing Storage Vapour Emissions API Bulletin 2517 "Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof Tanks" gives an equation for calculating standing storage vapour emissions from gasoline stored in floating roof tanks with a diameter of up to 45 m. The metric equivalent of this equation applicable to a welded tank with a pontoon roof is: 1.s(_?r OF ot equivalent in m3/year 45 m diameter, apply the factor 6.7 D instead of pt-5) Pe ‘True vapour pressure of the product in mbar Vw Average wind speed in m/s Ks = Seal factor Ke = Factor for type of product (= 1.00 for gasoline) Kp = Paint factor For convenience in application it may be preferable to apply this equation in the form of a nomogram (Figure 5) to derive a loss factor (Lg) to apply in a simplified equation. Bg = Lex F where Es Standing storage emissions m9/year (liquid equivalent) Le Loss factor from nomogram (Figure 5) F Multiplying factor as below: - Modern seal good condition: Tank paint light grey or aluminium 1.0 Tank paint white 0.9 - Old seal inferior conditior Tank paint light grey or aluminium 1.33 Tank paint white 1.20 This correlation only applies to normal operating conditions when ‘the roof is fully floating. If the product is withdrawn to a low level so that the roof comes to rest on the support legs and a vapour space is created below the roof, additional emissions (displacement, withdrawal and breathing) occur as discussed in previous sections. 22concawe E A recent investigation (end 1976) by the Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA), in California, indicates that actual emissions are only some 60% of the figure predicted by the above APT formula (21). 3.3.3.2 Wet Wall Emissions These are very small under most conditions and may be estimated from the following equation derived from the equation in API Bulletin 251) BR = °3 «) where Ey Wet wall emissions m3 per 1000 m of throughput (liquid equivalent) Dy Tank diameter in metres The equation is based on a clingage of gasoline of 0.034 3 per 1000 m? of shell surface. Laboratory tests have shown this to be a reasonable assumption for a light rust covering. For dense, thick rust, the withdrawal losses may be up to five times as much. Even in the latter case for a 20 m diameter tank, this amounts to only 0.0034% of throughput. 4 ‘Transport Filling Emissions » Rail and Barge) These occur when a volatile product such as motor gasoline is loaded into a bulk transport compartment. The emitted vapour is normally a mixture of: a) This is residual vapour originating from the previous contents which is displaced by the product loaded (V1). It is defined as a factor of full saturation (C3). b) n_Vapour (Ve) This is vapour which evaporates from the batch of product being loaded. ‘The filling emission (Fg) is the total quantity of vapour emitted due to displacement and evaporation. 23concawe 3.3. 4a. Factors Affecting Filling Emissions The principle factors are: a) True vapour pressure of the product loaded. This is discussed in section 3.1.1. b) The type of operation conducted with the previous tank contents, which influences the magnitude of PLV. c) The degree of splashing and turbulence which occurs during loading, which influences the magnitude of Ve. Note that factors b) and c) have an interaction. A high preloading vapour content of a compartment will tend to suppress the quantity of vapour evolved during loading. Preloading Vapour The preloading vapour concentration in gasoline transport compartments may vary widely from near zero to completely saturated. Typical concentrations, expressed as a fraction or as ‘a percentage of saturation, based on a number of observations in Western Europe and from other sources are: a) Previous contents non volatile product such as kerosine less than 0.01 (less than 1%) b) Truck compartment after complete discharge at one point: 0.1 ~ 0.2 (10-20%) ©) Truck compartment after discharge at more than one point: 0.3 ~ 0.5 (30-50%) 4) Truck compartment after discharge at service station tank with vapour return: 0.9 ~ 1.0 (90-100%) ©) Rail car after complete discharge at one point: about 0.15 (15%) f) Barge compartment after pump-out at one location. Data Limited. Vapour concentrations after pump-out will depend on draining characteristics, etc, The residual vapour concentration on return to the loading point also depends on whether the compartments are vented, etc. The PLV saturation will probably be in the range of 0 ~ 0.3 (0-30%). 24concawe 3.3.4.3 Evolution Vapour The quantity of vapour emitted as Ve will be influenced by the design and mode of operation of the filling device, and the preloading vapour. Ve will be minimum for bottom filling provided the inlet has a suitable deflector plate, etc., to ensure there is no splashing of liquid as the container fills. Ve will be a maximum for splash filling. Between these extremes there may be a number of intermediate values of Ve. For example, if a top loading submerged filling arm is placed with the outlet at the bottom of a compartment, Ve would be near to that for bottom filling. In practice, due to design or working deficiencies, it is sometimes found that the filling arm is not placed at the bottom of a compartment, and partial splash loading ensues until the outlet is covered. In such cases evolution vapours may be significantly higher than for bottom or fully submerged top fill. There is a useful parameter Vg representing the amount of splashing which may be used to estimate evolution vapours. Vp is equal to the fraction of the original tank atmosphere which is assumed to be completely saturated during loading. Some typical values derived during trials conducted in Germany by the British Petroleum Company (6) are: VB vB RANGE “AVERAGE Truck Top Loading (90 - 130 m3/hy a) Arm outlet height 0 - 0.2m from 0.08 - 0.22 0.15 bottom of compartment b) Ditto with slow start valve 0.13 c) Arm outlet height 0.38 - 1.4 0 0.26 - 0.54 0.40 from bottom of compartment 0.09 - 0.16 0.13 a) Arm outlet near bottom of 0.18 compartment, with slow start valve b) Arm outlet height 1m from 0.51 bottom of compartment Barge Bottom Loading (450 m3/n) 0.06 253.3.4.4 3.3.4.5 Calculation of Filling Emissions (Truck and Rail) ‘The following equation (see Appendix 3.3) may be used to calculate the filling emissions likely to occur when loading bulk transport compartments: Eg = 0.45 x Cg (¢ 2-€p 5 2 = 0.48 x Cs ( Cp + Vp zee (5) where Ef = Filling emission (liquid equivalent) expressed as a percentage of the volume of liquid loaded Cs = Concentration of gasoline vapours under equilibrium conditions (fully saturated) This is proportional to the true vapour pressure of liquid product in mbar (refer Fig. 1). Cp = Average preloading vapour concentration expressed as a fraction of saturated Vp = The parameter representing the amount of splashing The factor 0.45, derived in Appendix 4, may be used to calculate the volume of gasoline as liquid equivalent contained in a given volume of gasoline vapour. Calculation of Filling Emissions (Barge) ‘The above correlation was found to be 90% accurate for the three barges measured, which included measurements of vapours emitted from 19 compartments and various other measurements of a further 10 compartments. However, it is not known if these barges were typical of all barges used. The main factors influencing emissions apart from TVP and the initial loading rate, are the preloading vapour content and the time taken to fill the compartments. The loading rate used was 450 m3/h. Measurements carried out in the USA and recorded in API Bulletin 2514 (A), indicate emissions of 0.144 and 0.456 kg/m? for cleaned and uncleaned compartments, respectively (0.023% vol. and 0.072% vol.). These emissions were measured from 12 barge compartments loading gasoline, with TVP's of between 370 mbar and 750 mbar. Although not stated by API, it is believed that the loading rates used were between 700 and 1200 m3/h. The TVP range is above the European average of 350 mbar, and the loading rate is also higher than normally used in Europe. The influence of vapour pressure and loading rate on the total barge emission is unknown, 26co ncav 3.3.4.6 3.3.4.7 Breathing Emissions (Truck and Rail) Due to the relatively short transit times of road and rail tanks and to the pressure relief settings normally employed (up to 170 mbar road and up to 1500 mbar rail), it is not considered that breathing emissions will be significant. Measurements carried out by one authority indicate a typical breathing loss less than 0.001% liquid volume for road cars and also for rail cars. Breathing Emissions (Barge) The API in its Bulletin 2514 (1959) suggest a transit loss (breathing) of 0.0145% per 100 mbar TVP for a seven day voyage, i.e. for a 350 mbar TVP gasoline, a loss of 0.007% vol. /day. Calculations based on API correlations applied to European conditions indicate a breathing loss of 0.0025% vol./day for a similar TVP gasoline. Service Station Storage Tank Emissions The principal emissions from service station storage tanks will be by displacement from the vent pipes. This occurs when an incoming bulk delivery of gasoline is transferred into the storage tanks. Even though these tanks are freely vented and are not fitted with P/V valves, breathing emissions are very small. This is due to the fact that the tanks are always buried well below ground level, and they will, therefore, not be subject to the above-ground, daily ambient temperature variations. Observations carried out at one location in Europe covering about one year of operation showed that the annual rate of emission (liquid equivalent) was 0.135 mass %, equal to about 0.17% volume basis. Note that if one were to apply the bulk fixed roof tank displacement emission equation, assuming the emission is fully saturated vapour (Appendix 3.1, Eq = 0.45 x 10-3 P;) and assuming a mean TYP of 350 mbar applies, a displacement emission of 0.16% volume would be obtained, which is in close agreement with the experimental data. The small difference of 0.01% volume may be attributable to a small amount of breathing and withdrawal ‘The experimental work (15) also showed a seasonal variation of 0,.145/0.125 mass % (0.18/0.16% vol. approx.), which occurred summer/winter, respectively. This is probably due to the fact that the temperature of the gasoline being discharged tends to be higher in the summer and lower in the winter than that of the contents of the below-ground service station tanks, which also has a small effect on the quantity of emissions. 27ea concawe Automobile Refuelling Emissions Automobile fuel tanks are subject to filling emissions during refuelling. Experimental work carried out at a location in Europe (15) showed that the refuelling emissions amounted to 0.14 mass % of the dispensed fuel, equal to 0.17% on a liquid volume basis There also appears to be a summer/winter variation in emission levels of 0,155/0,125 mass % (0.194/0.156% liquid volume basis) respectively. Work has also been carried out in the United States to quantity these emissions for their conditions. This shows that the factors influencing the quantity of refuelling emissions includ - The temperature of the fuel in the automobile tank - The temperature of the dispensed fuel - The quantity of the dispensed fuel - The volume of the fuel initially in the automobile tank - The filling rate - The RVP of the fuel From some of the United States’ data (12) an equation was developed to calculate the quantities of filling emissions for various conditions. This equation expressed in metric units and simplified is: exp, (-3-17240.0217 4-0. 221 Ty+64x10~ StyxPy+1 -14x10-8P,) Filling emission % liquid volume Temperature of dispensed fuel in°C Temperature of displaced vapour in°C Product vapour pressure in mbar Another reference source (13) included this correlation with some other experimental data derived from the United States. For temperatures (vehicle tank minus dispensed fuel) in the range of approximately 17°C to -5°C the mass emissions were in the region of 1,0 to 1.5 kg hydrocarbon per m of the fuel dispensed. This would be equivalent to an emission of from 0.13 to 0.20 mass % and 0,16 to 0.25% liquid volume basis. These data indicate that emissions under United States’ conditions are about 30% higher than in Europe. However, the United States' and European studies appear to confirm the order of magnitude of this type of emission. 28Figure 1. Nomogram for Determination of True Vapour Pressure 100-4 1504 200-4 3004 4004 500-4 600-4 7004 ‘800-} ‘900-] True Vapour Pressure, mbar abs. from Rei Vapour Pressure Reid Vapor Pressure, m bar = Slope of the ASTM distillation curve ‘at 10 % evaporated = deg. C at 15% minus deg. C at 5% 9 In the absence of distillation data, the following average values of $ may be used motor gasoline 1.5 aviation gasoline 1 Temperature, deg. C 45 bao 35 30 E10 15 29nEeawe Fig. 2 Vapour Emissions During Storage and Distribution at Breathinghwithdrawal emissions Standing storage tank Bulk storage tanks 1 > Displacement emissions Operational tank 1 Strainer Meter Vapour and “OY Ste Road vehicle emissions Displacement and breathing emissions (_ Service station storage tank 30Figure 3. Rate of Saturation in Storage Tank Vapour Space Percent Saturation v 100, 90| 80} 70h- 50} 40}- 30} 20} Top of vapour space 33m down in vapour space ‘4. 4.5m down in vapour space 60 80 700 120~«140 Hours after withdrawal 160 31Figure 4. Nomogram for Determination of Breathing Emissions of Gasoline from Fixed Roof Tanks (API Bulletin 2518) H 6 8 1012 15 20 25:30 40 8060 & + y ee “—*o4 Seo Feane OSE BS EE EGE GE resting Emissions Lym? year Now: The applicable to tanks which operate at atmosphere 32Figure 5. Standing Storage Emissions for Floating Roof Tanks (API Bulletin 2517) ed To) 15) a For Tanks larger than 45 m diameter, multiply LOSS FACTOR obtained for 445 m diameter tank by factor: tank diameter, m 45 rT T ——y Tr 700 600 500400 300 200 100 0 «620 4eo 10d ‘True Vapour Pressure Loss Factor (LEI m? year rm bar abs. {multiply LOSS FACTOR by a MULTIPLYING FACTOR F to-obtain loss adjusted for seal condition) 33con Ca) we Appendix 1 to Chapter 3 DERIVATION OF DISPLACEMENT EMISSION Assume a fixed roof tank, about to receive a new intake of gasoline, containing air saturated with gasoline vapour in the vapour space. Let Vz = Volume of new gasoline intake (m3) P,; = True vapour pressure of gasoline (mbar) P) = Actual tank pressure in mbar (assume near atmospheric = 1013 mbar) Eq = Displacement emission (volume liquid equivalent) expressed in mé f Vapour to liquid conversion factor for gasoline vapours (equals 0.0045 m per m3 gasoline) When the gasoline is pumped into the tank, it will displace an equal volume of air saturated with vapour. Also, 1 m? of gasoline vapour contains 0.0045 m® of gasoline as liquid equivalent (Appendix 4). Va x Therefore, Eq = NOTE 1 It will be seen that this equation is essentially the technical equivalent of the basic displacement emission equation: SP x V 16000 L given as Formula I-1 in Appendix 1 of API Bulletin 2518, "Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks", where L = Displacement emission (volume liquid equivalent in barrels) Volume of the liquid pumpt into tanks (barrels) True vapour pressure at bulk liquid temperature (psia) v P The displacement emission is often expressed as a percentage of gasoline volume intake (Eg) Eq Eg = 100-4 = 0.45 x 10-3 P a i 0.45 x 10-3 Py In practice, actual displacement emissions are generally less since fixed roof tanks will have pressure vacuum (P/V) relief valves which will retain a small percentage of vapours otherwise displaced. 35concawe ‘Appendix 1-2 to Chapter 3 Also, the emissions from the P/V valves, particularly at the start of displacement, will be unsaturated. It is, therefore, suggested that a factor of 0.9 is introduced for practical application to give the following equation: Eq: 0.4 x 10-3 x Py qa NOTE 2 These equations will apply when the tank turnover rate is not shorter than 3-4 days. In such cases there will be insufficient time for the vapour space to become near to fully saturated before displacement. Equation 1 will then give a result on the high side, and a factor of less than 0.9 should be applied in such cases. Some guidance in this respect may be obtained from the graph shown in Figure 3. 36concawe Appendix 2 to Chapter 3 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRUE VAPOUR PRESSURE REID VAPOUR PRESSURE Common practice in Europe is to blend gasolines to a predetermined limit which is varied depending upon the season. The attached Figure 6 shows a typical situation for RVP variation throughout the year, with the summer period (March/September) having a maximum of 700 mbar and the winter period (September/March) having a maximum of 840 mbar (6). AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE, The refinery storage temperature is shown in Figure 7, which indicates the seasonal variation of gasoline storage temperature over a three-year period for two German refineries. Typical storage temperatures may vary between 0 and 20°C (6). ‘TRUE VAPOUR PRESSURE ‘The variations in TVP resulting from seasonal changes in RVP and temperature are shown in Figure 8 for a German refinery. These indicate a variation between a minimum TVP of 160 mbar in the winter and a peak of 560 mbar for the point of changeover from summer grade to winter grade RVP. The average TVP, however, varied between 230 mbar and 450 mbar throughout the year. The annual average TVP was found to be 340 mbar for motor gasoline produced by this refinery. OCTEL SURVEY OF EUROPEAN GASOLINE Based on the surveys regularly carried out by Octel (11) on the RVP of gasolines at service stations and on average ambient temperatures at those locations, it is estimated that the annual average true vapour pressure of European gasolines is 350 mbar. PRACTICAL APPLICATION For actual emission calculations it will be advisable to apply actual RVP and temperature data as these may vary depending on the location and gasoline characteristics. 37concawe Appendix 2-2 to Chapter 3 Figure 6. Seasonal Variations in RVP Motor Gasolines 1969 - 1971, Dec Nov Oct Aug Jub un May} Apr Mar Feb Jan 1 L 1 ‘800 700) 600 500 RVP m bar 38concawe Appendix 2-3 to Chapter 3 Fig. 7 Refinery Storage Tank Temperature — Motor Gasolines 1969-1971 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Temperature °C 39concawe Appendix 2-4 to Chapter 3 Figure 8. Seasonal Variations in TVP Motor Gasolines 1969 - 1971 Dec 4 Apr 1 \ 600 500 400) 300 200 TVP mbar 40concawe Appendix 3 to Chapter 3 DERIVATION OF FILLING It has been observed that splashing usually takes place in the lower part of a transport compartment and that only a limited region of the tank atmosphere is affected. However, the splashing is intense and probably fully saturates this space. The resultant vapour has a high density and tends to remain as a stable layer on the tank bottom. A theoretical model has been derived on the assumption that the volume of the layer of saturated vapour is a fraction Va of the total tank volume V. The volume fraction of this part of the tank before saturation was Vg. The difference between Va and Vp is the volume of vapour evolved during the loading. The splashing is considered to saturate the fraction Vg of the original tank atmosphere, but not to affect the remainder of the tank, i.e, a fraction (1 - Vg) of the original tank atmosphere, which remains at the original concentration Cy. An air balance on the tank volume affected by the splashing gives: VB (1 - Cy) = VA (1 - C5) cs Hydrocarbon concentration under fully saturated conditions cy Hydrocarbon concentration in tank The volume of hydrocarbon vapour emitted from a tank (Ve) which is completely filled is: ve =v fas ee vxey vey [a-meem (22) &] Ss - Cy v fem GZS] The emission is related to the liquid volume loadéd to exclude as a fractional saturation (Cy/Cs). The equation for Ve can now be written as: ve exes [oem (22)] The experimental measurements of the emission Ve can now be used to calculate Vg by rearrangement of this equation. Ve 1 - Cy ‘eB = \vyx oc, ~ T> Cp, . a () a1we Appendix 3-2 to Chapter 3 The individual test results for Vg were used to find average values for a series of tests on a particular loading system. These averages represent the amount of splashing, and may be used to typify the vapour evolution associated with the loading system. The emission can now be predicted for any combination of the other parameters Cg and Cp by using equation (A). Modifying equation (B) so that the emission (Eg) is expressed as a percentage of the liquid volume loaded, i.e. Ve Br = fx yp x 100% in which f = vapour to liquid conversion factor (0.0045) Thus, Eg «) For a full discussion see reference 6. NOTE The vapour concentration (Cs) at full saturation will be equal to the gasoline true vapour pressure in bars. Thus, this may be substituted directly into the above correlation. 42concawe ‘Appendix 4 to Chapter 3 GASOLINE VAPOUR/LIQUID VOLUME EQUIVALENCE From the Gas Laws it can be derived that 1 kg of hydrocarbon vapour at atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 15°C occupie: 288 1 22.4 x Bx where 1 the mean molecular weight of the hydrocarbon vapours. Also, 1 kg of the same vapour in liquid form occupies 1/d m, where d the liquid density of the hydrocarbon vapours in kg/m, Therefore, the vapour/liquid volume ration (V/L) is given by: +) ‘The main compounds found in motor gasoline vapour under typical European ambient temperature storage and handling conditions are butanes/butenes (molecular weight 58/56) and pentanes/pentenes (molecular weight 72/70). Based on some typical vapour analyses a typical mean molecular weight of 64 for the hydrocarbon vapour may be used as an approximation for emission calculation. The corresponding density in liquid form at_15°C and 1013 mbar pressure will be approximately 600 kg/n? Substituting these values in equation (a) will give a resultant V/L ratio of 220 approximately, i.e. every cubic metre of gasoline components which evaporate may be assumed to occupy 220 m3 approximately in vapour form at 15°C and 1013 mbar. Alternatively, the reciprocal of 220 = 0.0045 (or 0.45%) is a factor which may be used to calculate the volume liquid equivalent contained in a given volume of gasoline vapour. If it is suspected that properties and conditions might deviate significantly from the above, then for accurate assessment the corresponding V/L ratio should be derived from experimental and other data. 43concawe ‘STEM EMISSIONS GENERAL. Any distribution system will normally involve the same gasoline in up to five separate transfers and two separate storage tanks between the refinery and the automobile, each of which is a potential source of emission. If the delivery to service stations is effected from refinery storage, the number of transfers is reduced to three and the storage tanks to one, A typical distribution system is shown in Figure 2. Emissions will emanate from one or more of the activities listed for the various locations as follows Refinery Despatch Pipeline, barge loading, rail car loading, truck loading. Storage tank displacement, storage tank working. rminal Despatch Road truck loading. Service Stations Receipt and Storage Storage tank displacement, storage tank working. Automobile Refuelli The following sections discuss the emissions from these locations, The quantity of emissions is established using the equations referred to in section 3. and a gasoline true vapour pressure of 350 mbar. 45,Conca we 4.2 TRANSPORT LOADING EMISSIONS 4.2.1 Barge Loading It is assumed that the barges are of modern design with inlet pipework designed for effective bottom loading (Vp = 0.06). Vp is a factor used to represent the amount of splashing in a compartment during loading and may be used to estimate evolution vapours. It is equal to the fraction of the original tank atmosphere, which is assumed to be completely saturated during loading (see Appendix 3 of section 3.). Preloading vapour concentrations are taken respectively as 0 and 0.3. The first will apply to a barge which has been vented or gas freed before loading and the latter represents the maximum concentration remaining from the previous cargo, with the compartment undisturbed after the previous delivery. Gasoline TVP taken as 350 mbar. Applying the equation (5) for filling emissions (see section 3.3.4.4 for the case considered) we derive the filling emission (Ef) as a percentage (liquid equivalent) of the volume of gasoline loaded: 1 = cp Fg = 0.45xCs |op + ve (7 ©) Activity y Ep Barge ° 0.06 0.014 loading Barge 03 | 006 | oos7 loading 4.2.2 Rail Car Loading Rail car loading systems will range between fully automated multiple loading arms, single automated loading arms or single hand operated loading arms. Automated loading ars, either multiple or single, are arranged so that loading can not start until the arm touches the bottom of the compartment and loading proceeds at a slow rate until the arm outlet is completely covered by the rising liquid level (Vg = 0.18). Hand operated loading arms tend to be more difficult to operate due to their size, and normally will not have a slow start rate. 46concawe Complete insertion of the arm is not always achieved, which promotes splashing in the early stages of loading (Vg = 0.51). Measurements taken of rail cars atmosphere before loading indicates saturation levels of 15% (Cp = 0.15). Applying the equation (5) for filling emissions for the above cases we derive the emission (Eg) as a percentage (liquid equivalent) of the volume of gasoline loaded: : 1-p f= 0.45 x Cs |Cp+ va (> oy Activity Cy | Ve E,% Top submerged | 9.15 | 0.18 0.061 loading Top splash 0.15 | ost 0.130 loading It is assumed that the previous cargo of gasoline has been completely discharged at one point (Cp = 0.15 average). During examination of a typical distribution system in Europe it was found that loading took place either with the arm near the compartment bottom (Vp = 0.15) or with the arm between 0.38 and 1.4 m from the compartment bottom (Vp = 0.4). This latter case mainly applied where the truck size had outgrown the loading facility. In some cases bottom loading was employed, which gave Vp = 0.13. Alternatively, a slow opening valve was fitted to the loading arm outlet, which also gave (Vg = 0.13). Applying the equation (5) for filling emissions for the above cases we derived the emissions (Eg) as a percentage (liquid equivalent) of the gasoline loaded: 5 7 1 =p # = 0.45 xCs [Cp +vp (72 «) arcoOncé A244 4.2.4.2 4.2.4.3 Activity c | Ye Top submerged | 9.15 | 0.15 0.055 loading Topparial |o15 | ao | 0108 splash loading 040 T Bottom toading | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.050 [Top submerses | | | toacing (sow [0.15 | 0.13 | 0.050 start vale) Truck Breathing Owing to the relatively high pressure vacuum valve settings normally used on truck cargo compartments and to the short journey times, breathing emissions will be negligible. Rail Car Breathing Rail cars may be subjected to significantly longer journey times than trucks, but owing to the higher pressure vacuum valve settings (up to 2.5 bar pressure) there will be no breathing emissions. Barge Breathing The few tests reported show no breathing emissions. However, applying the API fixed roof tank breathing emission correlation it has-been calculated that for a typical barge journey time of 50 h a breathing emission of 0.005% liquid volume transported was possible. STORAGE TANK EMISSTONS Displacement _fr Fixed Roof Storage Emissions from storage tanks will depend upon the TVP of gasoline already stored in the tank and the saturation level of the vapour. 48Ci 4.3.2.1 4.3.2.2 oOncawe As stated in section 3.3.1, most of the tank atmosphere will be saturated within 3-5 days of product removal, and the quantity of vapour displaced will depend on the tank operating cycle. ‘Taking a typical case assuming an average saturation factor of 0.9, we have derived the following displacement emission as a percentage of the gasoline loaded (Appendix 1): Eq = 0.4 x 1073 p, @ = 0.4 x 10-3 x 350 = 0.14% of liquid volume transferred. Storage Tank Breathing/Withdrawal Non-Working Tanks Breathing emissions from tanks in which there is no product movement may be calculated from the API correlation presented in section 3.3.1.2, provided the pressure vacuum valve working range is 6 mbar, For European storage conditions the pressure vacuum range would normally be 26 mbar, but may also be up to 56 mbar. The influence of these increased pressures is to reduce the quantity of breathing emission predicted by the API correlation by approximately 40% and 85%, respectively. The actual quantity of emission will vary depending on the factors stated in section 3.2.1.2 and must be calculated separately for each set of circumstances. Working Tanks Due to the interaction of breathing and withdrawal emissions during normal tank operations, as discussed in section 3.3.1.4, the actual quantity of emission, which will be a combination of both types, is significantly affected. For example, product withdrawals, particularly in the early afternoon when a static tank could be expected to commence out-breathing, will prevent this by reducing the internal pressure. Information on the quantitative influence of these factors is very limited, but based upon the data to which we have access, we estimate that for a typical depot: Combined breathing/withdrawal emission 0.02% liquid volume transferred 49Service Station Storage Tank Emissions No correlations are available for assessing the quantity of emission normally expected from an underground service station tank. However, as pointed out in section 3.3.5, the vapour/air mixture displaced when refilling the tank will be fully saturated. Due to the interaction of breathing and withdrawal emissions during normal operations as discussed in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, the actual emission resulting from either breathing or withdrawal will be influenced, but correlations to assess the quantity are not available. Work carried out by the DGMK (15) shows that for a typical service station: Combined displacement, breathing and withdrawal emission 0.17% liquid volume transferred. AUTOMOBILE REFUELLING Emissions from automobile fuel tanks during refilling depend on the gasoline Reid Vapour Pressure, the dispensed fuel temperature and the temperature within the fuel tank. Taking as an example a dispensed fuel having an RVP of 700 mbar and a temperature of 15°C and assuming a fuel tank temperature of 15°C, the following correlation applies (see section 3.3.6 Bq = exp.(-3-172+0.021 Ty-0.0221 Ty+ 64x10~ TyPprt.14x 10-9P,) * ; 6) This gives an emission of 0.18% liquid volume. Actual measurements carried out at one location in Europe over a 12-month period gave an average emission of 0.175% liquid volume. EMISSIONS FROM A TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM From the foregoing we have selected a distribution system which includes typical situations covering the range of storage and handling equipment applicable to a hypothetical European operation. Normal distribution patterns would obviously be complex involving, for example, two or three different transport modes for refinery despatch which will influence loading emissions. 50Also, the terminal may have storage tanks with differing pressure settings which will influence the breathing emissions, while internal floating decks may also be present. In addition to these factors, the true vapour pressure (which will vary with RVP and temperature) will affect the quantity of emissions at any transfer or storage point. ‘The following table attempts to summarize the total emissions for a typical distribution system assuming a gasoline true vapour pressure of 350 mbar. The distribution system envisaged is as follows: Assumed 100% by rail car, automated top fill. Terminal Storage Cone roof storage tank, +20/-6 mbar pressure range, no internal floating deck. Operated continuously (no seasonal storage). Assumed 100% by trucks. Top submerged loading. Service Station Storage Underground tanks. Submerged fill pipe. SL‘SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS. FOR TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 360mbar gasoline % liquid volume Rail car loading 0.061 Terminal Receipt & Storage Displacement 0.140 Breathing/withdrawal (working tank) 0.020 Terminal Despatch Vehicle loading 0.058 Service Station Receipt & Storage Displacement and breathing/withdrawal 0.170 ‘Automobile Refuelling Displacement 0.178 TOTAL 0621 NOTE 1 Many terminal storage tanks are now being fitted with internal floating covers. These devices reduce the terminal receipt and storage emission from 0.16 to 0.03% (see section 6.1.3), giving a revised emission total of 0.49% liquid volume, NOTE 2 For despatch direct from the refinery loading point to the service station the first two points will be omitted. In this case the total distribution emission is reduced to 0.40% liquid volume. 52concawe 5.1 GENERAL Good housekeeping may influence the quantity of vapour emissions at all stages of product loading, service station storage and automobile refuelling, and possibly avoid the installation of costly control equipment. An awareness by all personnel, both at the depot and at the service station, of the significance of various simple control techniques may have a marked influence on product loss. It is not the intention to dwell on the various stock control and measurement techniques as these are primarily an accounting function and already well documented by the companies involved in product distribution. Nor is this section intended to make recommendations regarding the type of equipment to be used. Its comments are aimed at achieving the best possible utilization of existing equipment so that evaporative emissions to the atmosphere can be kept to a minimum 5.2 DEPOT STORAGE 8.2.1 Fixed Roof Pressure Settings The maintenance of vapour tight tanks is important, and care should be taken to ensure that the pressure vacuum valves are maintained in good condition and that they operate at the correct pressure setting. Similarly, hatches, manholes and gauges covers, etc., must be vapour tight. Referring to section 3.3.1.2 "Principles of Vapour Emissions" the significance of maintaining tank pressure can be seen from the relative breating losses given. 5.2.1.2 Surface Condition A full discussion on the influence of tank paint colour is given in section 6.1.1.3. However, it is important to recognize that the condition of the paint can affect the quantity of heat absorption 53ONCawe 9.2.1.3 5.2.1.4 5.2.2 5.2.2.1 This is more significant for the highly reflective paint (e.g. white) where the difference of paint condition between good and poor leads to the tank breathing loss being increased by a factor of 0.15. ‘Tank Gauging and Sampling With manual gauging and sampling which necessitate opening a tank to the atmosphere each time these activities are carried out, there will be a vapour loss. The quantity of loss will depend on the pressure in the vapour space at that time. However, if this is carried out at the time of day when the tank temperature and, therefore, pressure is at a minimum, the vapour loss would be minimized. Ideally, this loss should be minimized by the use of automatic gauging and temperature measuring equipment, sealed dip pipes and double closure gauging locks. Air Entrainment Although the importance of complete discharge of the transportation tank is recognized, this activity must be carefully controlled. Failure to carry out complete discharge results in high saturation levels in the transport tanks and this atmosphere will be expelled during reloading. Air carried into a tank following stripping of rail car or barge compartments will result in an excess volume of vapour being displaced from the tank which is proportional to the air blown in Also, the mixing of air and gasoline in the pipework and tank will promote rapid saturation of the air with gasoline vapour, Internal Floating Deck Peripheral Seal The condition of the peripheral seal has been shown to have a significant influence on the vapour emissions, Measurements taken in the vapour space over a deck with a poor seal in a tank having pressure vacuum valves fitted showed that the atmosphere became fully saturated within 10 days. Similar measurements on a deck with a tightly fitting seal showed practically no increase in the vapour concentration, See Figure 10 "Relative Efficiencies of Floating Decks". 545.2.3 Floating Roofs As with the internal type of floating deck, it is important to retain a good seal between the floating roof and the tank wall. If the roof is of the pan type where solar heat is transmitted directly to the liquid surface through the metal roof, boiling losses may be significant. The maintenance of a good paint surface of the reflective type is an important factor in controlling this loss. 5.2.4 Variable Vapour Space Tanks 5.2.4.1 Lifter Roof Type It is important to maintain this type of system vapour tight. If the roof is of the wet seal lifter type, the sealing liquid must be checked regularly. If of the dry seal type the flexible membrane must be checked for leakage. 5.2.4.2 Diaphragm Type Care must be taken that the flexible diaphragm is not resting on any condensed liquid in the tank bottom as this will promote rapid failure of the diaphragm. Condensate in this tank and in any interconnecting pipework should be drained regularly 5.3 TRANSPORT MEDIA 5.3.1 Barge: As with static storage tanks, the maintenance of the vapour tight tank is important, and care should be taken to ensure that the pressure vacuum valves are maintained in good condition and that they operate at the correct pressure setting. Similarly, hatches manholes and gauge covers, etc., must be vapour tight. Filling a cargo tank would normally be by means of fixed pipework to eliminate splash loading. It is important to ensure that the cargo tanks are completely emptied after discharge. Measurements taken during barge loading showed that the largest single contribution to vapour emissions was due to the preloading vapour, which evolved from the wetted tank walls and from any liquid remaining after discharge.concawe « 3.2.1 5.3.2.2 Trucks and Rail Cars General. As before, the maintenance of vapour tight tanks is important and care should be taken that all manholes, gauge covers, pressure vacuum valves, etc., are maintained in good condition. Loading Measurements have shown that the method of loading has a significant influence on the quantity of vapour emission. Loading may be classified into three groups: where the loading arm is positioned with the outlet above the tank bottom so that the gasoline falls to the liquid surface. This leads to a high vapour evolution. ed Top Loading where the loading arm is positioned with the outlet at the tank bottom so that it is rapidly covered by the rising liquid level. In this case the evolution of vapour during loading is limited. Bottom Loading where gasoline is loaded into the compartment by fixed connections through its underside. This gives the minimum quantity of vapour evolution during loading. The influence of the loading method on the quantity of vapour evolved may be seen from Figure 9, which shows typical hydrocarbon concentration of the vapour/air mixture vented from a vehicle compartment when loaded by the throe methods described earlier. This clearly shows that either bottom or top submerged loading should be employed. 365.3.2.3 5.3.3.1 Discharging Measurements of the atmosphere within truck compartments and rail cars prior to reloading indicates that the vapour concentration after complete discharge of a compartment ($1) will be approximately 0.1 - 0.2 fractional saturation. If the compartment is only partly unloaded at one location or if it has a large ullage space, the vapour concentration of the compartment to be reloaded would be significantly higher. A typical figure (S1) would be approximately 0.3 - 0.5 fractional saturation. Leaks and Spills General Any activity involving the transfer of gasoline from one form of container to another is a potential point of spillage. Also, leakage from storage and handling equipment such as pump glands, loading arms, swivels and storage tanks, in addition to flanges and valves, can contribute to vapour emissions Drips and leaks are important; they may form an appreciable part of the plant's stock loss depending on their magnitude and number. Following is an indication of their loss magnitude: 2 drops per second 14 1/day Drops breaking into 87 1/day a steady stream No-one would tolerate a single leak or a steady stream, but a drip is often overlooked. Pipelines and Fittings Valves leaking product to their exterior are easily detected; less easily discovered are those valves which are not tight and which permit product to flow through them when supposedly closed. One cause of leaks which may not be easily evident is due to the temperature rise in closed lines exposed to the sun because this may cause increase in volume (and pressure) of the product contained. Expansion relief should be provided to control flow of increased volume back to storage instead of leaking. 37concaw 5.3.3.3 Tank Water Draw-Oft Care should be exercised when removing water from storage tanks by means of fixed draw-off pipes. This is particularly important where tanks have bottoms coned to the centre as in this case the draw-off pipe will be full of gasoline as the last of the water is removed. Subsequent water withdrawals must first displace this gasoline. Also, the manner in which the water draw-off is carried out may influence product loss. Rapid valve opening and high flow rates may create a vortex which will pull product into the water as it is withdrawn. Any gasoline drawn off will result in an emission to the atmosphere. SERVICE STATIONS Gasoline Receipt Storage As underground storage tanks normally have fixed fill pipes which discharge at the bottom of the tank, the quantity of vapour emissions during loading will be that caused by displacement. However, care must be taken to ensure correct connections of the fill coupling. Any air drawn into the tank at this point will increase the vapour loss by a proportionate amount. Care should be taken that the tank vents operate correctly. A blocked vent will not only overpressurize the tank, with the consequent risk of leakage, but will cause a spillage of gasoline when the hose is disconnected. Gasoline Dispensing to Automobiles Vapour emissions resulting from spillage when refuelling automobiles have been measured in several areas of the USA. Four categories of loss were identified, which, in sequence of probable occurrence were: - Prefil drip from the nozzle while being handled from the pump to the vehicle - Spit-back of gasoline from the fuel tank filler pipe resulting from pressure build-up in the vapour space - Overflow from the filler pipe - Post fill drip from the nozzle while being handled fron the vehicle to the pump 58concawe It was found that the combined spill loss from all sources, averaged over all refuelling operations, amounted to 0.08 kg/m? of dispensed gasoline. In terms of liquid volume this equates to over 0.01% of liquid volume dispensed. Most of these losses can be avoided by correct maintenance and handling of the dispensing equipment. 59concat Figure 9, Comparative Vapour Emissions 2h « af aoe ee, 20] 25| Top Submerged eding 20] 18 Bottom Looding 10 700 % Tank Volume 60concawe Figure 10. Relative Efficiencies of Floating Decks Pressure/Vacuum Valve Setting 26 m bar No Floating Cover % Saturation 100 Floating Cover 20 60. Floating Cover 10d Seal6.1.1 6.1.1.1 6.1.1.2 CONTROL TECHNIQUES DEPOT STORAGE TANKS Storage Tank Painting General Measurements of the effect of paint colour on temperature variation within tanks have been carried out, indicating solar heat absorbtion into, and, therefore, breathing emissions from, storage tanks can be influenced by the degree of reflectivity of the surface coating. This is allowed for in the equation for breathing emissions given in section 3.3.1.2 by the inclusion of a paint factor. This factor directly quantifies the influence on the breathing emission of the tank colour when other factors such as atmospheric ambient temperature change, throughput, tank pressure setting, vapour space volume, etc., remain constant. Referring to the table below, it can be seen that in addition to the colour, age and condition of the coating have an influence on the reflectivity, and hence the breathing emission. Benefits The quantity of breathing emission will be influenced directly by the colour and condition of the surface coating. However, the displacement or withdrawal emissions will not be effected. The variation in breathing emission will be directly proportional to the paint factor in the following table (Reference API Bulletin 2518). 636.1.1.3 AWE Table 1. Paint Factors Tank Colour Paint Factor (Kp) Shel! Paint i Paint in poor good condition condition White White 1.00 1.15 Aluminium 1 | White 1.04 118 White Aluminium 1 1.16 1.24 Aluminium 1 | Aluminium 1 1.20 1.29 White Aluminium 2 1.30 1.38 Aluminium 2 | Aluminium 2 1.39 1.46 White Grey 1.30 1.38 Light grey Light grey 1.33 - Medium grey | Medium grey 1.46 = Aluminium 1 refers to specular aluminium paint Aluminium 2 refers to diffuse aluminium paint Taking as a base case a white painted tank having an annual breathing emission of 0.69% of tank capacity (see section 3.3.1.2), the following table shows the comparable emissions predicted for the same tank with different colour coatings. Table 2. Breathing Emission related to Paint Colour Paint Colour Breathing Emission % of | tank capacity per year White 0.69 ‘Aluminium 0.83 } Light grey 0.92 Medium grey 1.01 | Practical Considerations and Limitations As can be seen from the table, white paint ensures the mininum breathing emission for any given set of circumstances and is, therefore, the obvious choice. However, its colour may well be unacceptable from the aesthetic point of view. Also, the maintenance of such a colour in an industrial environment may prove impractical In the case of aluminium paint, which is the next most reflective coating, the age of the coating, and, therefore, the degree of lustre, has a significant influence on the breathing emission. 64concaw We 6.1.2.2 If the coating can be renewed with sufficient frequency to maintain a bright lustre, aluminium paint would be second only to white paint in reducing breathing emissions. However, if this is impractical, it may be preferable to use a light grey coating. Storage Tank Pressure Setting General As can be seen from section 3.2.1.3, the quantity of breathing emission is influenced by the pressure capacity of the tank. If the pressure capacity is high enough (i.e. approximately 56 mbar pressure), it should be possible to contain approximately 86% of the breathing emission for a typical European tank. Under favourable climatic and operating conditions breathing emissions may be completely prevented at this pressure. In normal operations, displacement emissions could also be reduced due to the volume of vapour which will be compressed prior to the pressure relief valve opening. The influence of this factor is difficult to quantify and will be related directly to the developed pressure within the tank at the time pumping in commences. For a tank operating at 56 mbar pressure we would expect a reduction of displacement emission of approximately 6% when compared to a low pressure tank. Benefits The main benefit of high pressure settings is the reduction of elimination of breathing emissions. The quantity of breathing emission will vary depending on factors such as the average daily temperature variation, average ullage, product TVP, ete. Assuming a situation as described in section 3.3.1.2, the following table gives the influence of pressure setting on breathing emissions from a static tank when compared to a tank having a negligible pressure vacuum range. Table 3. Breathing Emissions related to Tank Pressure Setting Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 P/V Range mbar negligible 12 | 2 56 Emission %of tank capacity 121 097 0.69 0.17 per year 656.1.2.3 6.1.2.4 6.1.3.1 The above values are based on measurements carried out in the UK using a mean daily temperature variation over a year of 6.7°C. Practical Considerations and Limitations It is most unlikely that the pressure capacity of any tank can be inereased at an acceptable cost because a tank pressure vacuum valve would normally be set at the maximum pressure possible within the design criteria of the tank; the option of differing pressure settings is only open to us when considering new tanks. For pressures above 20 mbar tanks with a flat base will require a concrete anchor foundation ring to which the shell must be fixed, This will be necessary to resist the forces due to internal pressure when the liquid level is low. Capital Costs Taking the cost of supply and erection of a 26 mbar pressure vacuum range tank, including foundations, etc., as a base case, we estimate that the same size tank capable of 56 mbar pressure vacuum range would be more expensive by an increment of 1.15. A similar tank capable of a 175 mbar pressure vacuum range would be 1.3 times the cost of the basic tank. Internal Floating Covers General Internal floating covers are intended to prevent contact between product and air, thereby avoiding the evaporation of vapour from the product into the tank's atmosphere. In doing so they prevent or reduce displacement, withdrawal and breathing emissions. There are numerous designs and types of internal floating covers currently in use, most of which can be classified as: - Steel pan type of welded construction, usually without buoyancy chambers - Single skin aluminium sheet, joined together to cover the whole liquid surface and supported on tubular flotation members 666.1.3.2 - Aluminium/foam or glass re-enforced plastic/foam sandwich type sections, each self-buoyant, assembled to give complete cover over the liquid surface. With the exception of the steel pan type, internal floating covers are generally of light construction to permit ease of erection within an existing storage tank. The gap between the cover and tank wall is closed by a flexible seal. Benefits ‘The benefits of using these devices will be due to the reduction of emissions caused by the prevention of contact between the product and air within the tank. The amount of vapour emission will be related to the wicking effect past the seal and any area of liquid surface exposed (or more accurately - not properly covered) . Tests have been carried out on two tanks where the hydrocarbon vapour concentration of the vapour space was measured over a period of 21 days, controlled by pressure vacuum valves. One of the tanks has a cover of the prefabricated type, assembled within the tank and fitted with a good seal. Measurements showed that the hydrocarbon concentration did not exceed 15~20% of full saturation over a period of 21 days. In the other tank, also having a prefabricated cover assembled within the tank, but with a poor fitting seal, the hydrocarbon content reached 90% of full saturation within 10 days of pumping down. The test results referred to are shown graphically in Figure 10. It can be seen from this graph that after a 10-day period the efficiency of the cover in preventing displacement emissions would be 80% for the good seal and 10% for the poor seal. The equivalent working emission prevention efficiency, averaged over the same period, would be 85% and 50%, respectively. The results given in the table below also show the influence these efficiencies have on total emission. 67CoOncawe 6.1.3.3 Table 4, Effectiveness of Internal Floating Covers Tank Control | Approx. Efficieney Emission % Total Relative Device (10-day period) ‘volume throughput Emission | Efficiency % volume throughput Breathing/ [Displacement | Breathing/ [Displacement Withdrawal Withdrawal PIV valve setting 26 mbar - = 0.02 0.14 0.16 | base case Floating cover, Poor seal 50% 10% 0.01 0.126 0.136 15% Floating cover, good seal 85% 80% 0.003 | 0.028 0.031 80% N Assumes tank operating continuously. Will not apply for static storage. We recognize, of course, that these hydrocarbon vapour measurements apply only if a pressure vacuum valve is retained on the tank in which a floating cover is fitted. Furthermore, in the interest of safety it may be preferable to ensure full ventilation of the vapour space, In some countries this practice is compulsory. However, we consider that this table is a good indication of the performance to be expected from internal covers of the type which are assembled within a tank from aluminium or plastic sections. Practical Considerations and Limitations A survey of existing experience with internal covers indicates many practical aspects requiring consideration before new installations may be considered. Such aspects are the following: Product Surge onto Cover Surface Experience indicates that there is always a possibility of product surge onto the deck past the seal. This will have no long term influence on the cover with inherent buoyancy, but will lead to sinking of pan type covers. 68concawe Initial Fill Rates Cases have been reported of covers being inverted by an initial in-rush of product from say, a ship discharge, when the cover is in a low position. This problem mainly applies when face to face pumping of different products is practised and there is no opportunity for a slow start. However, it may be overcome by the use of a diffuser fitted to the inlet pipe. Air Slugs Cover damage has been reported due to air slugs being delivered by the discharge pump into the receiving tank. This has also caused displacement of product onto the deck surface Overfill Cover break-ups have been reported due to tanks being overfilled causing the cover to be crushed against the roof structure. The use of a high liquid level alarmshould, however, provide adequate protection. ce Aluminium covers which rely on individual buoyancy chambers to support the aluminium sheet, have been subject to corrosion of the floats. However, this problem appears to affect one type of float only (no longer in production) which was made from two dished plates welded together. Corrosion of this type recorded in Australia was found to be due to salt water in the product, and in Denmark was found to be due to microbiological corrosion. A further problem with aluminium covers, reported from areas of high humidity, was that of severe pitting of the cover surface. The cause was determined to be flakes of rust falling onto the deck from the tank roof. Lineality of Tank Walls Most cover manufacturers provide a normal gap of 80 mm between cover periphery and wall with a free seal width of 110 mm for tanks up to 30 m diameter and a gap of 110 mm with a seal width of 160 mm for 30 m diameter. Tanks with variation in lineality in excess of these limits call for special seal widths, which may be impractical. 696.1.3.4 Jet Mixing Care must be exercised when jet mixing due to the scouring effect of the product flow across the underside of the deck. In extreme cases deck failures have been reported due to this cause. The loss of tank capacity depends on the depth of deck flotation members and the height above deck level of the seal assembly Additional capacity may be lost if the tank roof has a support structure protruding downwards. It is necessary to support the deck at approximately 1 m above the tank floor to permit access To avoid creating a vapour space below the deck the liquid level should not be allowed to fall below this level in normal operation. This also reduces the operating range of the tank Tank Downtime The tank must be out of commission during the time taken to clean, gas free, and install the internal floating cover, Typical periods would be 14 days for an aluminium cover and 28 days for a steel cover, but this will, of course, vary with the tank diameter. Tank Ventilation Consideration should be given to the fact that in the absence of ventilation (ie. where the P/V valve has been retained) a flammable atmosphere may be present due to vapour accumulation within the tank vapour space. One national authority has expressed reluctance to accept aluminium as a material for a cover due to the possibility of an incentive spark being promoted by an impact between rusty steel and the aluminium. However, there is no record of such an incident and the probability of it happening is considered very low. Capital Costs Typical costs of internal floating decks are given in the following table. These are based on the average of quotations submitted in summer 1976 from nine different manufacturers for tanks ranging from 13 to 25 metres diameter 706.1.4 6.1.4.1 6.1.4.2 The tanks were located in three different storage plants and had a total cross sectional area of 3237 m2. Table 6. Capital Cost Material Including Preparatory Work Total Total Installation | and Tank DM/m? Sim? DM/m? Modification DM/m? ‘Aluminium 165 35 200 83 Stee! 215 35 250 104 Vapour Balancing General The control of vapours normally displaced from a fixed volume tank during the filling of that tank may be effected by vapour balancing provided the delivery is made by road, rail or barge. Obviously, pipeline delivery renders this technique impossible. To date there are no known applications of this technique in Europe when delivering to a depot storage tank, mainly duc to the expanding use of internal floating covers and absence of equipment at the refinery to deal with this vapour. The following comments are based on a theoretical assessment. Vapour displaced from the tank may be directed to the transport compartment from which the discharge is being made. This should in turn give a fully saturated atmosphere in the transport compartment which, without vapour balancing, would be approximately 20% of full saturation on return for reloading. due to the evaporation of vapour from the wet walls and any liquids remaining after the delivery Vapour balancing may prevent or significantly reduce displacement emissions from a fixed volume storage tank, but will not control breathing emissions. Also, as the transport compartment atmosphere will be fully saturated, it will reduce the evolution of vapour from fresh gasoline during the reloading of that compartment Benefits Vapour balancing can prevent the displacement emission that would normally occur from a fixed volume tank during filling. nmconcawe 6.1.4.3 6.1.4.4 The quantity of emission prevented by vapour balancing will depend on the saturation level within the receiving tank at the time of loading. This would normally be fully saturated if the tank operating cycle exceeds 3-5 days. The effect of returning this vapour to the transport compartment will be that the evolution of vapour will be reduced during reloading due to the compartment's atmosphere being fully saturated. Theoretically, the evolution during bottom or top submerged loading will be negligible, and is estimated to show a saving of 0.037% for reloading rail cars and 0.01% liquid volume for reloading barges. Practical Considerations and Limitations The pressure capacity of a storage tank must be sufficient to overcome the pressure drop within the vapour return pipework between the tank and the transport compartment. Flame arrestors should be provided close to the transport compartment connection If sufficient pressure is not availble, it may be necessary to provide a gas pressure booster. All pipes should be provided with a slope to control condensed vapours. Storage tanks must be provided at low points to collect condensed liquids. In all cases a completely closed system is essential. Therefore, sight glasses will be necessary to control the stripping of rail cars and barges, and automatic high level shut-off or alarms will be necessary to prevent overfilling the receiving tanks. A booster system may present a safety hazard due to the possibility of handling flammable vapour/air mixtures displaced from the storage tank. Such a system may need to be instrumented to detect flammable mixtures and may call for the injection of LPG to increase the hydrocarbon content to a safe level. The use of a flame arrestor will increase the pressure drop through the vapour return pipework and may be prone to blockage. The relative location of the transport discharge point and the receiving storage tank may well render this technique difficult or impossible due to the distance and obstacles involved. Capital Costs The pressure available may prove inadequate to displace vapours through return pipework. Actual pressure drop will, of course depend on distance, diameter and configuration, and depending on circumstances a pressure booster may be necessary. In the absence of any detailed information we suggest that the cost of the product supply pipe would be duplicated for vapour return. 12€ ONCE 6.1.5.1 In addition, it may be necessary to provide gas analyses and LPG injection. For the typical case (see section 6.4.3.1) the costs of vapour return pipework plus rail cars or barge modification are estimated as follows: Vapour return - rail delivery - $ 86,700 Vapour return - barge delivery - $ 173,100 Vapour Holder or Variable Vapour Space Tank General The control of vapour vented from storage tanks due to breathing can be achieved by the use of vapour holders. This technique is best suited to tanks which have a limited throughput such as a seasonal or strategic storage, where most emissions would be the result of breathing with little or no displacement emissions. There are few if any examples of breather tanks in Europe, but we know of several applications in the USA, Canada and Australia. B Normally this is a fixed roof tank with a centrally mounted flexible membrane attached to the peripheral wall. Vapour expelled from the product tank is directed to the underside of the membrane which is free to rise within the confines of the tank. Vapour flows in the reverse direction to compensate for the product tank's in-breathing cycle. A single breather tank can be arranged to control the breathing emissions of several tanks manifolded together. Alternatively, a breathing tank can be mounted on top of an existing fixed roof tank to control the emissions from that tank only, provided the structure is sufficiently strong. Lifter Roof Tank This is a tank with a roof capable of raising and failing to accommodate variations in volume due to tomperature changes. The seal between the roof and wall can be effected by means of a flexible skirt or by a liquid seal. 73concawe 6.1.5.2 6.1.5.3 6.1.5.4 6.1.6.1 Benefits Provided sufficient vapour capacity is allowed the breathing emission is completely eliminated by these devices. It is possible that a proportion of the displacement loss is also prevented, particularly where the tank is refilled with the vapour holder at a low position. However, this benefit is difficult to quantify and the main saving is the elimination of breathing emissions. Practical Considerations and Limitations Where a separate vapour holder is employed, it will be necessary to ensure that the flow resistance in the pipework connecting vapour holder to storage tank, together with the pressure head due to the weight of the flexible diaphragm, is within the pressure capacity of the storage tank. In the case of vapour holder mounted on an existing tank there is the obvious limitation of the structural strength and the disruption to operations during installation. Capital Costs Vapour holder costs incorporating a flexible membrane will, of course, depend on size Typical installed costs (June 1977) would be: - 2803 - £21,000 ($ 36,120) - 500m? - £26,000 ($ 44,720) = 1000 m8 - £35,000 ($ 60,200) - 2000 m? - ¢ 44,000 ($ 75,680) Storage Tank Insulation General Studies have been carried out on the influence of insulation of the tank walls and roof in preventing breathing emissions. It is suggested that 100 mm of glass fibre fabric with an aluminium sheet cladding would be capable of preventing the temperature variations within a tank, thereby reducing breathing when a standard pressure vacuum setting of 26 mbar is maintained. 14concawe 6.1.6.2 6.1.6.3 6.1.6.4 The economics of such an emission control method must be compared to alternative techniques, e.g. internal floating blankets, etc., and it must be remembered that while insulating a tank may completely prevent breathing emissions it will have no influence on the displacement or withdrawal emission. Benefits The relative importance of the breathing emission relates directly to the operating mode of the tank, e.g. a tank having a rapid turnover would show a little benefit due to the relative insignificance of the breathing emission when compared to the displacement emission. Alternatively, in a tank having a very slow turnover such as one used for seasonal storage or strategic reserve, the breathing emission could well be the greater. The benefit will, therefore, depend on the method of tank operation and the tank pressure setting. In the case of a tank with little or no product throughput the quantity of emission prevention can be calculated from the correlation given in section 3.3.1.2, In the case of a normally operating tank the emission prevention will be approximately 0.02% of the liquid volume transferred. Practical Considerations and Limitations There are several practical areas requiring attention when considering insulation as a control device. These include the following: - Relocation of steps and platforns - Alteration of connections - Relocation of pipelines - Relocation of fire mains - Repainting before applying insulation - ‘Corrosion underneath insulation Capital Costs According to studies made by other working groups, the incremental cost of insulating a storage tank would be approximately 25% of the cost of installing a new tank designed to 26 mbar pressure vacuum range. 75CO ACaAwe 6.2 ‘TRANSPORT LOADING 6.2.1 Top Loading (7: 6.2.1.1 General Emission measurements have been carried out on transport compartments during top loading. Observations indicate that the recommended good practice of completely inserting the loading arms so that the outlet is close to, or touches, the compartment bottom, is normally complied with, However, there are instances (for example, where the vehicle size has outgrown the reach of the loading arm) when the loading arm is not inserted completely, and part of the compartment is splash loaded. This problem can be overcome by the provision of a correctly sized arm with a contact at the outlet which prevents gasoline discharge unless the compartment bottom is touched. Alternatively, a slow opening valve can be fitted to the outlet which would only permit loading at a slow rate until the discharge point is submerged by the rising liquid level. 6.2.1.2 Benefits Control of the discharge rate during the initial stages of top loading until the outlet point is below the rising liquid level will reduce vapour evolution by an amount commensurate with the reduction in splashing and turbulence, Taking the extreme case of the compartment being splash loaded, the evolution of vapour (Vg = 0.5) plus preloading vapour has been measured at up to 0.15% of liquid volume loaded. The actual emission will, of course, depend on other factors such as TVP and loading rate. If the loading arm complete with slow opening valve were properly inserted with the outlet point submerged by the rising liquid level as soon as possible (Vp = 0.13), the total emission would be 0.05% of liquid volume loaded, according to measurements taken. Loading Method Ve Emission % ] liquid vol. loaded Splash loading 05 0.15 | | Top submerged 0.13 0.05 loading 16CONnCcawe 6.2.1.3 6.2.2.1 6.2.2.2 Capital Costs ‘The installation of a slow opening valve including a bottom contact to a 4-inch loading arm, complete with the gantry equipment modification and control valve, would cost approximately 6,500 DM ($ 2700) per loading arm. The cost of the arm alone is 4,500 DM ($ 1875)(1977). Top Loading - Vapour Balancing (Truck and Rail Car) General The control of vapours normally displaced from a transport compartment during reloading can be achieved by vapour balancing There are currently very few applications of this technique in Europe, but there are many applications of vapour balancing with splash loading between a transport compartment and vapour recovery plant in the USA. Top loading arms are available designed to collect vapours displaced during loading. The method employed is to seal completely the compartment hatch so that all vapour and air displaced will be directed through vapour return pipework back to the storage tank from which the product was taken, the motive power being provided by the rising liquid level. This provides the dual benefit of preventing an emission of hydrocarbon vapour from the vehicle compartment in addition to preventing the evolution of vapour to saturate the air which would otherwise be drawn into the storage tank. Benefits Vapour balancing will prevent the emission of vapour from the transport compartment during reloading. It will also prevent air being drawn into the storage tanks, into which vapour would evolve. The actual quantity of vapour evolved into the vapour/air mixture balanced from the vehicle compartment would depend on its saturation level. If, for example, a fully saturated vapour were displaced from the transport compartment, the evolution of vapour from gasoline in the storage tank would be zero. 176.2.2.3 Case a In practice, if vapour balancing had not been carried out at the service station, and if the compartment were loaded by means of a loading arm complete with drop tube (top submerged loading), the average saturation level of the displaced vapour/air mixture would be approximately 35%, and the emission prevention would, therefore, be 0.055% of the liquid volume loaded. As the vapour is returned to the storage tank, it will prevent the evolution of vapour from the product in this tank, representing an additional product saving of up to 0.055% liquid volume if the air which would otherwise have been drawn into the tank, were to become fully saturated. Case b Alternatively, if the vapour balancing had been carried out at the service station or if the compartment were loaded by means of a loading arm without a drop tube (splash loading), the displaced vapour/air mixture would be fully saturated. In this case the emission prevented would be 0.16% of liquid volume loaded representing a product saving in the storage tank of the same amount for the reasons given in (a) above. Practical Considerations and Limitations The pressure capacity of the vehicle compartment must be sufficient to overcome the pressure drop within the vapour return pipework between the loading arm and storage tank. A completely enclosed system is obviously essential, the annulus between loading arm and transport compartment hatch being closed by a suitable seal; therefore, a high level shut-off device is necessary to prevent any risk of overfill. In the event that the high level shut-off device fails to operate, provision is normally made for the seal between the vehicle hatch and filling arm to be broken to prevent the risk of over-pressurizing the compartment or vapour return pipework. With the manhole sealed by the vapour recovery loading arm, there is an escalation in the risk of the compartment being ruptured in the event of an explosion during loading, also a flame arrestor will be necessary to prevent flame transmission in the vapour pipework. With the removal of the loading arm, the pressure developed within the compartment would cause a small emission. Also, if vapour balancing had been practised when delivering to the service station, the opening of the compartment hatch would cause an emission proportional to the developed pressure, When converting existing vehicle loading gantries, consideration must be given to the extra space required for the vapour recovery loading arms, which may be difficult to accommodate together with the other product arms, 738concawe Due to the risk of aspirating air into the system at the vehicle manhole, it is not considered feasible to employ a booster to transport the vapours from the compartment to the storage tank. This technique is, therefore, limited to locations where the storage and loading rack are close together 6.2.2.4 Vapour Volume Growth For every volume of gasoline loaded there will be an equal volume of the compartment atmosphere displaced plus an additional quantity of vapour as a result of evolution from the liquid loaded. The additional volume will relate to the maximum saturation level possible, the average saturation level for loading and the vapour/air mixture leaving the compartment In the case of (a) above, the saturation level increased from 15 to 35%. If full saturation equates to 35% vapour in air the vapour volume growth would be 8%. In the case of (b), the atmosphere within the compartment was fully saturated before loading started, vapour growth would be zero. Alternatively, if the saturation level increased from 15 to 100% due to splash loading, the vapour volume growth would be 45%. 6.2.2.5 Influence of Vapour Volume Growth The effect of any vapour volume growth during loading will depend on the pressure within the storage tanks. In the case of (a! above, if the tank vapour space pressure were at the maximum the tank is designed for, any increase in the volume of vapour returned would be vented from the tank P/V valve and would represent a loss of 8% of the total vapour/air mixture, i.e. a loss of 0.08 x 0.055% = 0.004% of liquid volume 6.2.2.6 Capital Costs For the typical example selected the costs of providing a 4~inch top loading vapour recovery arm including vapour return pipework are estimated as follows: 79ncawe 6.2.3.1 6.2.3.2 | Trsek toading cost per arm | new loading rack 20,000 DM ($ 8,300) (1977) reconstructed loading rack 42,000 DM ($17,500) ” Rail car loading cost per arm new loading rack 23,000 DM ($ 9,600) (1977) reconstructed loading rack 30,000 DM ($12,500) Loading (Truck and Rail Car) General Emission measurements have been carried out on transport compartments during both top and bottom loading. Observations indicate that, while top loading, the recommended good practice of completely inserting the loading arm so that the outlet is close to or touches the compartment bottom, is normally complied with. Also, loading arms are available with contacts to prevent loading before the arm touches the compartment bottom. Therefore, the emissions are kept to the minimum compatible with this type of equipment. Bottom loading avoids any possibility of bad practice and the operator has no control over the loading method which can only be by fixed connections to the bottom of the transport compartment. Also, the inlet to the compartment has fixed baffles designed to minimize turbulence. This in turn reduces the evolution of vapour when compared to top loading, particularly during the imitial stages of the loading operation. Benefits Bottom loading will reduce the evolution of vapour during transport compartment loading by an amount commensurate with the reduction in splashing and turbulence. If vapour balancing had been carried out at the transport delivery point, the compartment would probably contain a fully saturated atmosphere, in which case the loading method would have little or no influence on the quantity of emission In practice, if the compartment had been completely discharged at one location, the vapour concentration (Cp) before loading would be approximately 0.15 of saturation. The benefit would thus be the difference in vapour evolution due to the two loading methods. 80CO Ncawe 6.2.3.3 6.2.3.4 The evolution of vapour during normal top submerged loading (Vp = 0.15) will give an average total loading emission of 0.055% Liquid volume loaded. Alternatively, the additional vapour evolution during bottom loading (Vg = 0.13) will give an average total loading emission of 0.050% of liquid volume, i.e. a total emission reduction of 0.008% of liquid volume (see section 4.2.3). Practical Considerations and Limitations As product is pumped into the bottom of the compartment, the operator is unable to see the liquid level. Therefore, an automatic high liquid level shut-off device must be fitted to prevent the risk of overfilling. Also, an automatic interlock will be necessary, arranged to open a vent valve at the same time as the compartment inlet valve is opened. The introduction of bottom loading will require the modification of all road and rail cars using the loading equipment. Additional space will be required at the side of either the road vehicle or rail car, which may make any conversion of existing top loading facilities impossible. Following bottom loading, it is essential to have a really effective "dry break" coupling if spillage is to be avoided. Capital Costs For a typical case the cost of providing a bottom loading stance incorporating four loading arms has been assessed at 26,000 DM/arm ($ 11,000) (1977). This cost applies to both truck and rail loading. Modifications to the truck and rail cars to accept bottom loading would cost as follow: Truck reconstruction DM 21,000 ($8750)truck (1977) Rail car new DM 4,500 ($1875)per ear (1977) reconstruction DM 6,500 ($2700)per car (1977) aLconcaw 6.2.4.1 6.2.4.2 Bottom Loading Japour Balancing (Truck General As in the case of top loading, the vapours displaced during bottom loading can be controlled by returning them to the bulk storage tank. In this case the transport compartment vent is enclosed and the enclosure extended to a location giving convenient access to the truck or rail car from ground level. A connection may be made to a vapour return pipework system at the same time as the loading connection is made, In this way the vapour/air mixture vented from the compartment can be returned to the storage tank from which the product is taken, the motive being provided by the rising liquid level. As with top loading, this provides the dual benefit of preventing vapour emission from the compartment in addition to preventing ‘the evolution of vapour to saturate the air which would otherwise be drawn into the storage tank. Benefits Vapour balancing can prevent the emission of vapour from the transport compartment during reloading. It will also prevent air being drawn into the storage tank, into which vapour will evolve. The actual quantity of vapour which will evolve into the vapour/ air mixture balanced from the transport compartment would depend on its saturation level. If a fully saturated vapour were displaced from the transport compartment, the evolution of vapour from gasoline in the storage tank would be zero. Additional benefits of bottom loading vapour return compared to top loading vapour return are due to the fact that there is no need to open the vehicle hatch (with the associated vapour loss). Also, a vehicle equipped for bottom loading has most of the equipment needed for vapour collection at the service station. - In practice, if vapour balancing had not been carried out at the service station, and if the compartment were bottom loaded, the average saturation level of the displaced vapour/air mixture would be 28%, and the emission prevention would, therefore, be 0.044% of the liquid volume transferred. As this vapour is returned to the storage tank, it will prevent evolution of vapour from the product in this tank, representing an additional product saving of up to 0.044% liquid volume throughput 826.2.4.3 6.2.4.4 - However, the vapour evolution during loading will promote an increase in volume due to the saturation level increase from 15 to 28%. If full saturation equals 35% hydrocarbon vapour in air, the vapour volume increase would be 5%. If the receiving tank vapour space pressure were at the maximum the tank is designed for, this vapour would be vented, representing a loss of 0.05 x 0.044% = 0.002% liquid volume (see also sections 6.2.2.4 and 6.2.2.5), thus reducing the product saving to 0.042% liquid volume. - Alternatively, if vapour balancing were carried out at the service station, the displaced vapour/air mixture would be fully saturated. In this case the emission prevented is 0.16% of liquid volume transfer, representing an additional product saving in the storage tank up to the same amount Practical Considerations and Limitations The practical considerations referred to in "Top Loading", section 6.2.2, will also apply to bottom loading, i.e. the transport compartment pressure capacity must be sufficient to overcome the pressure drop in the return pipework, a high level shut-off device will be necessary, provision should be made for over-pressure relief of the vapour return system, and a flame trap should be provided. Also, additional space will be required at the side of either the truck or rail car, which may make conversion of existing top loading facilities impossible. If the existing transport is to be converted from top to bottom loading, provision should be made for the vent valve to be opened at the same time as the inlet valve, and the vent valve outlet enclosed and directed to a suitable location accessible from ground level. Due to the risk of aspirating air into the system it is not considered feasible to employ a booster to transport the vapours from the compartment to the storage tank. This technique is, therefore, limited to locations where the storage tank and loading racks are close together. Capital Costs For the typical case, vapour balancing when bottom loading will call for an additional hose and coupling suitable for connection to the vapour manifold on the road vehicle. The cost of the loading point vapour connection is estimated at about 26,000 DM ($ 10,800) (1977), including 200 metres vapour return pipework 83conc 6.2.5.1 6.2.5.2 ‘The modifications necessary to connect a bottom loaded truck for vapour return would be approximately $ 5,400 (1977). Vapour Recovery (Truck and Rail Car) General Hydrocarbon vapour/air mixtures vented from transportation compartment, e.g. truck or rail car, during either top or bottom loading, can be collected by equipment as described in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.4, and treated so that the hydrocarbons are separated from the air and liquefied. The equipment used to achieve this separation is referred to as a vapour recovery plant Vapour recovery plants in Europe are in the early stages of development; to date there is only one plant installed on a trial basis. Plants currently in use in the USA generally conform to two main types: Refrigeration Type Hydrocarbon/air mixtures at atmospheric pressure are passed over finned tube surfaces maintained at a low temperature (approximately -70°C) to promote condensation of the hydrocarbon vapour. Frost will form on the cold surfaces from the moisture in the air. Normal practice is to defrost at suitable time intervals to control restriction on the vapour/air flow through the heat exchanger. c lydrocarbon/air mixture is passed through a saturator to ensure the air is fully saturated with hydrocarbon vapour. The mixture is drawn into a compressor (usually two-stage with intercooler) from where it is directed into a packed column type absorber where i flows counter-currently through chilled gasoline. The chilled gasoline absorbs hydrocarbon vapours and air is discharged to the atmosphere. Other Designs Other types of plant include a process which takes normal gasoline from storage, removes the light ends in a column, and then contacts the resultant lean gasoline with the hydrocarbon/air mixture. Benerits Vapour recovery plants currently in use are designed to control approximately 90% of a fully saturated hydrocarbon vapour 84cCOncawe displaced from the transport compartment during loading. The compression/absorption type of recovery plant normally incorporates a saturator, which injects hydrocarbons into the vapour/air mixture to ensure that all vapours are fully saturated, This feature is not necessary with the refrigeration type of vapour recovery plant. The benefits of vapour recovery, therefore, depend on the method of loading (i.e. top or bottom loading), the type of recovery plant, and the degree of saturation of the compartment's atmosphere before loading starts. Table 6 gives examples of emission reductions resulting from both compression/absorption and refrigeration type plants, considering both top submerged loading (Vp = 0.15) and bottom loading (vp = 0.13), as well as complete compartment discharge at one location (Cp = 0.15) and vapour balancing at transport discharge point (Cp = 1.0). Refer to section 4.2. Tt is interesting to note that in the case of the first two lines of this table, where hydrocarbon vapour is added to saturate the vapour/air mixture, the true renoval efficiency EL = 82 is 715 and 68%, assuming 90% recovery efficiency of the safirated vapour. Table 6. Effectiveness of Vapour Recovery Plants Ve Emission from [Type ot [Emission | Emision | Real Loading Method | Transport [Recovery trom. | Reduetion|Etticieney Compartment. [Plane Recovery |(E1-£2) | % (en) Plant (€2) Topsubmersed {0.15 |0.15 | 0.055 _|Compression/| 0.016 | 0.030 | 71 leading Absorption Bottomtoading [0.15 |0.13] 0.050 | compression/| 0.016 | 0034 | 68 Absorption |Top submerged |1.0 |0.15| 0.160 |Compression/| 0.016 | area | 90 | aging | Absorption | (vapour return) Bottomloading |1.0 |0.13| 0.160 | Compression/) 0.016 | 0.144 90 (vapour.return) Absorption Top submerged |0.15 | 0.15 0.055 | Refrigeration | 0.005. | 0.050 90 loading Bottom loading |0.15 | 0.13 0.050 | Refrigeration | 0.005 | 0.045 90 Topsubmerged [1.0 | 0.15 0.160 | Refrigeration | 0.016 | 0.144 90 loading (vapour return} Bottomtoading |1.0 |0.13| 0.160 | Refrigeration | 0.016 | 0.144 90 (vapour eeturn} | - 1c 6.2.5.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations When loading transportation compartments, it is probable that there will be large fluctuations in the rate of flow of vapour depending on the number of transport compartments being loaded at any one time. To accommodate these variations it may be necessary to provide a vapour holder. As in the case of vapour balancing, the motive power to transfer vapour from the transport compartment to the recovery plant is usually provided by the rising liquid level. The pressure available for vapour transfer is the pressure setting of the transport compartment's relief valve. In the event that the distance between the transport compartment and recovery plant is excessive, it may be necessary to provide a gas pressure booster or aspirator. As discussed in section 6.1.4.2, the use of a booster may call for the addition of hydrocarbons to ensure that the vapour/air mixture is above the flammable range The same practical considerations will apply as those relating to vapour balancing as discussed in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 which include high level shut-off, over-pressure relief, flame trap, ete. In vapour recovery plants relying on compression of the hydrocarbon/air mixture great care must be taken with the plant design because with compression the limit of flammability may increase to such an extent that even a fully saturated vapour/air mixture would be within the limits of flammability. Also, in both the refrigeration and compression/absorption type plant the vapour/air mixture must pass through the flammable range at some point within the plant, and care must be taken to ensure no possibility of an ignition source Experience in Europe is limited to one trial plant operating on the refrigeration principle. Unfortunately, the period of operation has so far been very short owing to various mechanical faults. One aspect that has, however, been clearly demonstrated is that significant quantities of hydrocarbons are associated with ice forming from atmospheric moisture. Equipment is needed to separate the liquid hydrocarbons from the water drained from the refrigerator surfaces during the defrost cycle 866.2.5.4 6.2.6.1 6.2.6.2 Capital Costs The cost of vapour recovery plant will obviously depend on its capacity. A study carried out in 1975 indicated an installed cost of 520,000 DM ($ 216,500) for a plant capable of processing 360 m3/n of vapour. The installed cost of a plant capable of processing 660 m3/h was 830,000 DM ($ 345,500). Running Costs Information is very limited, but the Radian report on marine loading (18) gives the running cost for a vapour recovery plant as varying between $ 11 and § 25 per 10 bbl of throughput (G 11 ~ § 25 per 159 m3), with an average of § 15 per 103 bbl throughput ($ 0.09 per m3). apour Recovery (Barge Load: General As in the case of truck and rail car loading, it may be possible to control the vapours displaced during barge loading by returning them to a vapour recovery plant. It will be necessary to enclose each compartment vent and connect to a vapour manifold, extended to a convenient location on the barge for connection to the shore side vapour line. In this way the vapour/air mixture displaced from each compartment can be returned to a vapour recovery plant the motive power being provided by the rising liquid level. The types of recovery plant would be the same as described in section 6.2.5. Benefits As stated previously, vapour recovery plants are designed to control approximately 90% of a fully saturated hydrocarbon vapour, The compression/absorption type recovery system normally incorporates a saturator to ensure fully saturation of the vapour/ air mixture. This feature is not necessary with the refrigeration type of vapour recovery plant. The benefits of vapour recovery will, therefore, depend on the type of recovery plant and the degree of saturation of the compartment's atmosphere before loading starts 876.2.6.3 6.2.6.4 Assuming a preloading vapour concentration of 0.3 and vapour evolution (Vg) = 0.06, the omission reduction would be: Emission from Type of Emission trom Emission Compartment Recovery Vapour Recovery Reduction 5% liquid vol. Plant } Plant % liquid vol, % liquid vot 0.087 Compression/ 0.016 0.041 Absorption 0.057 Refrigeration 0.008 0.051 Practical Considerations and Limitations The practical considerations referred to for truck and rail loading also apply to barge loading, i.e. the compartment pressure capacity must be sufficient to overcome the pressure drop in the return pipework, a high level shut-off device will be necessary, and provision should be made for over-pressure relief of the vapour return system; also, a flame trap should be provided. In the event that the distance between the transport compartment and vapour recovery plant is excessive, it will be necessary to provide a gas pressure booster or aspirator. As discussed in section 6.1.4.2, this may call for injection of additional hydrocarbons to ensure that the vapour/air mixture is above the flammable range. The comments in section 6.2.5 relating to vapour recovery plant type are also relevant to barge loading vapour recovery, except it should be noted that the total volume of vapour to be recovered, and the rate at which it must be recovered, will be significantly greater than for truck or rail car loading. Capital Costs For a typical case the cost of a vapour recovery plant would be as stated previously, i.e 360 m3/n capacity $ 216,500 660 m3/h capacity $ 345,500 The cost of vapour return pipework (assumed 12 loading arms would be 130,000 DM (S$ 54,100), diameter) plus 886.2.6.5 6.2.7.1 In addition, the cost of necessary barge modifications would vary between £ 27,000 ($ 45,900) and £ 70,000 ($ 119,000) per barge, depending on type and size. Running Costs As stated in section 6.2.5.5, running costs are expected to vary between $ 11 and $ 25 per 103 bbi throughput, with an average of $ 15 per 103 bb1 ($ 0.09 per m4). Vapour Combustion General Hydrocarbon vapour/air mixtures vented from transportation compartments during loading may be burned in a suitable combustion chamber to prevent their emission to the atmosphere It is unlikely that the heat produced by combustion of the vapours will be of any benefit due to the unpredictable availability of these vapours. Also, the need to ensure optimum combustion conditions significantly reduces the quality of the heat available. The use of vapour combustion plants to control hydrocarbon emissions in both Europe and the USA is limited, and consequently little information is available. Benefits A vapour combustion unit is capable of controlling all transport loading omissions. The actual quantity controlled will depend on the loading method (i.e. top or bottom loading) and the vapour concentration within the compartment before loading starts. Typical quantities will be as follows: Loading Method cy Emission from Compartment | % liquid volume Top loading 0.15 0.15 0.055 Bottom loading 0.15 0.13 0.08 Top loading 10 0.15 0.16 | Bottom loading 10 0.13 0.16 u —— 89conca 6.2.7.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations To sustain an adequate combustion temperature it will be necessary to add fuel to the hydrocarbon/air mixture vented fron the transport compartment when the mixture is lean either due to low saturation levels or low true vapour pressure of the gasoline. The addition of fuel under these circumstances will also ensure that the vapour/air mixture is above the limit of flammability before entering the combustion chamber. When loading transport compartments, there will probably be large fluctuations in the rate of vapour flow depending on the number of transports being loaded at any one time. To accommodate these variations it will probably be necessary to provide a vapour holder. The motive power to transfer the vapour from the transportation compartment to the combustion plant may be provided by the rising liquid level. The pressure available for transfer being the pressure setting of the transport compartment's relief valve. The same practical considerations will apply as those relating to vapour balancing discussed in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.4, including high liquid level shut-off, over-pressure relief, flame trap, ete In the event that the distance between the loading position and the combustion plant is excessive it will be necessary to provide motive power in the form of a booster or an ejector. This in turn may call for the addition of hydrocarbons to the vapour/air mixture to ensure that they are above the flammability range. The risks associated with the combustion of vapour/air mixtures, possibly in the flammable range when displaced from the transport compartment, must be carefully considered to ensure safe operation. 6.2.7.4 Costs As with vapour recovery, the cost of an incineration plant depends on its capacity. A study carried out in 1975 indicated a cost of 300,000 DM ($ 125,000) for a plant capable of dealing with 335 m?/n of vapour. The cost of vapour return pipework and loading arms were as given in sections 6.2.2.6 and 6.2.4.4. A vapour incinerator operating in the USA (19) capable of dealing with 170 m3/h vapour cost $ 105,000, including a vapour holder (1974 prices), but excluding vapour collection loading arms and pipework. Annual operating expenses were reported as 36,000 kWh electricity, 13.5 m? propane (liquid), 300 manhours and $ 3000 maintenance. 90Cc oOncawe 6.3.1.1 6.3.1.2 6.3.1.3 SERVICE STATION STORAGE AND HANDLING Vapour Balancing (Bulk Delivery) General The control of vapours displaced from an underground storage tank during refilling may be achieved by vapour balancing, the vapour being returned to the truck compartment from which delivery is made. Vapour balancing will prevent displacement emissions from the service station storage tank, but will not control breathing or withdrawal emissions, Also, as the transport compartment's atmosphere will be fully saturated, it will reduce the evolution of vapour from new gasoline intake during the reloading of that compartment. Benefits Vapour balancing will prevent the displacement emission that would normally occur from a service station underground tank during refilling. It will have no influence on the breathing and withdrawal emissions. The quantity of emission prevented would depend on the saturation level within the tank at the time of loading, which is expected to be nearly fully saturated For normal top submerged loading into a lean vehicle compartment atmosphere (Cp = 0.15), Vp will be 0.15, which will give a vapour evolution from new gasoline of 0.03% liquid volume loaded. As the road vehicle compartment will contain a fully saturated atmosphere on return for reloading, the evolution of vapour during loading will be reduced significantly. The displacement emission from the underground storage tank is reduced by 90% from a total of 0.16% (see section 3.3.5) to 0.016% of the liquid volume throughput. The effect of this emission reduction is to prevent the evolution of 0.03% liquid volume throughput during reloading of the truck, Practical Considerations and Limitations Facilities must be provided on the vehicle for the return of vapours from the service station storage tank. Normal practice is to return vapours from the underground service station tank to a vapour line on the vehicle which is linked to the vapour space of each vehicle compartment. 9concawm 6.3.1.4 6.3.2.1 The compartment vent would be automatically opened when the compartment foot valve is opened. Measurements carried out in the USA indicate a vapour emission control efficiency of 90%. Costs For a typical case the connections directly to the underground service station tank vapour phase, together with suitable couplings, P/V valve to existing vent and vapour pipework, are estimated to cost $ 4,200 for a service station comprising two tanks and four dispensers. Modification of the truck to permit vapour collection will vary depending on the design for top or bottom loading. Vapour return for bottom loading will require the provision of a vapour manifold connected to the compartment vent valves. Top loaded trucks will require, in addition to the above, an interlock capable of opening the compartment vent valve when the foot valve is opened. Typical cost of modification based on USA experience is $ 900 per truck compartment, i.e. $ 5,400 per truck for converting a bottom loaded truck for vapour return and 3,500 Dit ($ 1,460) per compartment, and 21,000 DM ($ 8,750) per truck for converting a top loading truck for vapour return. In some areas, these costs may escalate by up to 50% due to local variations in the design and layout of both the truck and service stations. Vapour Control During Automobile Refuelliny General Vapours displaced from the automobile fuel tank during refilling may be partially controlled by returning these to the underground service station storage tank. Due to the agitation and turbulence within the fuel tank caused by the automobile's motion the vapour displaced will always be fully saturated. This vapour, when returned to the service station tank, will prevent the evolution of vapour from the gasoline in that tank. Experience with this equipment is limited to the USA where vapour recovery dispenser nozzles are currently being evaluated. No European installations exist. 92concawe 6.3.2.2 Benefits Vapour balancing may prevent between 70% and 80% of the displaced emissions that would normally occur on refilling automobile fuel tanks, and this efficiency may be increased to 90% by vacuum assist with excess vapour control. The emission is estimated to be 0.175% of the liquid volume transferred (see section 4.4) Assuming a simple vapour balance system, the emission reduction will, therefore, be approximately 0.13% of the liquid volume transferred. In the event that an absorption or refrigeration system is employed to control the volume of vapour generated in excess of the volume of liquid dispersed, the emission reduction will increase to 0.157%. The effect of vapour balancing will be to prevent the evolution of vapour from the gasoline in the service station storage tank, i.e. 0.16% of the liquid volume transferred. Also, as air will not be drawn into the storage tank, the withdrawal emission, estimated to be 0.01% of the liquid volume throughput, is also prevented. 6.3.2.3 Practical Considerations and Limitations Automobile fuel tank inlet sizes, types and locations cover a wide variety, nearly every model and make incorporating a different feature. This makes the collection of vapour displaced during refuelling more difficult. Normal practice is to arrange for an annular cover to surround the dispenser nozzle capable of vapour tight connection with the fuel tank, through which the vapour is directed via a parallel hose back to the dispenser pump and from these to the underground tank. Due to the above difficulties the efficiency of vapour collection and control has been measured at between 70 and 80%. An alternative system employing a blower to create a slight vacuum at the nozzle has been developed, This system requires an additional process to either absorb, refrigerate or incinerate some of the vapour/air mixture as its total volume is increased in excess of the quantity of vapour dispersed by air induced into the system. The collection and control efficiency of this system is over 90%. However, the improved efficiency is achieved only by significantly complicating the balance system with consequent cost penalties for both purchase and maintenance. Problems with this equipment arise mainly from increased vapour volumes due to the use of a vacuum pump/blower and from maintenance requirements of recovery units. 93concaw 6.3.2.4 6.4 6.4.1. If there is a high vacuum and a good seal between the nozzle and the vehicle fill neck, vapour "pull-out" will occur. If there is a high vacuum and a poor seal, fresh air will be pulled in creating potentially explosive mixtures in the vapour return piping network. Vapour recovery equipment is more sophisticated and of a different nature than normally found in service stations. There is little motivation to maintain non-profitable equipment, and many stations are often situated remote from repair services. These points lead to a high probability of inefficient operation and potential hazard, costs For a typical case, the costs for conversion of an existing site to a simple vapour balance system between the auto fuel tank and the underground service station storage tanks including vapour collection dispenser nozzles, vapour return hoses and pipework, are estimated at about $ 3,900 for a service station comprising two tanks and four dispensers, If, in addition, a vacuum assist unit with excess vapour control is required, this cost would increase by $ 7,500 to a total conversion cost of $ 11,400 per service station at 1977 prices. These costs relate to systems as yet unproven. Additional costs may arise from the need to incorporate safety equipment, etc. and to modify the car tank inlet. INFLUENCE OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES IN TOTAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Vapour Balancing General This technique could theoretically be applied to the entire distribution system. Vapours displaced from the automobile tank may be controlled by vapour balancing and eventually returned to the depot storage tank. In some cases vapour could be returned from the depot tank to the refinery. This would provide the benefit of reducing emissions to the atmosphere in addition to preventing the evolution of vapour from the product during the intermediate stages of storage and handling. However, the vapour emissions caused by storage tank breathing would not be prevented There are currently no known European applications of vapour balancing throughout a distribution system. 94co Mea 6.4.1.2 6.4.1.3 In the case of a depot or refinery storage tank having an internal floating deck or a floating roof, there will be no point in returning the vapour displaced from transport compartments as the vapour evolution will already be controlled by these devices. Benefits As pointed out in section 6.3.2.3, for a simple vapour balance system between the automobile and the service station storage tank, the anticipated efficiency of transfer is between 70 and 80%, and complete control of the vapour at this point is thus not possible. Vapour balancing between the service station storage tank and the bulk delivery truck (see section 6.3.2.3), will provide a control efficiency of approximately 90%. The presence of a fully saturated atmosphere within the road vehicle compartment will prevent the evolution of vapour during the reloading of that compartment. Saturated vapour returned from the compartment to the depot storage tank will prevent the evolution of vapour from product within that tank. The efficiency of vapour transfer has not been measured, but we would anticipate a similar situation as obtained during service station storage refilling with a control efficiency of approximately 90%. If this vapour is transferred from the depot storage tank to the delivery barge or rail car, it would prevent the evolution of vapour during the reloading of those transports at the refinery. The benefits of vapour balancing at each transfer stage in the product distribution system are that the emissions to the atmosphere at each point are substantially reduced. Vapour displaced from the automobile fuel tank can be returned to the depot storage tank and in some cases to the refinery loading point. Also, the evolution of vapour from the product held in storage or being transferred is reduced or eliminated as the various compartments’ atmosphere will be fully saturated by the vapour returned from the compartment being loaded. Practical Considerations and Limitations Due to the risk of handling vapours in the flammable range, e.g. from loading gasoline into a compartment which previously held a non-volatile product, it will be necessary to install a flame arrestor in the return pipework from the transport loading point. 95concaw 6.4.2.1 6.4.2.2 6.4.2.3 eS It is recommended that flame arrestors be installed in any vapour return pipe even though the vapour will normally be fully saturated. Other practical considerations as outlined in sections 6.2.2.3, 6.2.4.3, 6.3.1.3 and 6.3.2.3 also apply. Vapour Recovery General Vapour recovery can be practised at every product transfer and storage point. However, with the exception of limited recovery equipment to deal with the excess vapour created by aspirating air into the vapour collector nozzle when using vacuum assistance, to improve the efficiency of vapour transfer at the gasoline dispenser nozzle, the probable control technique will be to employ vapour balancing between the automobile fuel tank and bulk road vehicle loading point. Vapour displaced when reloading the road vehicle being discharged to a vapour recovery plant. In the absence of an internal floating deck, vapour emitted from the bulk storage tank due to breathing or displacement can also be controlled by a vapour recovery plant. A further vapour recovery plant or similar control device will be required to deal with the vapour emission from refinery despatch facilities unless despatch is via a pipeline to the depot. Benefits Vapour balancing between the automobile fuel tank and bulk road loading point, plus recovery of the vapour displaced during loading, will significantly reduce emissions. Also, control of emissions from the bulk storage tank by either a vapour recovery plant or by an internal floating deck will reduce both breathing and displacement omissions from the depot storage Similarly, recovery of vapour displaced from transportation compartments during loading at the refinery will reduce the emissions at this point Practical Considerations and Limitations ‘The limitations discussed in section 6.2.2.3, on vapour balancing will apply between the automobile fuel tank and the road loading point. Also, the vapour recovery plant efficiency of a proprietary unit will be approximately 90% of a fully saturated atmosphere. Comments made in section 6.2.5.3 regarding the practical aspects of vapour recovery still apply. 96COnGé 6.4.3.1 Typical Distribution Systems Costs To assess the cost of the various control techniques on a total distribution system it is necessary to make many assumptions as to what that system is composed of. In our analysis we have assumed that the situation described below will apply. However, we must emphasize that there will be significant local variations which must be considered when examining any specific distribution system, Therefore, it is suggested that any distribution system should be costed individually to allow for local circumstances. Refinery Despatch Barge, pipeline or block train. Terminal Receipt Block train delivery by 22 rail cars, pipeline or barge. Terminal Storage Capacity - 2 x 5000 m? fixed roof tanks, 20 m diameter x 16.8 m high. ‘Throughput - 200,000 m3 p.a Truck loading arms - 4 ‘Trucks - 33 Service Stations 400 stations cach with two tanks and four dispenser pumps. Average throughput 500 m3 p.a, Delivery to each tank by direct connection (no offset £111). Costs Summary NOTE ‘The letter in brackets refers to the location of product transfer points and is used to indicate the scope of the control activity in Table 8. 97Vapour balancing between automobile and underground tank (se) $ 1,560,000 $ 3,000,000 Cost $ 3,900/station Extra for vacuum assist equipment = $ 7,500/station Vapour balancing between underground tanks and delivery trucks (e) Cost = $ 4,200/station = $ 1,680,000 Road Vehicles Vapour balancing between underground tanks and delivery truck (e) Cost (bottom loading vehicle) $ 5,400/vehicle = § 178,200 Cost (top loading vehicle) = $ 8,750/vehicle = $ 288,750 Vapour balancing between truck and storage tanks (a) Cost (top loading rack) $ 8,325/arm $ 33,300 Cost (bottom loading) = $ 11,000/arm $ 44,000 Vapour return pipework $ 11,000 Internal floating covers in 29,100/tank S$ 58,200 storage tanks Vapour recovery plant $ 216,500 360 m3/n capacity Vapour holder (280 m) =$ 30,000 Vapour balancing between storage tank and rail cars @) Vapour hoses and couplings for rail cars =$ 16,300 Vapour return pipework (200 m) $ 11,000 Rail car modification = $ 2,700/car = 8 59,400 Vapour balancing between storage tank and barge o: Vapour return loading arm and pipework =$ 54,100 Barge modification =$ 119,000 Refinery Despatch Vapour return from rail cars (a) Vapour hoses and couplings for rail cars 16,300 Vapour return pipework (200 m) 11,000 98We 6.4.4.1 Vapour return from barges «@ Vapour return loading arms and pipework $ 54,100 Vapour recovery plant (660 m3/h capacity) = $ 345,500 Emission Reduction, Costs and Cost Effectiveness Individual Transfer Points The following table gives the projected reduction in vapour emission achieved by vapour balancing at individual transfer points in addition to reduction achieved by vapour recovery and by internal floating decks, Also shown are the costs predicted for this reduction for the hypothetical distribution system used in this report, as described in section 6.4.3. This shows that any of the control techniques described, when applied to a depot, are far more cost effective than when applied at the service station. The amounts shown in the brackets are the actual quantities of emission reduction and the cost effectiveness for the typical system distributing 200,000 m® p.a. Table 7. Cost Benefits at Individual Transfer Points Activity Emision T capita 8 | sm Reduction Cost | % liquid vol, (A) $ x 10°(B) Vapour balancing at car refuelling | 0.131 (263m! pay] 158 | a1.91 | 5991 | Aiton of vapour rzovey | 0027 (54m? mo) | 900 | 411.1 | 86556 at ear refueling Vapour balancing at service 0.144 (288m? pa) 1.97 13.68 6840 | stations rei Vapour balancing at truck 0.039 (78m? pa) | 0.04 1.03 613, loading Vapour recovery at truck 0.039 (78m* pa) | 0.29 7.43 3718 loading Internal floating roof in 0.129 (258m? pa) 0.06 0.46 232 depot tank 99concaw 6.4.4.2 @ It must be pointed out that for vapour balancing the benefits achieved at one point may not be considered in isolation. This is because the return of vapour at one point can influence the quantity of emission at another, e.g. vapour balancing from the service station underground storage tank to the road delivery vehicle will eliminate 90% of the transfer emission, but will increase the emission when reloading the truck due to the increased saturation level of vapour in the truck. Typical Distribution Systems The influence of various emission control techniques on a complete distribution system are summarized in Table 8, and shown pictorially in Figures 11 to 24. The costs predicted are computed from the individual costs shown in section 6.4.3.1 for the assumed system. ‘The diagrams are designed to show the comparative emissions both before and after the application of the control technique at each storage and transfer point; the light bar showing the current typical emission and the dark bar the omission at that same point after introduction of the control. The quantities shown in brackets are the actual quantity for the assumed distribution system outlined in section 6.4.3, for example: Case 2: Vapour Return from Service Station to Depot Emission 0.458% of liquid volume throughput 916 m p.a, Emission reduction 0.163% of liquid volume throughput 326 m? p.a, Capital cost $ 2.0 x 108 Cost effectiveness ($ x 108/percentage emission reduction) 12.27 = $ 6,135/m® p.a. 100coOncawe 101 we] ae | ioe — | ove | ese | coz | ooo] ov | oe | ose] zz] wo | ose | eve | coz | ooo] ove | ose | coz | ooo] wov| soe | ose | coz ‘0 | ise | zero | tro | eco | zzeo | esvo | esvo | sero | oso | wero | asvo | i290 110 | vo | veo | sero | sera | vo | soo | sero | sero | vt00 | woo | veo | sero | suv0 owaoeidsip Buanyos pan SOLOW 6 toro | to | too | too} so] to} wo} to} woo} soo} wo} 100) wo} soo a100 | g100 | so | soo | a0 | x00 | 00 | ao0 | so | soo | sco | aio] soo | a0 sivo | soo | v0 | aro | ss00| soo | a0] oro | sso | aio | sic | sio0 | soo | sso | —Supeojarowan coo | 00% | covo | coro | coo | coo | cov | coo | coo | zoo | zoo | zoo| zo} zo rewerpaim eet eon ana noo} ovo] oo] wo owas sro | 1900 | 1900 | 1900 azoo | azoo | szoo | zoo | szoo | szoo | szoo | soo | soo ee - = | 1900 | 1900 | 1900 | 1800 ve a a [a | a wflefalo ‘uN auNoIa (esp) noaeys pao p-o | pe | ov pas | paa | ov en6 | 2-8 | one | jeoay Aunary surou0ie@ node, urauejeg node, Bujausieq anode a Surauejeq node, co Buen equ g/02 +4002 pay yun seis 10deq wen adie soieg 2018 arene eae oped} »% — WIsAS UoRNglAsig eu suorssia OH yo sajdwex3 — g a1qeLconcawe sue Fig. 11 — Distribution System Emissions ‘Typical Example ~ Emissions: 0.621 % (1242 m? p.a.) AUTOMOBILE REFLELLING $ a ¢ ; & i z 5 ] E J i | : 3 : 5 LU a a co 5 " fl 102concawe Fig, 12 — Distribution System Emissions ‘Vapour Return from Service Station to Depot — Emissions: 0.458 % (916 m? EMISSION REDUCTION: 0.163 % (326 m® pa.) CAPITAL COST $2.0x 10° (COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° % EMISSION REDUCTION 12.27 ($.6135/m°) & 3 i “2 2 : 2 foe g i Ag one af e 1 - & 4 i 5 el 5 i : ] aie : 5 s___ a enone 2 Z 3 z 00s lL z A po ° 0 A fm A D o ¢ q gy 7 : erat Horace Genet Arion r 103Cconcawe Fig. 13 — Distribution System Emissions Vapour Return from Vehicle Tank to Depot — Emissions: 0.327 % (654 m’ pa.) EMISSION REDUCTION: 0.294 % (598m? pa.) CAPITAL COST $3.56 x 10° COST EFFECTIVENESS S x 10° 5% EMISSION REDUCTION 12.11 ($5950/m* pa} 2 ; fe 5 8 3 i g & su 5 5 2 bn 5 & om & 5 or F . i fn |p Ie P 104concawe Fig, 14 — Distribution System Emissions ‘Vapour Return from Vehicle Tank to Refinery — Emissions: 0.280 % (560 m’ p.a.) RAIL BARGE EMISSION REDUCTION: 0,341 % (682m pa.) 0.941 % (682m pal! CAPITAL COST $3.65 10° $3.76 x 10° (COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° . 2 EMISSION REDUCTION > =10.7 (S5350/m° pa) 1103 $8.813im" pa) or y—_2 F - | _ 5 (| i ° Z H 2 : i . n fp op fn te tint ya___la_ waar aioe ln § 105concawe Fig. 15 — Distribution System Emissions Vapour Return from Vehicle Tank to Refinery — Emissions: 0.136% (272 m’ RAIL BARGE EMISSION REDUCTION. 0.485 % (870m? pa.) 0.485% (970 m* pat ‘CAPITAL COST: $4.01 x 10° 84.10% 10° COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° SEEMISSIONEDUGTION 7827(S4.134im? 2) 89518 4.227/m" pa) cc : a r |p oo (2 |b no fo | 3 a Sai” ‘ Gatine” : : ' | 108concawe Fig. 16 — Distribution System Emissions Internal Floating Cover — Emissions: 492 % (984 m° p.a) EMISSION REDUCTION: 0.129% (258m* pa) CAPITAL COST $ 06x 10° COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° 0.46 (8 233/m" pa, 5 EMISSION REDUCTION ences Sue 7 veneuosome e orspLaceMenr 3 ~ Resear anowirzonanac ei JAuToMosite REFUELLING 3 wu 107Fig. 17 — Distribution System Emissions Internal Floating Cover - Vapour Return from Vehicle to Depot -Emissions: 0.453 % (906 m® pa.) EMISSION REDUCTION: CAPITAL cosT (COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° 3 EMISSION REDUCTION 0.168% (935m? pa) $203 10° = 12.08 ($ 6042/m° pa.) ALL 108concawe Fig. 18 — Distribution System Emissions Internal Floating Cover - Vapour Return from Service Station to Depot Emissions: 0.322 % (644m? p.a.) EMISSION REDUCTION: 0.299% (689m* pa) CAPITAL COST $3.59 x 10° COST EFFECTIVENESS $ x 10° % EMISSION REDUCTION = 12.01 ($ 6095/m? p.a.) i ; o “oe : 4 A _— {A g Aa Z = = z i i i i 0x0. z 5 8. 2 — : i 3 : °. MA in} fa var once save oron 109concawe Fig, 19 — Distribution System Emissions Internal Floating Cover - Vapour Return from Vehicle to Depot - Vapour Recovery at Depot Emissions: 0.178 % (356 m’ p.a.) EMISSION REOUCTION: 0.443% (886m? pa.) CAPITAL cost 838% 10° (GOST EFFECTIVENESS S x 10° EMISSION REDUCTION ~8-58($ 4289 /m? pa g 3g — lh lh ft is fa Cl 110