0122F560845B0135 - 1 - Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document

Vapour Handling and Treatment
Guidance Document
Operational Excellence
December 2010
This document is for Vopak internal use only and should not be distributed outside Vopak
Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Property of Vopak – Confidential 1 © Vopak 2010
Document Title Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document
Document Number 0103-000-12-003a
Document Type Standards
Status Endorsed by Operational Excellence Leadership team
Date December 2010
Version 03
Project Name Guideline
Owner Royal Vopak – Corporate Operational Excellence
Confidentiality and Distribution
Vopak Operational Excellence Standards contain confidential information regarding Vopak and its
relevant subsidiaries and have been prepared with a view to inform and instruct Vopak employees. For
that reason none of these standards - whether in original or copies, including but not limited to any
medium including paper or electronic formats like file copies, word documents, pdf files, on electronic
storage devices or by email - is to be shown, given or loaned to any third party, including external
companies and persons not directly employed by Vopak. No exceptions are permitted without the
written authorisation of the Director Corporate Operational Excellence.
This document has only been made available to Vopak employees who have agreed to return it to
Vopak immediately upon first request, together with any copies and any other information that was
provided. Persons who are not employed by Vopak and who have nevertheless received this
document must be aware that it is likely they have received it in breach of a confidentiality obligation.
Such persons may not rely on, use, duplicate or disclose any information contained in this document
and should forthwith return it, together with any copies if any, to Vopak.
This copy is not controlled, for the latest revision check on Vopak Intranet.
December 2010 03 Minor improvements on revision 02 for final publication in QoL

December 2010 02 Major revision to make the steps to follow for vapour VH&T projects
more clearly including all operational and maintenance aspects
April 2009 01 Endorsed by Operational Excellence Leadership team
Date: Version: Description:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION 6
2 SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY 7
3 ABBREVIATIONS 9
4 VAPOUR HANDLING 10
4.1 Introduction 10
4.2 Treated and Untreated Vapour Transport 10
4.3 Vapour Handling Systems 12
4.4 Design Aspects 16
PART A: SELECTION PROCESS 19
5 INVENTORY OF EMISSION SOURCES AND COLLECTION OF RELEVANT DATA 19

5.1 Inventory of Emission Sources 19
5.2 Collection of Relevant Data 19
5.3 Check Compatibility of Products 20
5.4 Calculation of Maximum Vapour Flow 21
6 EMISSION LEGISLATION AND DIRECTIVES 23
7 EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES 24
7 EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES 25

7.1 Design Hierarchy 25
7.2 Basic Assumptions and Limitations on Vapour Treatments 25
7.3 Overview of Technical Feasible Emission Control Measures (ECM) 25
8 EMISSION PREVENTION & REDUCTION MEASURES ON STORAGE TANKS 27

8.1 High Pressure Tanks / Breather valves 27
8.2 Painting / Tank Colour 27
8.3 Insulation / Solar Shields 28
8.4 Improvement of existing EFR Tanks 28
8.5 Installation of New IFR’s 28
8.6 Improvement of Existing IFR’s 29
8.7 Known suppliers 29
9 VAPOUR BALANCING 30
9.1 Process Description 30
9.2 Technical Aspects 30
9.3 Design Aspects 30
9.4 Cost Aspects 30
10 VAPOUR TREATMENT 31
10.1 General 31
10.2 Vapour Recovery Techniques 31

10.3 Vapour Destruction Techniques 31
11 VAPOUR HANDLING & TREATMENT SELECTION PROCESS 32

11.1 Pre-Selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure 32
11.2 Final Selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure 35
PART B: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF VRU AND VDU TECHNIQUES 37
12 ADSORPTION 38
12.3 Technical and Economical Aspects 39
12.4 Known Suppliers 41
13 MEMBRANE FILTRATION 43
13.2 Applicability 45
13.3 Economical Aspects 47
14 CONDENSATION 49
15 ABSORPTION 55
16 THERMAL OXIDATION (INCINERATOR, CEB FLARE, RTO) 61

16.1 Introduction 61
16.2 Incinerator 61
16.2.1 Process Description 61
16.2.2 Applicability 63
16.2.3 Economical aspects 64
16.2.4 Known Suppliers 66
16.3 Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) 68
16.3.2 Applicability and economical aspects 69
16.4 CEB-Flare (Clean Enclosed Burner) 70
16.4.2 Applicability 72
16.4.3 Economical Aspects 73
17 CATALYTIC OXIDATION (CATOX) 74


18 GAS ENGINE 75
19 POLISHING TECHNIQUES 77
19.1 Adsorption 77
19.2 Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) 77
20 LESS COMMON TECHNIQUES FOR VOPAK: BIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES 78

20.1 Bio-filtration 78
20.2 Bio-trickling filter 79
20.3 Bio- Scrubbing 80
20.6 Known suppliers 81
21 EMISSION, MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING 83

21.1 General 83
21.2 Limitations of Measurements 84
21.3 Overall Emissions from a Site 84
21.4 Emissions Monitoring 84
REFERENCES 85
APPENDIX 1 – STATIC ACCUMULATORS 87
APPENDIX 2 – PRODUCT COMPATIBILITY CHART 88
APPENDIX 3 – CALCULATIONS OF MAXIMUM VAPOUR FLOW 89
APPENDIX 4 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION GASOMETERS (VAPOUR BUFFER) 92
APPENDIX 5 – VAPOUR BALANCING AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS 97
APPENDIX 6 – FILLING SMALL CONTAINERS 106
APPENDIX 7 – APPLICATION OF FLAME--ARRESTERS 107
APPENDIX 8 – CALCULATION OF VAPOUR CONCENTRATION 114
APPENDIX 9 – PRE-SELECTION MATRIX VAPOUR TREATMENT 115
APPENDIX 10 – EXAMPLE MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS 117

1 Introduction
This document is meant as guidance to be used in combination with the Vopak Vapour Handling and
Treatment Standard. This document provides the vapour treatment selection process as well as
additional technical and economical background information on vapour treatment techniques and vapour
handling systems. It is very important that the terminal master plan and any future developments for the
terminal are included in the vapour treatment selection process.
This document is primarily intended to be used by the Vopak VH&T Focal Points.
Note: All prices mentioned in this document are in Euro's and based European 2007 price levels. The
prices are only meant for initial costing and comparison between different vapour treatment
options.

2 Scope and Applicability
This Vapour Handling and Treatment (VH&T) Guidance document contains all necessary information for
the Vopak VH&T Focal Points (FP’s) to handle vapour handling and treatment projects within Vopak.
The Vopak VH&T Focal Points will (see also VH&T Standard document, Ref. [1]):
- Administer all VH&T projects, knowledge and experience within their Vopak organisation;
- Advice the Terminal Management and Project Manager on the selection of vapour reduction
measures;
- Guide the Terminal Management and Project Manager on the preparation of the Basis of Design
(BoD) of VH&T projects.
Nevertheless, working with this Guidance document requires quite an effort and common sense of the
user. For example, the user has to collect a lot of data on the equipment on a terminal, has to establish
the best applicable piping routing and needs to have information on future developments on the terminal.
The Guidance document is divided in two parts: part A “Selection process for Emission Control Measures
(ECM)” and part B “VRU and VDU technical information. Chapter 4 placed before part A contains general
information on vapour handling including safety aspects, treated and untreated vapour transport, vapour
handling systems and further design and costs aspects of vapour handling.
PART A: SELECTION PROCESS
Part A gives detailed information on the successive steps in the ECM selection process. The steps are
placed in the most logical sequential order, although in certain projects some steps might have to be
done in parallel or more than once. First prevention and reduction measures on storage tanks will be
considered. Then the possibilities of vapour emission reduction with vapour balancing lines are
considered and finally vapour recovery and vapour destruction units will be evaluated.
The following items will be discussed in the successive chapters of part A:
Chapter 5: Inventory of Emission Sources and Collection of relevant data

In this chapter the guidelines for inventory of emission sources and collection of all relevant data at the
terminal will be presented:
- Select emission sources;
- Collect relevant data;
- Check compatibility of products;
- Calculate maximum vapour flow.
Chapter 6: Emission legislation and Directives

In this chapter the guidelines the approach to define at the start of the project the emission requirements
of a terminal:
- Define emission requirements.
Chapter 7: Emission Control Measures (ECM)

In this chapter possible emission control measures will be considered in relation to design hierarchy,
assumptions and limitations of vapour treatments:
- Evaluate design hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recovery and destruction);
- Define basic assumptions and limitations vapour treatments;
- Evaluate possible Emission Control Measures (ECM).
Chapter 8: Emission Prevention & Reduction Measures on Storage Tanks

In this chapter possible prevention and reduction measures on storage tanks are described:

- Applicability of High Pressure Tanks and breather valves;
- Applicability of painting;
- Applicability of insulation;
- Improvement of EFR Tanks;
- Installation of new IFR’s.
Chapter 9: Vapour Balancing

Vapour balancing can be used as the only emission reduction measure or can be used in combination
with Vapour Treatment.
Chapter 10: Vapour Treatment (VRU/VDU) Selection Process

This chapter gives an overview of vapour treatment techniques.
Chapter 11: Vapour Handling and Treatment Selection Process

This chapter covers:
- Selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure;
- Final selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure.
PART B: VRU AND VDU TECHNIQUES DETAILS
Part B contains detailed technical and economical information on the different VRU and VDU techniques
and related aspects:
- Description of Vapour Recovery (VRU) and Vapour Destruction (VDU) Techniques, Chapter 12 -
20
- Emission Measurement and Monitoring, Chapter 21
- References, Chapter 22
- Various appendices, Chapter 23 - 29

3 Abbreviations
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
BAT Best Available Techniques
BOD Basis of Design
BREF BAT REFerence documents
CAA Clean Air Act (USA)
CEB Clean Enclosed Burner
ECM Emission Control Measure
EFR External Floating Roof
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
IBC Intermediate Bulk Container
IFR Internal Floating Roof
IMDG International Maritime Code for Dangerous Goods
IMO International Convention of Pollution Prevention from Ships (MARPOL)
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
LEL Lower Explosion Limit
LFL Lower Flammable Limit
LOC
/MOC Minimum or Limiting Oxygen Concentration; below the MOC/LOC the reaction cannot
generate enough energy to heat the entire VOC-air mixture to the extent required for self
propagation.
MOT Means of transport: truck, rail car or vessel (ship/barge)
NeR Nederlandse emissie Richtlijnen
NPV Net Present Value
P&ID Piping & Instrumentation Diagram
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
PVV Pressure vacuum valve
RH Relative Humidity
RTDG Recommendation for the Transport of Dangerous Goods
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidation
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SME Subject Matter Expert
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
TLV Threshold Limit Value
UFL Upper Flammable Limit
UN United Nations
VDU Vapour Destruction Unit
VH&T Vapour Handling & Treatment
VM&P Varnish Makers and Painters (Naphtha)
VOC Volatile Organic Components
VRU Vapour Recovery Unit

4 Vapour Handling
4.1 Introduction
Vapours from storage and loading activities are to be considered as explosive mixtures of VOC’s and air.
Therefore measures have to be provided for safeguarding the collection and transport of vapours in
piping. As these measures are quite complex, vapour collection systems should be considered in the
same manner as a process installation.
Vapour handling and treatment systems should:

 not been seen as service units of secondary importance;
 not been considered as a collection of independent subsystems, but
as one integrated system;
 Not be split into separated engineering and procurement packages.
Safety principles to follow when handling vapours are (also see Vopak Vapour Handling and Treatment
Standard [Ref. 1]):
- prevention of the formation of explosive atmospheres;
or where the nature of the activity does not allow that:
- control of the ignition of explosive atmospheres;
- mitigation of the detrimental effects of an.
For safeguarding the following methods are applicable:

- Prevention of explosive atmospheres:
o dilution with air to a safe low VOC-concentration(< 25% LFL);
o enrichment with natural gas to a safe high VOC-concentration (>170% UFL);
o Inertinginerting with nitrogen to a safe low oxygen concentration (< 8% oxygen);
- Control of the ignition of explosive atmospheres:
o remove all possible ignition sources;
o grounding and bonding;
- Mitigation of the detrimental effects of an explosion by:
o vapour pipelines strong enough to withstand an explosion;
o containment of an explosion with detonation arresters.
Each of these safeguarding methods can be applied for vapour recovery. For vapour balancing systems
prevention of explosive atmospheres is not applicable, unless the compartments are inerted.
4.2 Treated and Untreated Vapour Transport
Vapours can be transported treated (inerted with nitrogen or diluted with air or enriched with
hydrocarbons) or untreated. Influencing factors are product characteristics, tank storage conditions, truck
or vessel unloading & loading conditions characteristics and influences from operational activities such
line clearing.
In the past vapour systems have been either inerted with nitrogen or diluted with air to prevent an
explosive atmosphere. Inerting and diluting, although increasing the safety level, both also have several
disadvantages: increased vapour streams, bigger line sizes, larger vapour units, higher utility and energy
costs, etc.
In recent years it has been more and more accepted within industry that vapours are transported
untreated, concentrating on avoidance of ignition sources and mitigation of the detrimental effects in
case of an explosion.

To come to a global Vopak approach on vapour transport an internal HAZOP was held in November
2008, see [Ref. 19]. The outcome of this HAZOP is summarised below and included in the various
sections and appendices dealing with vapour transport.
Main conclusions from the HAZOP were:
1 Flammable atmospheres can be present in tanks:

- This can be the case in certain situations even for products of which the vapours are normally
outside their flammable range:
o Vapour balancing: when loading ships with air from ship flowing back into tank even with
N2 blanketing of the tank, unless ships are inerted.
o VRU/VDU: tanks will always have air ingress due to daily breathing, if there is no
inerting.
- Even with N2 blanketing there is no 100% guarantee that vapours will always be outside the
flammable limits.
2 Accept flammable atmospheres and take mitigation actions instead of inerting vapour
handling systems:
- Prevent ignition sources by e.g.:
o Grounding of tanks, vapour lines and moving parts such as floating roofs;
o No moving parts with metal to metal contact inside the tank;
o Prevention of flame flash back when using vapour destruction systems (Clean enclosed
burners (CEB’s), incinerators, oxidizing units etc.).
- Install the correct type of detonation arrester on all vapour line connections at tanks, loading
facilities, jetties etc.
Note: Vopak standard design is that tank vents to atmosphere (e.g. from a PVV) are not
equipped with a flame arrester as sometimes applied outside Vopak, unless required by
local regulations. This due to risk of blockage and additional maintenance requirements.
- Design vapour lines (materials, pressure rating, radius of bends etc.) for pressures arising from
detonation to ensure that the detonation is contained (in combination with installation of correct
type of flame arresters in accordance with international standards. It is Vopak policy to use 16
barg as the minimum design pressure, based on TRbF20 [Ref. 15]. (Note: TRbF20 differentiates
between pipeline diameters below and above DN200: PN10 below and equal to DN200 and
PN16 above DN200. However as for pipelines with diameters below DN200 pipelines and
appendages for PN10 and PN16 are equal, in practice all diameters will be suited for PN16.)
3 Take special precautions for certain products:

- For static accumulators (see Appendix 1) which can be within their flammable range a risk
assessment is required to establish whether extra precautions are required:
o Prevent operations like blowing (turbulence inside tank) etc.;
o N2 blanketing as extra precaution.
- Also for solidifying, polymerizing or oxidizing products a risk assessment is required to establish
whether extra precautions are required:
o Install a differential pressure alarm on the detonation arrester; recommend this always, not
just for certain products;
o Inerting instead of installing detonation arresters;
o In specific situations where detonation arresters cannot be applied (e.g. butadiene) it has to
be proven that the product vapours will never be in flammable range.
4 Carry out a management of change when changing products:

- When changing products in a tank a management of change is required to check whether
changes in vapour handling are required.

- One of the topics will be to check if the mesh size of the detonation arresters, if installed, is still
suitable for the new product.
Present in External Safety Reports arguments that sufficient mitigation

actions have been taken into account.
4.3 Vapour Handling Systems
Different vapour handling systems can be distinguished based on whether vapours are handled via
vapour balancing or treated in a VRU or VDU.
Vapour handling systems can be of a 'simple' or 'complex' nature depending upon the number of tanks,
vessels, trucks etc. connected to the same system:
- Simple system:
o One tank connected to one means of transport with common headers (truck, ship etc.)
o No tank to tank connections.
- Complex system:
o Multiple tanks linked to multiple means of transport (truck, ship etc.) via common
headers
o Tank vapour spaces coupled.
Table 4.1 gives an overview of possible types of vapour handling systems. Complex vapour balancing
systems are in general not regarded as being viable due to possible cross contamination. The pro's and
con's of each system are further explained in table 4.2 and are related to safety, operability, cross media
(conversion of vapour emission into another waste) and costs.
Types of Vapour Handling Systems

Vapour Vapour
balancing treatment
Simple systems Yes Yes
Complex systems Only viable for similar Yes
and compatible
products
Table 4.1 - Types of Vapour Handling Systems
First only measures for prevention and reduction for individual emission sources are considered.
However, if a VRU or VDU is a possible measure, it should be considered whether vapours from various
sources (tanks and jetties) should be treated in a common VRU or VDU.
The four possible vapour handling systems are shown in Figure 4.1 thru Figure 4.4 and are characterised
in Table 4.2 based on:
- Emission reduction: - Required emission reduction attainable?
- Safety: - How safe is the system to operate?
- Operability: - How easy is the system to operate?
- Does it need maintenance?
- Does it impose operational restrictions?
- Cross Media: - Is emission converted to another waste (solid or liquid)?
- Cost: - Consider initial capital costs and ongoing operating costs.

Simple Vapour Return System
Excess vapour + breathing:

- Atmosphere (PV-valve)
- Treatment (separate connection)
Liquid
Vapour
Figure 4.1 – Simple Vapour Balancing System
Complex Vapour Return System
Excess vapour + breathing:

- Atmosphere (PV-valve)
- Treatment (separate connection)
Liquid
Vapour
Figure 4.2 – Complex Vapour Balancing System

Simple Vapour Treatment System
Separate vapour
treatment units
E- 1 E-1
E-1 E-1
Influence of blower on treatment unit?

-Potential source of ignition
-Effect on system pressure
Liquid
Vapour
Figure 4.3 – Simple Vapour Treatment System
Complex Vapour Treatment System
E-1
Influence of blower on treatment unit?

-Potential source of ignition
-Effect on system pressure
Liquid
Vapour
Figure 4.4 – Complex Vapour Treatment System

Main Vapour balancing Vapour treatment
characteristics
Simple systems Complex systems Simple systems Complex systems
Emission Attainable emission Attainable emission Required emission Required emission

reduction reduction depends on reduction depends on reduction attainable with reduction attainable with
type of product(s) type of product(s) “state of the art” “state of the art” VRU/VDU
VRU/VDU
Safety Potential for vapour Potential for vapour Increased ignition risk Increased ignition risk
contamination contamination depending on type of depending on type of
VRU/VRU VRU/VRU
Potential for ignition Potential for ignition
transmission transmission Potential for ignition Potential for ignition
transmission transmission
Risk of connection Potential domino effects
errors in case of between tanks and Domino effects between
multiple systems vessels tanks
Operability Easy to operate, only Line up issues; could Requires a control and More complex control and
possible with enough select the wrong tank safeguarding system safeguarding system
over-pressure in the
tank. Potential vapour transfer Surge possibilities &
between tanks other unforeseen vapour
flow problems
Low maintenance Increased maintenance
for valves
Possible flow Possible flow restrictions, Possible flow restrictions Possible flow restrictions,
restrictions, ship may ship may refuse to
refuse to connect/open connect/open balance
balance lines lines
Cross media None None Potential for solid waste Potential for solid waste
(carbon units) (carbon units)
Potential for liquid waste Potential for liquid waste

(Scrubbers) (Scrubbers)
Potential for CO2 Potential for CO2

generation (engines and generation (engines and
incinerators) incinerators)
Capital costs Pipelines, high costs in Pipelines and valves, high VRU/VDU, high costs in High cost for VRU/VDU,
case multiple or long costs for long pipelines, case multiple But could be lower than a
pipelines are required but lower than for a VRU’s/VDU’s are number of “simple
number of simple required systems”
systems
Operational Almost zero Low Depends on VRU/VDU Depends on VRU/VDU

costs type type
Maintenance VRU/VDU Maintenance VRU/VDU
Table 4.2 - Comparison of possible vapour handling systems

The overall conclusions from Table 4.2 are:
- Vapour balancing is only possible with enough overpressure in the tank or use a fan;
- Simple balancing systems are easy to operate but require relatively high costs for pipelines if
multiple simple systems are required;
- Complex vapour balancing can only be considered where the same or similar products are
handled, as such a system will be difficult to control and vapours might end up in other tanks then
from being loaded;
- With simple and complex treatment systems emission reduction is always possible (“state of the
art” VRU/VDU (BAT);
- With vapour treatment systems new process technologies are introduced at a terminal which
require a control and safeguarding system and create more risk of failure;
- Vapour treatment systems require proper inspection and maintenance. This is even more
important for complex systems.
Other topics to consider when selecting a simple or complex system are:

- Product compatibility when mixing vapour streams. As a reference the EPA product compatibility
chart (see Appendix 2) can be used, but for quality reasons it might be that in practice vapours
cannot be mixed, even if indicated on the EPA chart;
- Whether it is desirable from a safety point of view to transport vapours from (long) jetties back to
the shore. This has to be assessed on a case by case basis;
- In some cases it might be safer to have separate treatment systems for tanks, truck loading and
jetties depending upon till which extend Vopak can control the vapours from the trucks or vessels.
Factors influencing such a decision are:
o Whether trucks and vessels are clean with air, clean with nitrogen or filled with vapours
from a previous load;
o Whether vessels are know and trusted or from a spot charter;
- The lay-out drawing of the terminal may be of help for pre-selection of the most obvious simple or
complex systems;
- A combination of simple and complex systems might be the most optimal solution.
In Appendix 5 a description of the ‘Vapour balancing – simple’ system and the ‘Vapour treatment –
complex’ system are given. This will cover the other two systems as well.
The Process Control and Safeguarding Philosophy describes how the installation shall be operated and
which safeguarding measurements shall be implemented. Both the normal situation and the emergency
situation are dealt with. The P&ID's included in Appendix 5 have been adapted according the HAZOP
comments.
4.4 Design Aspects
The selection of a safeguarding method has consequences for the applicable VRU/VDU-technique and
for the required VRU/VDU-capacity.
Dilution with air

A VOC-concentration corresponding to 25% LFL (Lower Flammable Limit) or lower is considered to be
safe (Source: UK HSE Safe design and use of vent collection systems for potentially flammable
mixtures) For a flow of saturated gasoline vapour this implies an increase of the vapour flow with a factor
25 – 30 (LFL is 0.6 %vol. and saturation concentration is approx. 40%vol). Therefore very large
VRU/VDU-capacities and large pipe diameters are required.
Due to this low concentration the VRU/VDU-techniques condensation and membrane-filtration are less
favourable when diluting with air.
Enrichment with natural gas

A VOC-concentration corresponding to 170% of UFL (Upper Flammable Limit) or higher is considered to
be safe (Source US Federal regulation 33CFR154, paragraph 824). As a vapour flow may have a low

VOC-concentration (e.g. at the start of a loading operation) the maximum amount of natural gas required
has to correspond to a methane concentration of approx. 19 % (UFL of methane is 16% vol.). This
implies an increase of the vapour flow of approximately 25%.
Due to the presence of natural gas the choice of VRU/VDU-techniques is restricted to only incineration
when enriching with natural gas.
Inerting with nitrogen

In general an oxygen concentration of less than 8% is in general considered as a safe situation (Source
US Federal regulation 33CFR154, paragraph 824). The oxygen concentration shall always be 2 vol%
below the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC), which is also called MOC (minimum oxygen
concentration). Most products stored within Vopak have a MOC between 10% and 12%. An oxygen
concentration less than 8% will normally be low enough to prevent fires or explosions.
For certain oxygen containing products such as propylene oxide the safe oxygen concentration can be
remarkably lower (e.g. 5%).
For each new product the safe oxygen concentration must therefore be determined. Due to injection of
inert gas the flow increases with approximately a factor 3 or more and thus implies a significant increase
in required VRU/VDU-capacity. Inerting also implies that condensation is a less favourable VRU/VDU-
technique.
Design of vapour lines, ventilators and application of detonation arresters

Hydraulic calculations of the single vapour line in case of a simple system or the vapour line network in
case of a complex system shall be executed. Detonation arresters and flow control devices, like control
valves or orifices, shall be included in the hydraulic calculations. The sizing of the ventilator of the
VRU/VDU shall be based on this calculation and the flow rate - head curve of the ventilator. This
procedure is identical to the choice of a liquid pump, see Pump Life Cycle Management standard, and
should be treated similarly.
Depending upon its location in the system, the ventilator shall be suited for zone 0. Zone 0 ventilators are
safeguarded with integrated flame arresters, designed to contain an explosion and shall be tested and
certified by a Notified Body.
If the routing of the vapour lines is not available the hydraulic calculations can be done based on straight
length multiplied with a factor 2 - 3 to take bends, ties and actual length into account. The equivalent
length of detonation arresters and flow control devices, like orifices and control valves have to be added
to this.
For vapour balancing the pressure drop in the worst case situation shall be checked against the available
pressure drop over the balancing lines.
For complex vapour treatment systems the pressure in the vapour line network shall in all cases be
below atmospheric pressure to prevent cross contamination.
Vapour lines shall be designed to prevent overloading the VRU/VDU. Preferably this shall be done by
line size selection. If the selection of lines size is not sufficient flow control systems and/or controlling the
simultaneous emitting of the vapours to the VRU/VDU, shall be investigated.
The effect of the vacuum in the vapour lines shall be checked on the size of the PV-valves on the tank.
As the saturated vapour may contain droplets of organic liquids the generation of static electricity is a
risk. In order to avoid this risk the vapour velocity should be restricted to maximum 17 m/s for 2-phase is
present or could be possible.
Depending upon the vapours vapour lines should be on slope and knock-out drums, tracing and
insulation might be required as well.

A system has to be implemented to detect high level in trucks/railcars when they are not equipped with
level alarm high (LAH). Because of the problems to use cones, no specific level detection at the truck/rail
tank car is possible. This might do done via level detection in knock out drum. Alternative is weight
measurement of the truck/railcar during loading.
This guideline considers the safeguarding of vapour flows by application of detonation arresters as the
preferred method in combination with grounding and bonding and vapour pipelines strong enough to
withstand a deflagration and detonation.
With this method the flow is not increased and all VRU/VDU-techniques are applicable.
Another advantage is that no equipment and (redundant) analysers are required for control of dilution or
injection of inert gas or natural gas. There might be a limitation in the use of detonation arresters for
vapours with higher temperatures. Certain manufactures only allow a maximum vapour temperature of
60°C as else the flame quenching capabilities might become impaired.
A typical flow scheme for a vapour system protected by detonation arresters is presented appendix 5.

PART A: Selection Process
5 Inventory of Emission Sources and Collection of relevant Data
5.1 Inventory of Emission Sources
The user of this Guidance has to select the emission sources which require handling and treatment.
These sources can be e.g.: all tanks and loading facilities on a terminal or only some tanks in a specific
tank-pit, only vapours from specific jetties, etc.
Emission sources that are already provided with an emission reduction measure should be included,
because it has to be checked whether the existing measures comply with present and future legislation
or with specific company requirements or if more advantageous combinations are possible.
Table 5.1 provides an overview of possible emission sources at a terminal and possible existing
measures.
Terminal equipment Existing reduction measure Emission source

A1 Only primary seal
A Tank with external A2 Primary and secondary seal tank
floating roof (EFR) A3 Primary seal and geodesic dome
A4 Primary seal, secondary seal and
dome
B1 None, venting to atmosphere
B2 IFR tank
B Fixed roof tank with B3 Vapour balancing
PVV’s B4 VRU/VDU VRU/VDU
B5 VRU/VDU + vapour balancing VRU/VDU
C1 None, venting to atmosphere Jetty / gantry
C Jetty, gantry C2 Vapour balancing tank
C3 VRU/VDU, specific for jetty / gantry VRU/VDU
C4 Vapour balancing + VRU/VDU VRU/VDU
D Filling containers 1) D1 Extraction hood Fan exhaust
1) Measures for reduction of emission during filling of containers will be addressed separately (Appendix 6).
Table 5.1 - Overview of possible emission sources at a terminal
If an emission source is already provided with a reduction measure (e.g. an IFR) an assessment of the
efficiency of such a measure is required.
Besides the above mentioned emission sources, other sources due to operational activities, like tank
mixing, heating or flushing and blowing or pigging of pipelines, shall be investigated.
The control of emissions from these activities should be approached with common sense by applying the
ALARP-principle since this can have a severe and prohibitive impact on the dimensioning of the VH &T
system.
5.2 Collection of Relevant Data
The data of interest mainly concern identification of the emission source, product data and a description
of existing reduction measures. Also of interest are data on products that will be stored or handled in the
future, see therefore the Terminal Master Plan.
The following data are required:

For Fixed roof tanks, EFR tanks and IFR tanks:
- Tank number;
- Type of tank;
- Tank volume;
- Stored product(s) / Future product(s);
- Saturated vapour pressure of product(s) at minimum, average and maximum operating
temperature;
- Existing measure(s) (see Table 4.1);
- Set pressure Pressure Vacuum Valve (PVV or breather valve if present);
- N2 blanketing present (yes/no);
- Type of primary seal (if present);
- Type of secondary seal (if present);
- Geodesic dome (if present);
- Filling profile (filling rate, filling duration, number of fillings per year, simultaneous filling/loading
patterns, other influences, e.g. seasonal, distributions of fillings per year).
Jetties and gantries:

- Jetty/gantry number;
- Loaded products / future products;
- Saturated vapour pressure of product(s) at minimum, average and maximum operating
temperature;
- Type of vapour connection with tank (fixed type or cone type);
- Existing measure (see Table 5.1);
- Loading profile (loading rate, loading duration, number of loadings per year, simultaneous
filling/loading patterns, other influences, e.g. seasonal, distributions of loadings per year).
General:
- Isometrics existing vapour system.
Furthermore, simultaneous operations (e.g. loading and/or unloading multiple trucks or ships at the same
time) need to be established.
For the collection of vapour flows the composition of the combined vapour and the maximum total vapour
flow are of interest. The composition is of importance for the compatibility and can be derived from the
data collected.
The total flow is a/o required for assessment of the required VRU/VDU capacity. The saturated vapour
pressures and therewith the concentrations of the different products at the minimum, average and
maximum operating temperatures are required to establish the operating envelope. The concentrations
of the different products at the average and maximum operating temperatures might also be required to
establish the emission limits in case they are based on respectively the annual or instantaneous (e.g.
hourly) mass flow rates or concentrations.
5.3 Check Compatibility of Products
The next step is to make an inventory of products related to a specific combination of emission sources.
If possible this inventory should include products that will be stored or handled in the future. Also
products from a previous load of a barge or vessel have to be considered.
The vapour emissions from storage tanks and loading operations for certain products (e.g. gasoline) tend
to have high VOC-concentrations and condensation of VOC’s in the vapour lines and tank vapour space
can not be excluded.

Although reaction between products in the vapour phase is not very likely, interaction between products
in the liquid phase may result in:
- Exothermal chemical reaction (resulting in release of heat);
- Polymerisation;
- Corrosion.
Therefore the compatibility of products has to be checked. For this purpose the EPA compatibility chart in
Appendix 2 can be used.
For quality reasons (contamination leading to off-spec product) it might be that in practice vapours
cannot be mixed, even if indicated on the EPA chart. When mixing vapours, vapours may condense and
dissolve in the liquid product in the tank; as a result the physical and chemical properties may change.
Water in the vapours may also influence the product quality, when condensing and dissolving in the
liquid product.
Also the melting point of products has to be considered at this stage. Products with a high melting point
(e.g. benzene, cyclohexane) can cause blockage in the vapour lines. If these products are present, the
vapour line and auxiliary equipment should be traced and insulated. Furthermore the application of
knock-out facilities is required for removal of condensate.
Another aspect to consider is the presence of an inhibiter in the product. An inhibiter prevents oxidation
or polymerisation. As an inhibiter will not evaporate, problems can be expected if the product vapour
condenses in the vapour lines.
If one or several products are not compatible, the selected combination of emission sources has
to be reconsidered.
The compatibility only applies to unacceptable effects in the vapour lines, products in storage tanks and
in condensate generated by a vapour treatment unit. It does not apply to possible unacceptable effects
within a vapour treatment unit (e.g. adsorption on activated carbon is not suited for treatment of acrylate
vapours). This implies that during selection of a VRU/VDU the combination of vapour flows may have to
be reconsidered.
5.4 Calculation of Maximum Vapour Flow
A limiting factor for the combination of vapour flows is the capacity of available VRU/VDU’s. Although the
choice for a VRU/VDU is not made at this stage (see Chapter 11 for pre-selection of VRU/VDU
technologies), it can be stated that the maximum capacity of VRU/VDU’s is generally limited to
approximately 4000 m3/h (except for oil terminals). An exception is a cryo-condensation installation,
3
which can only be supplied with a maximum capacity of 1000 m /h.
Simplified models for calculation of vapour flows from various emission sources are presented in Table
5.2.

Emission source 1) Max. vapour flow (m3/h)
2
B1 Tank with PVV, vapour vented to atmosphere ( 0.0065 x D x H ) + (1.1 x Qpump)
2
B3 Tank with balancing line, vapour vented to ( 0.0065 x D x H ) + ( 0.1 x Qpump)
atmosphere
C1 Jetty/ gantry, vapour vented to atmosphere ( 1 + 0.1 x f ) x Qpump
1) The emission sources not mentioned in Table 4.3 are not of interest for combined treatment.
D = diameter of tank (m)

H = height of tank (m)
Qpump = pump capacity (m3/h)
f = vapour saturation factor: filling see-going vessel: f = 0.25
filling barge: f = 0.56
filling truck/railcar: f = 0.60
Table 5.2 - Calculation of vapour flows from relevant emission sources
Above models include an initial correction (+10%) for vapour evolution. Evolution is caused by flashing of
product due temperature differences between product and tank or vessel. Products with a vapour
pressure lower than 50 mbar will cause negligible evolution.
It is recommended to always perform a check on the actual evolution possible.
The simplest method to determine the required VRU/VDU capacity is to sum the volume flows of all
vapour streams leading to the VRU/VDU (see Appendix 3). This will however result in a VRU/VDU of
which the maximum capacity will only be used occasionally.
This is caused by the discontinuous nature of the various vapour streams at tank storage terminals. The
maximum capacity of a VRU/VDU is only required at periods that all possible loading activities take place
simultaneously at maximum pumping rates and while all storage tanks are breathing out.
A more realistic VRU/VDU capacity can be determined by using a so-called "emission profile". This is a
scenario at which, based on experiences with loading at the terminal, the maximum simultaneous loading
activities are being determined. This requires a good understanding of current and future activities at the
terminal.
If, based on a maximum scenario, the VRU/VDU capacity still appears to be high; an assessment has to
be made of the frequency with which a maximum scenario may occur. Often, based on this frequency,
one has to consider installing for example only 80% of the maximum calculated capacity. As a
consequence occasionally the maximum loading rate may have to be limited for a short period of time.
Another aspect that should not be overlooked is the possibility of false air being drawn in. If e.g. the
vapour return from a truck is via a cone connection at the top of the truck without a tight connection, and
a fan is used which generates a small vacuum, false air might be drawn in creating additional volumetric
flow to be handled.
A significant reduction of the required VRU/VDU-capacity can be achieved by applying a Gasometer or

vapour buffer. In determining the required buffer volume (or the required VRU/VDU-capacity in case of
converting an existing tank into a vapour buffer) a good understanding of the emission profile is required.
A description on Gasometers and an example for calculating the required buffer volume is given in
Appendix 4.
If the total flow exceeds 4000 m3/h the selected combination has to be reconsidered.

6 Emission Legislation and Directives
As far as the required emission reduction is concerned, this Guidance document mainly focuses on
general emission legislation derived from different local and international legislation and standards and
on the Vopak emission requirements as per the VH&T Standard. For each VH&T project, however, a
detailed investigation into the actual legislation and local requirements has to be performed.
Emission requirements in national laws and regulations are an outcome of Acts and Directives, whereas
some national regulations are even more stringent than the corresponding Acts and Directives.
Most well known Acts and Directives in relation to emissions are:

- CAA: Clean Air Act (USA);
- IMO: International Convention of Pollution Prevention from Ships (MARPOL);
- IMDG: International Maritime Code for Dangerous Goods;
- EU: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC-Directive 2008/1/EC) and the National
Emission Ceilings (NEC);
- UN RTDG Recommendation for the Transport of Dangerous Goods;
- ADR/ADNR Road Tankers/Inland Navigation Vessels (Barges).
Besides the Vopak requirements for vapour emission control, Vopak company values include ALARP (As
Low As Reasonably Practicable) principles, also for vapour control (Ref 1, chapter 5.1).
Emission legislation can in general be divided into legislation for emission of gasoline vapours and
emissions of other VOC’s.
Emission of gasoline vapours

For the European Union, the general emission requirements are provided by the document 94/63/EC,
which is comparable to the requirements according US-EPA. However, some countries require more
stringent reductions.
For storage of gasoline in general the following measures are required:

- Storage in tanks with External Floating Roof (EFR): The EFR should be provided with secondary
seals. The required efficiency should be at least 95% compared to a comparable fixed roof tank
without any reduction measures (e.g. without PVV’s);
- Storage in a fixed roof tanks: The tank has to be provided with an Internal Floating Roof (IFR)
with an efficiency of at last 90% or the tank has to be connected to a VRU/VDU.
For emission during loading activities (e.g. filling tank-trucks or barges) the emission requirements for the
EU, USA and some example European countries are presented in Table 6.1.

Country Legislation Maximum Emission Requirements
European Union Directive 94/63/EC (Gasoline 35 g/Nm3 for gasoline terminals
or petrol guideline)
Belgium Vlarem II 10 g/Nm3 for gasoline terminals
The Netherlands NeR Official requirement:
10 g/Nm3 for truck & railcar loading
20 g/Nm3 for barge loading
Actually authority requirement however:
100-150 mg/Nm3
Germany TA-Luft 50 mg/Nm3
United Kingdom NEC Upper limit for total VOC emissions: 1200
kton
USA EPA 10 g/Nm3 for gasoline terminals
World World Bank [Ref. 23] Recommendations to prevent and control
the emission of VOC’s including detailed
recommendations from the BREF Storage,
IPPC [Ref. 12]
Table 6.1 – Examples of applicable legislation on Gasoline emission due to loading
activities in some countries
Emission of other VOC’s

In the European Union the IPPC directive 2008/1/EC guidelines have to be followed. The following BREF
documents give information on the Best Available Techniques for emission control:
- Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on Emissions from Storage, latest edition;
- Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in Common Waste Water and Waste Gas
Systems in the Chemical Sector, latest edition.
One has to keep in mind that local air quality regulations can make additional emission reduction
mandatory.
Vapour emission control requirements should also include the following items:
- Select sustainable solutions by taking into account future legislation for emission control;
- Include the complete logistics of the terminal handling processes now and in future (based on
terminal master plans).
As can be seen, the emission requirements are quite diverse. Because of the variety of laws,
regulations and agencies around the control of VOC emissions for each project and terminal
location a thorough investigation of the governing laws and regulations is required.

7 Emission Control Measures
7.1 Design Hierarchy
Key to vapour emission control is the following design hierarchy:

- Prevention (high pressure tanks, internal floating roofs);
- Reduction (high pressure tanks, white tank paint, solar shields, insulation);
- Recovery (vapour balancing or vapour recovery unit (VRU));
- Destruction (vapour destruction unit (VDU), off-site removal etc.)
High pressure tanks will strongly reduce daily breathing losses. However high pressure tanks will induce
high flow rates during breathing. These high peak flows shall be taken into account in the design of the
vapour treatment system, e.g. by introducing control valves between the tank and vapour lines.
Internal floating roofs will reduce emission, but may not always be preferred operationally for example in
case of toxic products, frequent product changes or frequent tank emptying (landing of floating roofs).
Toxic products will make subsequent tank entry extremely hazardous. Frequent roof landings may,
depending upon local legislation, require additional vapour treatment measures.
Vapour balancing systems can be used to minimise the need for vapour treatment systems thereby
reducing energy consumption and gaseous, liquid or solid waste from the treatment system.
However, the selection of best applicable measures in order to comply with stringent legislation is quite
complex especially for terminals storing and handling a multitude of chemicals and frequent change of
stored products. Guidance on the selection process is given in the following sections.
7.2 Basic Assumptions and Limitations on Vapour Treatments
This Guidance is based on the following assumptions and limitations concerning the application of
vapour control and treatment measures:
- For an existing IFR improvement of the efficiency by replacement of roof or seals should be
considered;
- Insulation of tanks only reduces breathing emissions and insulation as a emission reduction
measure alone is usually not cost effective;
- Products with high melting points require heating and insulation of tanks. For these tanks it is
assumed that breathing emissions are zero, because the influence of sun heat radiation will be
minimum (see Appendix 3). Insulation for heated tanks will in general be required to maintain tank
wall temperature and will in general be cost effective;
- From a health point of view, vapours should be routed away from normally manned areas where
there is a risk for exposure above the applicable threshold limit (local limit applies);
- Reduction of emissions during filling of small containers (drums, IBC’s) is addressed separately in
this Guidance (see Appendix 6). Contrary to storage and loading activities, closed transport of
vapours from a filling unit to a VRU/VDU or using vapour balancing is not feasible. For filling units
open extraction at the filling points is applied, which results in relatively large and very diluted
vapour streams. Combining these vapour streams with vapours from storage and loading
activities is therefore normally not advised;
- Emissions during ship-to-ship transfer are not considered;
- Emissions from tanks with liquefied gases or gasses under pressure are excluded from this
Guidance.
7.3 Overview of Technical Feasible Emission Control Measures (ECM)
Emission reduction measures may consist of new equipment (e.g. IFR, balancing lines, VRU, VDU) or
improvement or expansion of existing equipment. Additionally it is possible to select a combined

measure for several emission sources as an alternative for multiple “stand-alone” measures. The result
may be a multitude of possible options for the required emission reduction.
A quick-scan technical and economic evaluation of the various VRU and VDU options (chapter 11) will
result in a short-list of VRU and VDU options that are worthwhile evaluating in detail. This pre-selection
will be followed by the (final) selection of the preferred ECM, which is described in chapter 11.
Before a short list can be made, sufficient technical information on the various ECM’s is needed. In the
next chapters (8, 9, 10 and 11) “evaluation tools” are provided for the following groups of options:
- Emission prevention measures on storage tanks (Chapter 8)
o Application of high pressure tanks
o Painting / tank colour
o Insulation and/solar shields
o Improvement of existing EFR tanks
o Installation of new IFR’s
o Improvement of existing IFR’s
- Vapour balancing (Chapter 9)
o Installation of vapour balancing Lines
- Vapour treatment measures (Chapter 10)
o Installation of vapour recovery unit (VRU)
o Installation of vapour destruction unit (VDU)
For each emission source it has to be established which reduction measures are possible. The most
common measures are presented in Table 7.1.
Installation Existing measure Possible additional measure

A1 Only primary seal Secondary seal OR geodesic dome
A Tank with EFR A2 Primary and secondary seal Install better seals
A3 Primary seal and geodesic dome Install better seal
A4 Primary and secondary seal + dome none
B1 None, vent to atmosphere Uprate tank design pressure, VRU/VDU or
IFR
B Fixed roof tank B2 IFR Install better seal or replace with full
with PVV’s contact IFR
B3 Vapour balancing VRU/VDU
B4 VRU/VDU Improve VRU/VDU
B5 VRU/VDU + vapour balancing Improve VRU/VDU
C1 None, vent to atmosphere VRU/VDU or vapour balancing
C Jetty, gantry C2 Vapour balancing none
C3 VRU/VDU, only for jetty/gantry Improve VRU/VDU
C4 Vapour balancing + VRU/VDU Improve VRU/VDU
Table 7.1 - Overview of possible measures for individual emission source
The selection of possible combinations of emission sources requires some creativity and common sense
of the user of this Guidance.

8 Emission Prevention & Reduction Measures on Storage Tanks
8.1 High Pressure Tanks / Breather valves
Fixed roof tanks can be designed as atmospheric tanks (free vented), low pressure tanks (to
approximately 20 mbar internal pressure) or so-called ‘high pressure’ tanks (to approximately 56 or 100
mbar internal pressure). Atmospheric tanks are suitable for storage at atmospheric pressure and
therefore have open vents (although designed to withstand internal pressures up to 7.5 mbar and a
vacuum of 2.5 mbar). Both low pressure and high pressure fixed roof tanks are provided with
pressure/vacuum valves (PVV’s) or breather valves, which are fully open at the design pressure/vacuum.
Adding PVV’s will reduce the breathing emission losses; the bigger the difference between the vacuum
and pressure set point, the bigger the emission reduction will be. The actual reduction will also depend
on the product, the daily ambient temperature swings and the solar radiation. Typical breathing emission
reductions of 30% - 50% for 20 mbarg set pressure and 65% - 85% for 56 mbarg set pressure have been
reported.
If the design pressure of the fixed roof tank allows, existing free venting tanks could be equipped with a
PVV or the PVV set pressure could be raised. For new tanks, designing them as a ‘high pressure’ tank
needs to be considered.
8.2 Painting / Tank Colour
The tank colour influences the amount of solar radiation absorbed by aboveground tanks and, therewith,
the temperature of the liquid and vapour contents inside. This measure is applicable for all types of
aboveground tanks. The impact of the tank colour is limited if the tank is already fitted with a floating roof.
Table 8.1, from reference VDI 3479 [Ref. 20], shows the heat radiant reflectance percentage of different
colours on tanks.
Denomination of the colour Heat radiant total

reflectance, %
Black 3
Machine grey 10
Browne 12
Mouse grey 13
Green 14
Blue 19
Silver grey 27
Pebbly grey 38
Red 43
Light grey 51
Ivory coloured 57
Alu-silver 72
Cream white 72
White 84
Table 8.1: Heat radiant reflectance of different tank colours
From these tables, it can be concluded that a white painted tank has the lowest emission level compared
with other paint colours.

8.3 Insulation / Solar Shields
With application of insulation also breathing emissions can be reduced. With insulation layer of 5 cm
polyurethane approximately 80% reduction in breathing emissions can be achieved depending of type of
product. In general insulation is only feasible for smaller tanks. Insulation is very common on horizontal
liquefied gas tanks and refrigerated storage tanks.
A rather new development is the application of sunscreens or sunshields around vertical storage tanks.
This technique has been used on horizontal liquefied gas tanks. This approach focuses mainly on the
idea that one will reduce/prevent an increase in temperature of the vapour/product within the tank and
this in turn will lead to the potential for lower emissions.
The shields are positioned to minimise the solar impact onto the roof and shell of the tank. There is some
space left between shield and tank.
8.4 Improvement of existing EFR Tanks
The efficiency of existing EFR’s can be improved by exchanging seals for better types and/or by
installation of secondary seals and geodesic domes. The result of various improvement measures can be
derived from Table 8.2.
EFR-Configuration Type Seals Estimated Efficiency

(%)
Vapour mounted seal + wind 70
A1 Only primary seal shield
Liquid mounted seal + wind 80
shield
Liquid mounted primary + 90
A2 Primary and secondary shoe-mounted secondary
seal seal
Liquid mounted primary + 95
rim-mounted secondary seal
Primary seal and Vapour mounted primary seal 75
A3 geodesic dome Liquid mounted primary seal 95
Primary seal, secondary Liquid mounted primary + 98
seal and geodesic dome rim-mounted secondary seal
Table 8.2 - Estimated emission reduction efficiency of External Floating Roofs
New tanks with EFR's can still be applied for crude oils. For other oil products and chemicals, EFR tanks
are in most countries no longer allowed. Alternatives for these products are an EFR with a geodesic
dome or a fixed roof tank (with or without an IFR depending upon the product characteristics).
For existing EFR tanks used for oil products and chemicals exchanging seals, installation of a secondary
seal and/or installation of a geodesic dome can be options to reduce emissions.
8.5 Installation of New IFR’s
According the Vopak Standard ‘Selection of Internal Floating Roofs’ [Ref. 4] for new IFR’s a full contact
roof is preferred over a non-contact roof. Due to the vapour space under the non-contact roof, non-
contact roofs have lower vapour reduction efficiency.
Both Vopak Standard and the IPPC-BREF for Storage [Ref. 12] recommend liquid mounted Metallic
(stainless steel) shoe plate seals as primary seals. If required, a secondary seal may be mounted for
further emission reduction.

The investments for these types of full contact IFR’s shall be checked
8.6 Improvement of Existing IFR’s
In some cases it might be feasible to exchange an existing IFR. Prices for a new full contact IFR can be
derived from paragraph 7.2 (excluding costs for removing the existing IFR).
Normally improvement of an existing IFR will consist of replacement of the seal or the installation of a
secondary seal. The investment costs for a primary or secondary shall be checked
8.7 Known suppliers
Cargo Transfer Systems BV (IFR)

Coventrystraat 2
3047 AD Rotterdam
www.cargotransfer.net
Verwater Tankbouw (EFR)

P.O. Box 48
3190 AA Hoogvliet-Rotterdam
www.verwater.com
HMT Inc. (IFR)

Hill Street
Oldham OL4 2AG
Manchester, England UK
www.hmttank.com
Tank Systems (IFR)

Staalindustrieweg 3b,
2950 AA Alblasserdam
The Netherlands
www.tanksystems.nl

9 Vapour Balancing
9.1 Process Description
Vapour balancing implies a fixed connection between the vapour spaces of storage tanks and of mobile
vehicles (e.g. barges, trucks, railcars). During loading the vapours are forced to flow from the loaded
compartment to the compartment being emptied. The system does not work properly with loading arms
with cones as there is too much vapour loss to atmosphere, unless there is a fan. However with a fan,
care has to be taken that no false air is drawn into the system.
If both compartments contain saturated vapours with equal temperatures the vapour emission will be
zero. However, normally the vapour temperatures will not be equal or one of the compartments contain
unsaturated vapours (e.g. during loading of a gas-free barge). Due to a temperature difference between
vapour spaces the colder vapour will expand. If unsaturated vapour is transported this will eventually
result in evolution of vapour in the compartment receiving the unsaturated vapour. In either case this will
result in an emission from the storage tank, since the PVV on the tank will be the only emission source.
Typically the residual emission from a storage tank due to temperature difference and/or unsaturated
vapour is 10 % of the pump-rate, it is however recommended to always do a sanity check on the possible
evolution, by using the maximum vapour pressure of the product(s) of interest (see also chapter 5.4).
9.2 Technical Aspects
Vapour balancing is normally applied without the use of a vapour-blower. Transport of vapour occurs by
the pressure developed in the compartment being filled. For the design of a balancing line often an
allowable pressure of 55 mbar is assumed. However, for modern tank-trucks this pressure may be as
high as 3 barg, while storage tanks may allow pressures lower than 55 mbar.
In order to transport vapours without a blower the pressure-drop over the vapour line should be low. This
is accomplished by line-sizing and by restricting the vapour velocity. For long balancing lines the vapour
velocity is typically < 10 m/s.
The use of larger diameter lines versus smaller lines with a blower should be evaluated.
9.3 Design Aspects
Typical flow schemes of balancing lines are presented in appendix 5.
9.4 Cost Aspects
The cost shall be estimated on basis of available supplier information.

10 Vapour treatment
10.1 General
In case prevention and/or reduction measures on storage tanks and/or vapour balancing are not
sufficient to reach the vapour emission requirements, a vapour treatment technique must be applied.
The treatment of vapour flows can consist of either a technique for vapour recovery (Vapour Recovery
Unit or VRU), or a technique for vapour destruction (Vapour Destruction Unit or VDU).
Local authorities may require that vapour treatment techniques have to be approved prior to use.
When VRU’s or VDU’s are applied the investments consist of costs for the VRU/VDU and costs for
vapour collection and transport system.
10.2 Vapour Recovery Techniques
Applicable techniques for gasoline and other products at Vopak are:

- Adsorption;
- Membrane separation;
- Condensation;
- Absorption.
Not all absorption techniques are a recovery technique, some are a destruction technique.
Relevant data on the various vapour recovery techniques and VRU's are provided in Part B of this
Guidance document, Chapters 12 up to and including 15. For some products very low emission
concentrations are required, which can only be achieved by application of a polishing technique. Data on
polishing techniques are given in Part B, Chapter 19.
10.3 Vapour Destruction Techniques
In some situations it might be required to destroy the collected vapours by oxidation processes:
- Thermal oxidation;
- Catalytic oxidation;
- Gas engines.
These techniques have as main disadvantage is the limited turn-down ratio in relation to the
discontinuous vapour flow, which can cause a high requirement for auxiliary fuel. When selecting an
incinerator (thermal oxidation) the following options have to be considered:
- Heat recovery by pre-heating the waste gas and/or the primary air;
- Heat recovery by generation of steam, electricity, hot-oil.
- Application of a vapour holder;
Relevant data on the various vapour destruction techniques and VDU's are provided in Part B of this
Guidance document, Chapters 15 up to and including 19.

11 Vapour Handling & Treatment Selection Process
The following phases are defined in the lifetime of a VH&T project:
1. Identification Stage:
- Functional requirements & selection of VH&T options (plus 40% cost estimate);
2. Selection Stage:
- Selection of the preferred option for VH&T (plus 25% cost estimate);
3. Definition Stage:
- Development of Basic Design Package (plus 10% cost estimate);
4. Execution Stage :
- Detailed design;
- Installation VH&T system (including commissioning and start-up);
5. Evaluation Stage:
- Operational and technical performance;
- Performance measurements / Monitoring.
The VH&T Standard [Ref. 1] gives more information on the activities during the different phases. Below
Chapter 11.1 provides a checklist of activities to be done as part of the pre-selection during the
Identification Stage. Chapter 11.2 gives guidance on the final selection of the preferred Emission Control
Measure during the Selection Stage.
11.1 Pre-Selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure
During the Identification Stage of a VH&T project a pre-selection has to be made of technical feasible
techniques. From the pre-selection maximal three optional treatment techniques should result. In table
11.1 a list is given of the activities to be done by the Project Manager (PM) and/or the VH&T Focal Point
(FP) (whereby L means Leading and S means Supporting) in addition to those in the VH&T Standard
[Ref. 1].
Both the tool “Pre-selection Matrix Vapour Treatment”, which is available at supporting documents folder
on Quality On-Line, and the table A9.1 in Appendix 9, are available to support in the pre-selection.
Activities for pre-selection of VH&T technical feasible Project Focal Information

VH&T options (checklist) Manager Point Guidance
Chapter
General safety items
1. Apply the following principles: S L
a. Aim to prevent the formation of explosive 4
atmospheres;
or where the nature of the activity does not allow that:
b. Avoid the ignition of explosive atmospheres, and
c. Mitigate of the detrimental effects of an explosion so
as to ensure the health and safety of workers.
2. Check compability of products, especially in case of S L 5.3
condensation of incompatible products.
2. Ensure the following in case of untreated vapour S L
transport: 4, 9
a. Prevent ignition sources by e.g.: Appendix 4
I. Grounding of tanks and vapour lines and and 7
other parts that might accumulate static
electricity (e.g. floating roofs);
II. No moving parts with metal to metal contact
inside the tank;
III. Prevention of flame flash back when using

Chapter
vapour destruction systems (Clean enclosed
burners (CEB’s), incinerator, oxidizing unit
etc.).
b. Install the correct type of flame arrester (general
name for deflagration and detonation arresters) on
all vapour line connections at tanks, loading
facilities, jetties etc.
c. Design vapour lines (materials and pressure rating)
for pressures arising from detonation to ensure that
the detonation is contained (in combination with
installation of correct type of flame arresters; see
previous bullet point).
3. Take special precautions for certain products: S L
a. For non-conductive products which can become 4
electrostatic charged, which can be within their 5
flammable range a risk assessment is required to Appendix 2
establish whether extra precautions are required:
I. Prevent operations like blowing (turbulence
inside tank) etc.;
II. N2 blanketing as extra precaution.
b. Also for solidifying, polymerizing or oxidizing
products a risk assessment is required to establish
whether extra precaution are required:
I. Install a differential pressure alarm on the
detonation arrester;
II. Inerting instead of installing detonation
arresters;
III. In specific situations where detonation
arresters cannot be applied (e.g. butadiene)
it has to be proven that the product vapours
will never be in flammable range.
If improving existing measures
1. Consider: S L
a. Improving existing IFR/EFR-tanks 8
I. Other type of seals;
II. Other type of roof;
III. Adding a geodesic dome.
b. Improving existing vapour treatment units 12 – 20
I. Adding a polishing unit. 19
If internal floating roofs are installed
1. Determine requirements for residual vapour emission S L
control: 5.2
a. Emissions from roof landings;
b. Emissions from ship and barge loading;
c. Emissions from truck and rail car loading.
If vapour balancing is applied
1. Consider simple versus complex vapour balancing: S L
a. Complex systems can only be considered where the 4.3

Chapter
same or similar products are handled, as such a
system will be difficult to control and vapours might
end up in other tanks then from being loaded (check
contamination).
2. Consider whether it is desirable to transport vapours S L 4, 9
from (long) jetties back to the shore.
3. Check that the tank(s) has enough overpressure to drive S L 4, 9
the vapour transport.
4. Determine requirements and measures for residual S L
vapour emission control:
a. Excess vapour caused by vapour balancing 5
(evolution);
b. Tank breathing losses;
c. Ship and barge loading;
d. Truck and rail car loading.
If vapour treatment is required
1. Consider simple versus complex vapour treatment S L
systems: 4.3
a. Complex vapour treatment systems result in larger
VRU's or VDU’s, can be more difficult to tune, can
require more control measures and may create
more risk of failure.
2. Consider one large unit or multiple smaller units: S L 4.3
a. To ensure minimum required availability and to
create redundancy depending upon the importance
of the unit for business continuity. Items to also take
into consideration are redundancy of critical
installation parts (pumps, actual VRU unit) and
redundancy of flame arresters (require regular
maintenance/cleaning by a specialized company);
b. To minimise energy and/or utility consumption,
residual waste and CO2 emissions;
c. To achieve required flexibility:
i. Variations in vapour flow;
ii. Variation in vapour composition (e.g. N2
content).
3. Size the capacity accurate to prevent over- or S L 5.4
undercapacity?
4. Consider whether it is desirable to transport vapours S L
from (long) jetties back to the shore. 4
5. Check for Best Applicable Techniques: S L
a. Adsorption;
b. Absorption; 12 – 17
c. Condensation;
d. Membrane filtration;
e. Thermal oxidation / combustion;
f. Catalytic oxidation / combustion.

Chapter
6. Select Best Applicable Techniques based on: S L 11.2
a. Safety: - How safe is the system to operate?
b. Compability - Especially for condensate.
c. Cost - Initial capital cost and ongoing
operational costs
d. Performance: - Will the technique meet the
emission requirements?
- Is a polishing unit required?
e. Capacity: - Will the technique be able to handle
the vapour flow?
f. Reliability: - Is the technique sufficient reliable?
g. Flexibility: - Will the technique be able to handle
variations in products, vapour
quality and flow?
h. Operability: - How easy is the system to operate?
- Does it need maintenance?
- Does it impose operational
restrictions?
i. Cross Media: - Is emission converted to another
waste (gas, solid or liquid)?
j. Energy/sustainability:
- Energy consumption with
different vapour composition?
- Is energy recovery possible?
- Consider LCA aspects.
k. Cost: - Consider initial capital costs and
ongoing operating costs.
l. Control - Start-up and shut-down time
- Turn down ratio
- Temporary overload
Table 11.1 - Activities for pre-selection of VH&T technical feasible VH&T options (checklist)
11.2 Final Selection of the preferred Emission Control Measure
The result of the activities described in the previous chapters will be a list of feasible options for emission
reduction. In the Selection Stage of a VH&T project, the final selection of the preferred Emission Control
Measure (ECM) needs to be made.
Basically the options discussed in the previous chapters comprise the following measures:
- Applying high pressure tank and breather valve;
- Applying appropriate painting / tank colour;
- Applying insulation and/or solar shields;
- Improvement of existing EFR-tanks;
- Improvement of existing IFR-tanks;
- Installation of a new IFR in a fixed roof tank;
- Application of a vapour balancing line;
- Application of a VRU or VDU (with or without vapour balancing).
A detailed evaluation of tanks with EFR's and IFR's and the application of vapour balancing lines is
straightforward and will be similar to the quick-scan evaluation.

The application of VRU/VDU's, possibly in combination with vapour balancing lines, is more complex in
view of the vapour collection and transport lines required. Collecting vapour stream introduces additional
safety risks (see for more information also chapter 4). For these systems safe measures and associated
costs will have to be included as well.
When all technical and economical data are available a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) will be performed
by an expert team in an evaluation session.
The expert team should as a minimum consist of:

- Project Manager;
- Focal Point;
- Project Owner/Internal Customer;
- Operations representative;
- SHE representative;
Multi-criteria analyse
Good decisions need clear objectives. These should be specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-
dependent. A multi-criteria analysis is a tool for an integral comparison of different options. By assigning
higher weight factors for more important criteria different ECM’s can be ranked. The ECM with the
highest score is the preferred ECM.
All MCA approaches make the options and their contribution to the different criteria explicit, and all
require the exercise of judgement. They differ however in how they combine the data. Formal MCA
techniques usually provide an explicit relative weighting system for the different criteria. The main role of
the techniques is to deal with the difficulties that human decision-makers have been shown to have in
handling large amounts of complex information in a consistent way. MCA techniques can be used to
identify a single most preferred option, to rank options, to short-list a limited number of options for
subsequent detailed appraisal, or simply to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable possibilities.
A standard MCA for VH&T projects has been developed. The MCA for VH&T projects already have been
applied within Vopak for a number of cases but should be further optimized. In table 11.2 the proposed
set-up for the MCA is presented. For each VH&T project this table should be used. At the start of the
team analysis the team has to decide upon the actual relevant list of criteria and the weight factors (1 =
low weight till 10 high weight).
Thereafter the MCA is being performed by ranking arch criteria with the following scores:
-2 Poor performance
-1 Below average performance
0 Average performance
1 Above average performance
2 Good performance
For further reading on MCA see [Ref. 24].
The specified criteria and weights are suggested; they should be discussed at the start of the multi-
criteria analysis evaluation session and adapted where considered necessary by the expert team. The
option with the highest score is the option with the highest probability to be the best Emission Control
Measure.
In appendix 10 a recent example of a MCA [Ref. 26] can be found. A blank template (Excel file) can be
found in the supporting documents section of this standard.

PART B: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF VRU
AND VDU TECHNIQUES
In Part B an overview of vapour treatment techniques is given:
- Vapour recovery techniques, Chapter 12 up to and including 15;
- Vapour destruction techniques, Chapter 15 up to and including 18;
- Polishing techniques, Chapter 19;
- Some less common techniques for Vopak: biological techniques, Chapter 20.
More technical information can be found e.g. at VITO (Belgium) and Infomil (Netherlands) in the
Factsheets on air emission abatement techniques [Ref. 27].
Note: All prices mentioned in this document are in Euro's and based on European 2007 price levels.
The prices are only meant for initial costing and comparison between different vapour treatment
options.
Chapter 21 emission, measurement and monitoring aspects are addressed and Chapter 22 gives the list
of references.

12 Adsorption
Only regenerative adsorption systems are considered in this Guidance Document. Systems using active
carbon without recovery will created carbon waste to be disposed off and are normally only applied for
small vapour streams.
In a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit volatile organic components (VOC’s) are removed from a
vapour stream by adsorption on activated carbon. After loading the activated carbon the adsorbed VOC’s
are removed by evaporation under vacuum.
Normally a PSA-unit consists of two parallel beds of activated carbon. While one bed is loaded with
VOC’s the other bed is regenerated. A typical flow-scheme is presented in figure 1.
The transport of the vapour flow through the unit is accomplished by displacement of vapours due to
filling vessels with liquid. Alternatively a suction blower, which therefore operates in a clean and normally
safe environment, can be applied. For regeneration of a carbon-bed a vacuum-pump is applied. The
evaporated VOC’s are either absorbed in a flow of a stored product or condensed in a heat exchanger.
The cycle-time for absorption/regeneration in case of recovery of concentrated VOC-vapours is typically
10 - 15 minutes. Regeneration starts immediately after the adsorption cycle. Change-over from
adsorption-mode to regeneration-mode is controlled either by temperature-indication, concentration
measurement or a preset timer. During regeneration a minimal flow through the carbon bed is necessary
in order to remove the evaporated VOC’s. Therefore a part of the effluent of the carbon-bed in
adsorption-mode is directed to the carbon-bed in regeneration-mode.

System Configurations
Mainly two system configurations are applied. If a liquid is available in which the recovered VOC’s can be
dissolved the configuration presented in figure 1 is preferred. If such a liquid is not available the
configuration presented in figure 2 is applied.
In both configurations a liquid-ring vacuum pump can be used, which applies an immiscible liquid with
low vapour pressure (e.g. ethylene glycol/water mixture) as a ring-liquid. If the vapour contains
components that will dissolve in the ring liquid (e.g. ethanol) the application of a dry vacuum pump
should be considered.
12.3 Technical and Economical Aspects
In general PSA will work with most efficiently for components with a boiling point between 50°C and
120°C.Typical applications of a PSA are the recovery of gasoline, crude and kerosene vapours. Some
chlorinated and cyclic components, alcohols and MTBE and ETBE can be treated with PSA.
Detailed technical and economic data for PSA are presented in tables 1 and 2. The tables provide
information on systems capable of typical effluent concentrations of respectively 10 g/Nm3 and 150
mg/Nm3 on gasoline (The tables are provided by courtesy of Aker Kvaerner Cool Sorption A/S).

VRU/VDU with typical effluent VOC-concentration 10 g/ Nm3
3
System capacity m /h 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Type of VRU/VDU DCVA DCVA CVA CVA CVA
Turn-down ratio 0 to 250 0 to 500 0 to 1,000 0 to 1,500 0 to 2,000
Carbon bed size (d x h) m 2.3 x 2.5 2.8 x 3.4 3.0 x 4.3 3.3 x 4.6 3.6 x 6.5
Weight carbon bed kg 8,700 13,500 21,500 24,000 35,000
Skid size (l x w) m 2.4 x 6.0 2.4 x 6.0 3.0 x 10.0 3.3 x 12.0 3.6 x 12.0
Installed total power kW 35 63 180 285 535
Consumed total power kW 24 50 135 196 356
3
Adsorbent supply flow m /h 18 38 86 140 210
rate
Budget prices € 380,000 € 430,000 € 530,000 € 650,000 € 900,000

3
Table 1 - VRU/VDU with typical effluent VOC-concentration 10 g/ Nm
VRU/VDU with typical effluent VOC-concentration 150 mg/ Nm3

3
System capacity m /h 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Type of VRU/VDU DCVA CVA CVA CVA CVA
Turn-down ratio 0 to 250 0 to 250 0 to 1,000 0 to 1,500 0 to 2,000
Carbon bed size (d x h) m 2.3 x 2.5 2.8 x 3.4 3.0 x 4.3 3.3 x 4.6 3.6 x 6.5
Weight carbon bed kg 8,700 13,500 21,500 24,000 35,000
Skid size (l x w) m 2.4 x 6.0 2.4 x 6.0 3.0 x 10.0 3.3 x 12.0 3.6 x 12.0
Installed total power kW 63 142 285 535 580
Consumed total power kW 50 99 196 356 380
3
Adsorbent supply flow m /h 38 70 140 210 415
rate
Budget prices € 430,000 € 540,000 € 685,000 € 870,000 € 970,000
Table 2 - VRU/VDU with typical effluent VOC-concentration 150 mg/ Nm3
Emission Concentration
With PSA very low VOC-emissions are feasible. This is mainly accomplished by increasing the bed-size.
For example: benzene concentrations either from gasoline or from pure benzene vapour can be less
than 5 mg/Nm3.
However methane and ethane are poorly absorbed and may cause emission problems, especially if very
low VOC emissions are required.
Requirements for Electrical Power

A unit according figure 2 can either operate with cooling-water (max. 10°C) or with coolant from a
refrigeration unit. The power requirement is respectively 0.15 kWh / Nm3 and 0.30 kWh / Nm3.
Instrument Air
Instrument air can be applied for valve operation. In this situation the requirement is typically 0.1 Nm3/min
(at 7 bar).

Restriction Concerning Vapour Components
The presence of sulphur in the waste gas can cause problems with the activated carbon, such as
deposition of elemental sulphur. If sulphur is present (e.g. H2S and mercaptans in crude vapours) the
problems can be avoided by pre-treatment in a sacrificial carbon bed (front-end guard bed). This bed
contains a specific carbon-type which is selective for sulphur. Such guard beds are relatively small
compared to the regenerative beds and typically have to be exchanged every 6 to 12 months.
Design Considerations
During adsorption on activated carbon heat is generated. This so-called heat of adsorption is
approximately of the same order of magnitude as the heat released by condensation of VOC’s.
Vapours containing aldehydes, ketones, acrylates should not be treated by adsorption on activated
carbon. These components generate uncontrollable heat due to effects such as oxidation and
polymerisation.
An example is MethylEthylKetone. Due to this heat so-called “hot-spots” may develop during adsorption,
which increase the risk of ignition of the activated carbon. Ignition occurs at a temperature of
approximately 280°C.
In order to eliminate the formation of hot-spots the following measures are applied:
- Prior to start-up of a new carbon bed the bed is pre-loaded with a diluted (and sometimes inert)
vapour flow that contains low concentrations of VOC’s. Vapours from products such as gasoline
are perfect for preload operation These vapour components preferably occupy the most active
locations on the activated carbon and will remain on these locations during regeneration;
- During regeneration the under-pressure is restricted in order to avoid evaporation of the high-
boiling VOC’s from these active locations;
- Prior to shut-down of a unit both beds have to be regenerated. In a non-regenerated carbon bed
still some heat may be generated which is not removed by a vapour flow. This generated heat
can not be detected after shut-down;
- Moreover; a fully regenerated unit is immediately available for operation;
- The unit should not be operated at temperatures > 80 °C, detected by thermo-couples in the
carbon beds.
As an additional safety measure the unit can be supplied with bottles of pressurized nitrogen, which will
remove oxygen if a high temperature or a high level of CO is detected.
12.4 Known Suppliers
Aker Kvaerner Cool Sorption A/S.

Smedeland 6, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark
Web: www.coolsorption.com
Contact: Mr. S. Shipley, Business Line Manager
e-mail: simon.shipley@akersolutions.com or cs@coolsorption.com
Tel: +45 4345 4745
John Zink International Luxembourg Sarl

Zone industrielle ‘Riedgen’
L-3401 Dudelange, Luxembourg
Contact: Mr. M.Kool
Tel: +352 51899260
e-mail: maarten.kool@johnzink.com

CarboVac Environmetal Services
38 Rue de Paris
94470 Boissy Saint Leger, France
Tel: +33 1 45 98 00 17
e-mail: ties.mulder@carbovac.com
MegTec
United States
MEGTEC Systems, Inc.
Telephone: +1-920-336-5715
Toll-free: +1-800-558-2884
United Kingdom
MEGTEC Systems, Ltd.
Telephone: +44-1628-59-1700

13 Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration is based on separation of VOC’s from a mixture of VOC-vapours and air or inert gas
by a semi-permeable membrane. This membrane has a larger affinity for VOC’s than for air. The VOC’s
are passing through the membrane preferably. Thereby the raw vapours are divided into a VOC-lean and
a VOC rich stream. The VOC-lean stream, referred to as “retentate”, is vented to atmosphere or to a
polishing unit. The VOC-rich stream, referred to as “permeate”, is fed to the raw gas upstream of the
compressor. The driving force for separation of VOC’s from the original vapour stream are concentration
level in the raw vapour stream and pressure ratio over the membrane.
Therefore a membrane installation typically consists of the following equipment:

- A liquid-ring compressor, which applies VOC-condensate (or stored product) as a ring-liquid.
Depending on the application also piston-type or screw compressors can be used;
- A scrubber, which applies cold or ambient VOC-condensate (or the stored product) as a
scrubber-liquid. In the scrubber VOC-vapours are condensed or, in case of lean raw vapours, the
raw vapours are enriched. If a liquid-ring compressor is applied, this also attributes to
condensation or enrichment of the raw vapours downstream of the compressor. Upstream of the
compressor the raw vapour are enriched by the high-concentrated permeate vapours. In any case
the vapour effluent of the scrubber has a relatively high concentration;
- Membrane module with a sufficient surface-area for the required removal efficiency;
- Normally a liquid-ring or a rotary vane vacuum pump to support a sufficient pressure ratio over
the membrane;
- Product and/or condensate pumps if the system pressure is not sufficient to return product to the
storage tank.
System Configurations
For most applications a configuration as presented in figure 1 is selected. This configuration uses a
stored product as absorbent and as ring-liquid for the compressor. For the vacuum pump liquids with a
high vapour pressure are required in order to generate a sufficiently low pressure. The recovered vapour
components are mixed with the stored product.
In situations where an absorbent is not available configurations as presented in figure 2 and 3 are used.
Normally both a compressor and a vacuum pump are applied for the required pressure ratio over the
membrane. If, for the same removal efficiency, only a compressor is applied the requirement for electrical
power will increase and the required membrane surface area will be smaller. Generally configuration 1
(see figure 1) is the most economic system.

Figure 1 - Membrane filtration installation (configuration 1)

All configurations can be provided with a polishing unit for the retentate. The techniques for polishing can
be Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), catalytic oxidation, thermal regenerative oxidation or a gas engine.
For configuration 1 PSA is the most applied polishing technique, because a vacuum pump for
regeneration of the adsorbent (activated carbon or zeolyte) is already available.
13.2 Applicability
Pressure and pressure ratio

For removal of the products, relevant for this guideline, the pressure ratio over the membrane is normally
25. This ratio is established by a compression to 2.5 barg and a vacuum of 0.1 bar.
If a configuration without a vacuum pump is applied the vapours are generally compressed to maximum
7-8 bar.
Removal efficiency
For removal of gasoline vapours the system is normally adapted to an emission limit of 20 g/Nm3. An
emission concentration of 1 – 2 g/Nm3 is generally feasible for a single-stage configuration. In some
applications concentrations as low as 0.15 g/Nm3 are feasible, e.g. at a Shell site in Germany where a
unit is in operation for abatement of platformate vapour with a high aromatic content. If a very low
emission concentration is required a polishing technique is required (e.g. for benzene a concentration of
< 5 mg/Nm3 is required).
Required absorbent
The absorbent should preferably have a low vapour pressure in order to minimize the power
requirement. At gasoline terminals gasoline can be used as an absorbent and ring-liquid. At chemical
terminals it is often possible to use condensate of the VOC-vapours, although this should be discussed
beforehand with the vendor.

The main requirement is a clean liquid that does not foul the scrubber internals.
The required amount of absorbent is generally 4 m3/h for a system capacity of
100 Nm3/h. Of this approximately 1/3 is fed to the compressor as ring-liquid and 2/3 is fed directly to the
scrubber.
Power requirement
The requirement for electrical power is in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 kWh/m3 treated vapour mixture. In
Shell- applications with an emission requirement of 20 g/Nm3 the power requirement is lower than 0.15
kWh/m3 for an operation with platformate as operating liquid.
Turn-down ratio
The three configurations mentioned can operate from 0 to 100% of design capacity.
System capacities
System capacities generally range from 100 to 3500 Nm3/h.
Typical data on membrane-units are presented in table 1.
Typical design data of membrane-units

Parameter System capacity config 1 (see fig.1)
3 3
450 Nm /h 1000 Nm /h
Inlet concentration VOC % vol. 30
3
Outlet concentration VOC g / Nm < 10
2
Membrane area per module m 27
Required number of modules - 9
Membrane type - PAN / POMS
Working pressure bar abs. 3.5
Absorbent - VOC-condensate
3
Adsorbent flow m /h 45
3
Compressor capacity m /h 1500
Compressor power kW 200
3
Vacuum pump capacity Nm /h 500
Vacuum pump power kW 115
Total installed power kW 310
3
Instrument air (6 barg) Nm /h 1–3
3
Cooling water m /h 40
Main dimensions (l x b x h) M 6 x 2,4 x 4 8x6x6
Weight Tons 6 16
Table 1 - Typical design data of membrane-units
Portable tanks and tankers for recovered products

Portable storage tanks come in a wide variety of sizes. The portability of the tanks allows them to be
moved rapidly to the fire or spillage location, or to where any run-off has been contained. If a portable
tank is to be used during an incident, the following measures need to be considered:
- As part of the emergency plan, suitable points in the drainage systems must be
- identified at which the drainage pipe can be blocked and a man-hole chamber used as a pump
sump to transfer contaminated waters to the tank. A suitable pump, which may need to be flame-
proof, will also be required;
- Locations for the erection of scrubber liquid tanks must be pre-selected, ensuring that there is
both sufficient space and an adequate foundation;

- Consideration may also be given in the emergency plan to the re-use of the collected water to
tackle the fire. This should take into account the materials present on site and the risks to
equipment, through contamination, and to the safety of fire crews;
- Vacuum or similar mobile tankers may also be used for collecting and containing small spills.
Design Considerations
The recovered liquid contains dissolved air (or inert gas if applied), which will escape eventually from the
liquid. This will cause an increase of tank emissions.
In some installations foaming was experienced in a condensate vessel.
The dissolved amount of air is depending on the pressure in the scrubber and is estimated at 1,8 kg per
1 ton gasoline for a 4 bar system and 4 kg / ton for an 8 bar system.
Another problem, often experienced, is fouling of the scrubber internals. This is mainly caused by
corrosion of CS piping and/or fine particles from compartments of a barge. Particles in the vapour flow
from a barge also cause fouling of detonation arresters.
Of course this is a general problem which is not limited to membrane technology
Special attention is required for safeguarding the compressor. As the compressor has to be located
upstream of the unit it operates in an explosive environment. Compressors are available with zone 0
certification in accordance with ATEX requirements (see appendix 3).
Membranes can be applied for most products commonly stored. One of the exceptions is Tetra Hydro
Furan (THF). For more details contact the membranes suppliers.
13.3 Economical Aspects
The investments for an installation with a capacity of Q Nm3/h can be expressed as:
Investment (€)= (Q )0.64 x 14,000
This relation applies to configuration 1 (see fig.1).The presented relation is accurate (+/- 5%) for system
capacities between 450 and 1,000 Nm3/h.
If a polishing unit is required the investment has to be increased with 20 – 25%.
The operational costs for system configurations 2 and 3 (see fig. 2 and 3) are approximately 30 to 50 %
higher than operational costs for configuration 1.
In table 2 typical investments are presented for a system according configuration 1 with a capacity of
3
1000 Nm /h.
Investments for a membrane unit (configuration 1, 1000 Nm3/h)

Cost item Description Investment
Membrane unit Ex works € 1,050,000.--
Including: 6 m vent stack, control cabinet,
Controls + PLC
Condensate unit Including: vessel, pump heat-exchanger, € 120,000.--
instrumentation
SCADA-PC-system Including monitor € 12,500.--
Transport to site Transport by truck € 12,500.--
Installation, commissioning pm
Start-up services and instruction pm
Total investment € 1,195,000.--

Specialised in gasoline VRU’s:

Borsig GmbH Membrane Technology
Am Rhein 5, D-79618 Rheinfelden,
Germany
Tel: +49 7623 96609-22
Fax: +49 7623 96609-50
Contact; Denis Hoesch, Sales manager
Web: www.borsig-mt.com.
Specialised in chemical VRU’s, delivers also gasoline VRU’s:

Sterling Fluid Systems (Netherlands) B.V.
Project engineer BU Chemie
Tel: +31-251-263129
Fax: +31-251-226309
E-mail: rob_vlaar@sterlingfluid.com
Internet: http://www.sterlingsihi.com/

14 Condensation
Condensation implies the cooling of the vapour flow to very low temperatures in heat-exchangers. The
cooling can be accomplished by either conventional compression-evaporation refrigeration of liquids
such as propane, butane, R23, ammonia.
Cooling with liquid nitrogen is generally referred to as cryo-condensation. Also combinations of
conventional refrigeration and cry-condensation are applied.
Generally the following types of condensation techniques are applied.
Type 1 - Condensation by conventional refrigeration

Conventional cooling in several steps by applying refrigerants such as propane, butane, R22. Generally
three heat-exchangers are applied (see figure 1). The first heat-exchanger cool the vapour to + 2 ºC in
order to remove most of the water vapour. The second heat-exchanger cools to -30 / -40 ºC and has to
be defrosted frequently to remove ice. The third heat exchanger cools the vapour to - 60 / -80 ºC.
Type 2 - Absorption condensation

Direct condensation of vapour in cold condensate. The condensate is cooled by conventional
refrigeration (see figure 2). Normally a bath temperature of -35 ºC is applied. Contrary to indirect
condensation techniques no aerosols are formed. Also problems with an insulating gas-film on the heat
exchanger surface are avoided. The effect of absorption of components in the cold liquid improves the
efficiency. Due to the relatively high temperature of the bath a polishing unit is required in order to
decrease the vapour emission concentration. Normally catalytic oxidation is applied as a polishing
technique.

Type 3 - Conventional condensation with crygenic polishing
Indirect step-wise condensation by conventional refrigeration in several heat-exchangers, where the last
heat-exchanger (cryo-condenser) applies liquid nitrogen (see figure 3).

Combination of conventional cooling and cryo-condensation. The difference with conventional cooling is
that in the third heat-exchanger liquid nitrogen is applied). Some special designs apply direct injection of
liquid nitrogen in the vapour flow as a final condensation step.
Type 4 - Cryo-condensation (injection of liquid nitrogen)

Indirect condensation in a heat-exchanger by applying liquid nitrogen (see figure 4). A one-step process
that applies liquid nitrogen as feed for a heat-exchanger. Typically a vapour temperature of -100 to -
160ºC can be achieved.
Type 5 - Cryo-condensation (injection of cold nitrogen gas)

Indirect condensation in heat exchangers applying cold gaseous nitrogen (see figure 5).
A process that first evaporates liquid nitrogen and feeds the gaseous nitrogen at a temperature of – 170
˚C to a heat-exchanger. The nitrogen heated in this exchanger is used for evaporation of liquid nitrogen.
The re-cooled nitrogen is fed into a second heat-exchanger. A third heat-exchanger is applied for re-
heating the cold clean gas.
(Duo-Condex system of Messer Group GmbH).

14.2 Applicability
During removal of vapour components most of these components will freeze to some extend, depending
on de configuration of the heat-exchangers. Therefore condensation units are provided with a defrost
cycle. In conventional condensation the first condensation steps consist of two parallel heat exchangers
of which one can be operated in a defrost mode. Defrosting typically requires 1-2 hours.
The systems Duo-Condex of Messer is provided with a special design of the heat-exchangers in which
part of the ice is removed by the down flowing condensate. These results in a reduced frequency for
defrost.
An additional problem of components with high melting point is the possible formation of aerosols. These
aerosols are not removed from the vapour flow. Aerosol formation is mainly to be expected if liquid
nitrogen is applied in the heat-exchanger. By the large heat-exchange at the vapour inlet vapour
components tend to condensate in the vapour flow and not on the heat-exchanger surface.
The residual vapour is emitted at a low temperature. This vapour is very dense and tends to flow down
from the stack instead of dispersing in the atmosphere. Therefore the residual flow is often re-heated to
approximately + 15 ºC in an additional heat-exchanger.
The pressure drop over (cryo-) condensation units is typically in the range of 5 to 10 mbar. Therefore
fans or blowers are usually not required for transport of vapours. The application of a polishing unit may
imply that a blower is required. In this situation a suction blower should be applied, which avoids the
necessity for safeguarding measures (e.g. detonation arresters).

Cryo-condensation units are available as modular units with nominal capacities up to 500 or 1000 Nm3/h.
Installations which apply conventional cooling are available for larger capacities. All units can be applied
between 0% and 200% of the nominal capacity, although the removal efficiency above 100% capacity
will be reduced. The advantage is that a temporary large overload is possible without failure of the unit.
Advantage of cryo-condensation over other VRU/VDU techniques:

- During over-load it is not necessary to shut-down the unit: Vapour emissions can still be reduced,
although less efficient;
- Pressure drop over the unit is very low (except for type 2).
Cryo-condensation
If liquid nitrogen is applied the re-use of the residual gaseous nitrogen may be considered. However in
most situations a re-use will prove to be too expensive. For example: The recompression of a
discontinuous nitrogen flow from a vapour recovery unit in order to add this nitrogen to an existing
nitrogen system ( 6-7 barg) may require an investment in excess of € 30,000.--.
The requirement for liquid nitrogen is 1 Nm3 N2 / Nm3 waste gas.

Costs for liquid nitrogen are € 0.14 / Nm3 at a requirement of 250,000 kg N2/year
3
The investments for a standard cryo-condensation unit with a nominal capacity of 500 m /h is € 196,500.-
-. The weight of a standard unit is approximately 1800 kg.
For handling the recovered condensate a condensate storage facility and a pump-unit for transport of
condensate to a storage tank or slops tank. This requires an investment of
€ 40,000.--. A polishing unit (PSA based on zeolytes) with a capacity of 500 Nm3/h requires an
investment of € 135,000.--. The storage-facility for liquid nitrogen ( typically 20 – 30 m3 ) is normally
supplied at a rental basis. The rental costs are approx. € 750 / month.
Conventional multi-step cooling:

The main operating utility is electrical power. The requirement for recovery of gasoline is 0.2 kWh/ m3
vapour. For less volatile vapour components the power requirement will be less (e.g. for diesel, jet-fuel
0.08 kWh/m3).
The investment for a complete unit with a nominal capacity of 600 Nm3/h is € 600,000.--.
This is excluding a storage facility for condensate and a pumping system for transport of condensate to
storage tank.
Linde Gas Benelux B.V.

Havenstraat 1
3100 AB Schiedam
The Netherlands
Contact: Mr. W. van Dorth
Tel: 0031 10 2461322
wim.van.dorth@nl.lindegasbenelux.com
AirProducts Chemicals Europe B.V.

Kanaalweg 15, 3526 KL Utrecht, The Netherlans
Tel. 030 - 285 71 00
http://www.airproducts.nl/productsmarkets.htm

Messer Group GmbH
Gahlingspfad 31
D-47803 Krefeld, Germany
Contact: Mr. S.Terkatz
Tel: 0049 2151 7811 240
stefan.terkatz@messergroup.com

15 Absorption
With absorption processes components are removed from a vapour flow by dissolving (absorption) in a
liquid. The removal efficiency is depending on the solvability of components and on the intensity of liquid-
vapour contact.
Due to dissolving of vapour components the concentration in the liquid will increase thus decreasing the
removal efficiency. In order to maintain a required efficiency the following measures are normally applied:
- Frequent exchange of the liquid stock. During operation the removal efficiency will decrease. If
the maximum allowable emission concentration is reached the entire liquid stock has to be
exchanged for fresh liquid;
- Continuous bleed of liquid and supply of fresh liquid. This way the removal efficiency will remain
constant (see note);
- Addition of chemicals to the liquid which react with dissolved components. This way even
components with low solvability can be removed relatively efficient.
Note: From a vapour treatment efficiency point of view a continuous bleed is preferred. When this is
not feasible in practice, an alternative is to let the scrubber fluid to saturate and replace it in one
batch. This will however require regular sampling and testing of the scrubber fluid to see whether
the scrubber fluid has become saturated and to guarantee the scrubber efficiency.
Types of Scrubbers
Efficient operation of scrubbers is depending on the intensity of liquid-gas contact. Therefore various
types of scrubbers were developed, which differ in this contact intensity.
Mainly applied types of scrubbers are:

- Counter current scrubbers (both packed bed and spray-towers);
- Cross flow scrubbers;
- Venturi scrubbers (mainly applied for dust and aerosol removal);
- Centrifugal scrubbers (mainly applied for dust removal).
The type normally applied for removal of vapour components is the counter current scrubber provided
with a packed bed of contact elements. These elements are normally saddles or rings made of metal,
ceramics or plastic (e.g. Berl-saddles, Rasschig rings, Intelox saddles). A simplified scheme of this type
of scrubber is provided in fig.1.
Schemes of the other types of scrubbers are presented in figures 2, 3 and 4.

Fig. 1: Counter current scrubber
The clean gas vent will require

detonation arrester, if a gas free
system cannot be guaranteed.
The clean gas vent will

require detonation arrester, if
a gas free system cannot be
guaranteed.

The clean gas vent will
require detonation arrester, if
a gas free system cannot be
guaranteed.

Types of Scrubber Liquids
The normally applied liquids are:
- Water:
This liquid is applied for components with high solvability, such as ethanol and methanol.
Antifreeze additive might be required depending upon ambient temperatures. This antifreeze
additive should not interfere with the scrubber efficiency.
- Water with added chemicals:

Typical chemicals are caustic soda or sodium hypochlorite. These chemicals will react with
dissolved components. This so-called “chemisorption” is often applied for removal of components
such as acrylates and mercaptans.
- Organic liquids:
Typical liquids are kerosene or gas oil. Components with low solvability in water (a-polar
components such as toluene) dissolve good in these liquids.
During the selection of a scrubber liquid the disposal or regeneration of spent liquid should be
considered.
15.2 Applicability
Design Criteria of Counter Current Scrubbers

The following general rules can be applied for a preliminary design of a scrubber:
- The superficial vapour velocity should be 2.5 m/s;
- The mass flow of liquid (L = kg/h) is normally 3 to 5 times the mass flow of vapour (L/G = 3-5);
- The height of a single packed bed is maximum 5 times the diameter of the column. Of more bed
height is required several separate beds should be applied. In order to guarantee an optimal
liquid distribution. For most application a bed height of 3 times the column diameter will be
sufficient;
- The diameter of the packing elements should be less than 0,1 times the column diameter;
- With counter current scrubbers removal efficiencies up to 95% are feasible, provided the vapour
components are very soluble and the scrubber is well designed. An optimal design implies that
contact between liquid and vapour is optimal for all operational conditions. However, this is an
aspect of concern for scrubbers;
- The storage and loading emissions are characterized by a variable flow and concentration and
L/G may be less than 3. The may result in a decrease in efficiency. Generally a turn-down ratio in
vapour flow of 1:3 results in a still acceptable efficiency;
Example: General appearance of a scrubber

Polluted vapour flow 1000 m3/h (approx. 840 kg/h)
2 2
Surface aera of column: 1000/(3600 x 2.5) = 0.11 m (= Π/4 x d )
Diameter column: d = 0.37 m
Height packed bed: l = 3 x 0.37 = 1.1 m
3
Liquid flow: Q = 3 x 840 = 2,520 kg/h = approx. 2.5 m /h
Diameter elements: 0.1 x 0.37 x 1000 = max. 37 mm
3
Min. vapour flow: 1000 / 3 = approx. 300 m /h (in order to maintain η)

- The evaporation of scrubber liquid should be considered, resulting in an increase of the
concentration of dissolved components. The frequency of refreshing or the amount of liquid
supply will increase.
Applicability for Loading and Storage Emissions

An efficiency of 90% may be acceptable in some situations. However, the storage and loading emissions
are characterized by variation in vapour flow and concentration. Therefore a high efficiency can not be
guaranteed for all operational conditions. For this reason scrubbers are generally less acceptable for
application as a VRU/VDU. Application as a measure for (limited) odour reduction is feasible.
The investment for a counter-current scrubber (liquid: water + caustic soda) can be estimated according:
Investment (€) = (Qv)0.6 x 500

3
Qv = vapour flow (m /h)
3
This relation is applicable for investment estimates of installations with capacities over 10,000 m /h.
The investment concerns an installation delivered ex-works and includes the following equipment:
- Column (SS);
- column packing (SS);
- support construction;
- liquid storage;
- interconnecting piping;
- circulation pump;
- instruments (pH, temperature, level, flow, conductivity);
For installations with a capacity < 10,000 m3/h the above mentioned relation is applicable for installations
including the following equipment:
- Column (SS);
- column packing (SS);
- support construction;
- liquid storage;
- interconnecting piping;
- circulation pump;
Rauschert Verfahrenstechnik GmbH

Postbus 20
D-96347 Steinwiesen
Duitsland
E-mail: infor@rvtpe.de
Website: www.rvtpe.de
Tel: 0049 9262 77-0
Montair-Andersen
Heuvelsestraat 14
5976 NG Kronenberg
Nederland
E-mail: info@montair.nl
Website: www.montair.nl
Tel: +31 (0)77 4672473
DMT Environmental Technology

P.O.Box 231, 8440 AE Heerenveen, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 513 636 789
E-mail: Info@dirkse-milieutechniek.com
www.dirkse-milieutechniek.com
Sneep Industries
Christiaan Huygensstraat 41
3291 CN STRIJEN
Postbus 5726
3290 AA STRIJEN
Tel. +31(0)78 6107690

16 Thermal Oxidation (Incinerator, CEB flare, RTO)
16.1 Introduction
For thermal oxidation of vapours emitted during storage and loading operations the following techniques
are considered:
- Oxidation in an incinerator;
- Oxidation in a flare (clean enclosed burner type);
- Oxidation in a regenerative thermal oxidiser (RTO).
Oxidation in a gas-engine will be described separately in Chapter 19.
In case of an existing boiler an alternative might be to mix VOC vapours with boiler feed gases (not
further detailed in this Guidance Document).
16.2 Incinerator
16.2.1 Process Description
By incineration of organic vapours the exhaust gas from the combustion chamber has a high
temperature. In order to reduce the requirement for auxiliary fuel the heat from the combustion gases can
be recovered by pre-heating the combustion air (primary air) and/or the waste gas.
By heat recovery a thermal efficiency of 60 - 70% is feasible and auto thermal operation is possible at
VOC-concentrations of approximately10 g/Nm3.
The heat from the combustion gases can also be used for generation of steam or hot oil.
This document assumes, that generation of steam or hot-oil is not required. Therefore only the following
configurations are considered:
- No heat recovery;
- Pre-heating of the vapour flow;
- Preheating of combustion air and pre-heating of the vapour flow.
Simplified schemes of these configurations are presented in figure 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 1 - No heat-recovery applied
Figure 2 - Pre-heating of the vapour flow

Figure 3 - Pre-heating of vapour flow and combustion air
Organic vapours can be destroyed by oxidation at high temperature. The efficiency of the combustion
process is determined by:
- Temperature in the combustion chamber, typically 800 – 1000 ˚C;
- Residence time, typically minimal 0.75 sec;
- Turbulence in the combustion chamber.
The transport of waste gas has to be safe-guarded by application of detonation arresters AND by pre-
conditioning of the vapour. Pre-conditioning can either be dilution, enrichment or Inerting. Generally pre-
conditioning consists of dilution to a VOC-concentration corresponding to 25 – 50% of LFL (Lower
Flammable Limit) in order to control the combustion temperature.
16.2.2 Applicability
The turn-down ratios for waste gas flow and for the burner are respectively 5:1 and 40:1.
As storage and loading operations are characterized by longer periods without waste gas flow, the
limited turn-down ratios imply high operational costs. During these periods the incinerator has to remain
in a stand-by mode. Therefore the application of a vapour holder should be considered.
Although the waste gas has to be diluted to 25 – 50% LFL, the waste gas piping additionally has to be
provided with detonation arresters.
A typical temperature for pre-heating of the combustion air is maximum 300 ˚C.
Waste gas injected directly into the combustion chamber can be pre-heated to higher temperatures. For
combustion gas temperatures up to 850 ˚C plate type heat-exchangers can be applied. For higher
combustion gas temperatures only shell-and-tube type heat-exchangers are applicable.

16.2.3 Economical aspects
The investments for incinerator systems are strongly depending on the application and sizing of heat-
exchangers and on the applied materials.
The following models can be used for estimating investments for installation ex-works, including:
- high-temperature stack;
- blowers;
- local control panels;
- interconnecting piping.
excluding:
- foundations;
- utility connections;
- waste gas ducting;
- deflagration/detonation protection.
Installations without recovery of energy/heat (e.g. see figure 3):
Investment: ( €)= Qv 0.65 x 8,000

3
Qv = capacity Nm /h
Installations that apply pre-heating of primary air and pre-heating of waste gas
(e.g. see figure 2):
Investment: € 60,000.-- / 1000 Nm3/h.
Installations with maximum energy/heat recovery (e.g. see figure 4):
Investment: ( €)= Qv 0.7 x 24,000

3
Qv = capacity Nm /h
The operational costs are mainly determined by power requirement and requirement for natural gas. The
power requirement can be estimated at 2.5 kWh/ 1000 Nm3.
Incinerator System with Maximum Heat Recovery

In the following tables technical and economic information is provided of an incinerator system with
maximum heat recovery including flue-gas recirculation.
Figure 4 presents a scheme of this system.

Figure 4 - Incinerator system with maximum heat recovery
Overall size incinerator: L x B (m) = 14 x 3

Overall plant size: L x B (m) = 35 x 15
Incinerator - Specification of flows

3
Item Flow (Nm /h) remark
Waste gas 2,000 Air +VOC, LHV= 25 MJ/Nm3
Fuel gas 2,250 Natural gas
Combustion air 31,600
Incinerator 61,000 - 40 mbar, t = 0.5 sec.
Thermal oil --
Feed water 20,500
Steam --
Flue gas recirculation 27,000
Flue gas to stack 34,000 NOx :100 mg/m3
Table 1 - Specification of flows

Incinerator - Technical data
Equipment Capacity Temperature (˚C)
inlet exhaust
Incinerator 1100-1150
Thermal oil heater 20,000 kW Flue gas: 1100 Flue gas: 350
Thermal oil: 240 Thermal oil: 290
Economizer 2,145 kW Flue gas: 350 Flue gas: 185
Feed water: 20 Feed water: 110
ID fan 315 kW 185
Air preheater
Recirculation fan 45 kW
Table 2 - Technical data
Incinerator - Investments (delivery at site, prices 2005)

Item Included in price Investment (€)
Incinerator Valve train, vapour system, controls 1,320,000.--
Thermal oil heater 680,000.--
Steam system 430,000.--
Flue gas recirculation system Air preheater, fan 90,000.--
ID fan 40 m free-standing stack 300,000.--
Flue gas analyzer 80,000.--
Engineering 80,000.--
Packaging and transport 50,000.--
3,030,000.--
Table 3- Investments (delivery at site, prices 2005)
16.2.4 Known Suppliers
Spooner Anguil Environmental Systems Spooner Industries Ltd

Steve Newell, Sales & Marketing Director
Tel: +44 1943 609505
website: www.spooner.co.uk
E-mail: snewell@spooner.co.uk
Envirocombustion
Envirocombustion Systems Ltd
Home Farm, Cash Lane, Eccleshall, ST21 6HW United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 845 60 90 131
www.envirocombustion.co.uk
John Zink Benelux

Rijnspoor 273, 2901 LB Capelle aan de IJssel, The Netherlands
Tel. +31 (0)10 2646580
E-mail: Dirk.vanderwouden@johnzink.com
www.johnzink.com

Durr Environmental GmbH
Otto-Durr Strasse 8, 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Dertinger, Markus
Tel. +49 711 136 1647
E-mail: markus.dertinger@durr.com
www.durr.com
Europem N.V.
Mallekotstraat 65
2500 Lier (Antwerp)
Belgium
Mr. Th. Martens
Tel: +32 3491.98.78
e-Mail: info@euro-pem.com

16.3 Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO)
A typical RTO consist of three beds of ceramic packing, which act as heat-exchangers.
A simplified scheme of an installation is presented below.
By frequently changing the flow from a heated bed to a cold bed the heat of combustion will remain in the
installation, resulting in a thermal efficiency of 95%.
Due to the combustion temperature of 850 – 1000 ˚C the VOC removal efficiency is > 99.9%
A RTO requires a waste gas concentration of max. 5 g VOC /Nm3

Auto thermal operation requires a VOC-concentration of minimal 1.5 g/Nm3
Production of thermal NOx < 50 mg/Nm3
A RTO-unit can be provided with a suction blower. As the pressure-drop over the RTO is relatively low (
30 – 50 mbar) a system of VRU/VDU + RTO can sometimes be operated with one blower.
Figure 3 - Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO)
The difference between a two-bed and three-bed RTO system is the emission, which will happen during
the change of the beds. With a three-bed system no emission during the bed change occurs. This is the
reason why a three-bed system will have a higher removal efficiency.

16.3.2 Applicability and economical aspects
RTO-systems (Including fan, control system and stack)

2-bed system 3-bed system
3
Design capacity Nm /h 10,000 24,000 10,000 24,000
Max. dP mbarg 31 32 29 33
Fan power (operational) kW 12 29.4 12.4 33.3
Burner capacity kW 140 230 140 230

3
Max. nat. gas Nm /h 13.3 21.9 13.3 21.9
1)
requirement
3
Press. Air (6 barg) Nm /h 5.4 7.3 7.4 9.8
Dimensions excl. stack l x b x h 4.8 x 2.4 x 5.2 6.8 x 3.4 x 5.4 5.4 x 3.5 x 5.0 7.4 x 4.9 x 5.2
(m)
Dimensions incl. stack l x b x h 9,5 x 3.4 x 5.2 12.7 x 4.6 x 9.9 x 4.5 x 5.0 12.7 x 5.8 x
(m) 5.4 5.2
Weight kg 24,000 45,000 27,000 48,000
Price € 340,000.-- € 410,000.-- € 420,000.-- € 530,000.--

3
1) 1 Nm of natural gas = 10.5 kW
Table 1- Data on RTO-systems (Including fan, control system and stack)
Durr Environmental GmbH

Otto-Durr Strasse 8, 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Tel. +49 711 136 1647
E-mail: markus.dertinger@durr.com
www.durr.com
CTP - Leico B.V.

Rijnbandijk 223, 4023 AJ Rijswijk (Gld), The Netherlands
Leijdekkers, Charles
Tel. +31 (0)345 55 8138
E-mail: leijco@xs4all.nl
www.leijco.com & www.ctp.at
Megtec
MTS Environmental GmbH
Honeywellstrasse 18
63477 Maintal - Dörnigheim
Main phone: +49 6181 94040
Website: www.megtec.com
Anguil Spooner
Spooner Industries Ltd
Steve Newell, Sales & Marketing Director
Tel: +44 1943 609505
website: www.spooner.co.uk
E-mail: snewell@spooner.co.uk

16.4 CEB-Flare (Clean Enclosed Burner)
The CEB-flare (Clean Enclosed Burner) is based on the principle of surface combustion. Surface
combustion implies that pre-mixed gas and (stochiometric) air burn on a permeable surface.
Due to combustion of pre-mixed gas and air on a permeable surface the complete oxidation is not
depending on a residence time of 2 seconds as required for incinerators. Generally the efficiency of the
combustion will be 99.99 %, resulting in a VOC-emission of less than 10 ppm. Therefore the CEB-flare is
considered to be a proven technology for destruction of VOC-emission from storage and loading
activities (Ref: 23, par.3.5.2.6).
The permeable surface of the CEB-flare consists of several layers of knitted metal fibres. This grid is
known as Metal Fiber Oxidizer and can also be installed in incinerators.
In the CEB-flare combustion occurs just above the permeable surface, while the metal fibres are
constantly cooled by the gas/air mixture. The metal fibres are made of a special alloy and are resistant to
temperatures up to 1300 ˚C due to the formation of an oxide-skin on the fibres.
Main characteristics of the CEB-flare are:
- Large turn-down in terms of capacity and VOC-concentration;

- Thermal turn-down 1:10;
- No luminous flames and infrared heat radiation;
- Heat radiation to surrounding area is limited to a temperature increase of approximately 5 ˚C.;
- Smokeless combustion over the full operational range;
- Low emissions ( VOC < 10 ppm / NOx < 15 ppm / CO < 10 ppm);
- No start-up time required.
Figure 5 shows the general appearance of a CEB-flare.
Figure 5 - General appearance of a CEB-flare
A simplified flow scheme of the CEB-flare is presented in figure 6.

Figure 6 - Simplified flow scheme
The raw vapour is transported to the flare by an Atex-blower. In order to avoid back-flash of a flame the
blower is designed to maintain a high vapour flow (e.g. 20 m/s) in the supply piping to the premix
chamber. If the flow of the raw vapour is low ambient air is mixed in.
For oxidation of VOC’s the vapour flow entering the pre-mix chamber must have a caloric value of at
least 3 MJ/Nm3 for VOC-air mixtures (6 MJ/Nm3 for VOC-inert gas mixtures). At low caloric value the flue
gas temperature will decrease and fuel gas (natural gas or propane) is added to the vapour flow in order
to maintain the required temperature. Raw vapour and fuel gas enter the pre-mix chamber through a
diffuser.
The flame is shielded and directed upward by a short refractory-lined stack.
With a CEB-flare it is possible to recover heat from the flue-gas. Figure 6 presents a system that reduces
natural gas requirements of an existing steam vessel.

Figure 7 - Flow scheme for a CEB-flare with heat recovery (example)
16.4.2 Applicability
Design capacity
The minimum caloric value of the raw vapour is 3 MJ/Nm3. At a caloric value of VOC’s of e.g. 45 MJ/kg
this minimum caloric value corresponds to a VOC-concentration of approximately 130 g/Nm3 (within the
explosive limits).
Examples of caloric values (Lower Heating Value, LHV) of some components are presented in table 1.
Caloric values
Vapour component LHV of component (MJ/kg)
Methanol 20.4
Ethanol 27.1
MTBE 38.2
Gasoline 44.5
Naphta 44.8
Table 1 - Caloric values of some components
If the caloric value of the vapour is > 3 MJ/Nm3 the design capacity can be calculated according:
Qv x CVOC x LHV VOC / 3600 = capacity (MW)

3
Qv = maximum flow VOC-air mixture (m /h)
3
CVOC = VOC-concentration (kg/m )
LHV VOC = Lower heating value of component (MJ/kg)
Natural gas requirement

If the caloric value of the vapour is < 3 MJ/Nm3, natural gas (LHV = 32 MJ/Nm3) has to be supplied up to
a LHV of 3 MJ/Nm3 for the total mixture.
The maximum requirement for natural gas (e.g. during start-up) can be calculated according:

3
Qv x LHVmin./ LHVgas = Nm /h natural gas
Qv = maximum vapour flow (assumed: no VOC present)

3
LHVmin. = 3 MJ/Nm
3
LHVgas = 32 MJ/Nm
Normally the pilot burner is continuously in operation and requires the supply of approximately 1.6 Nm3/h
of natural gas.
Main dimensions and weights

For flares with a thermal capacity up to 350 MW (type MFO- 350) the general dimensions are:
L x B x H = 1.2 x 1.2 x 4.0 m.

The weight is 1050 kg.
For flares with a thermal capacity up to 500 MW (type MFO-500) the general dimensions are:
L x B x H = 2.0 x 2.0 x 4.0 m.

The weight is 2000 kg.
If larger thermal capacities are required the flares can be modular staged.
16.4.3 Economical Aspects
The investments for a completely installed unit can be estimated according:
Investment (€) = P2 x 16,500

P = required capacity (MW)
Europem N.V.
Mallekotstraat 65
2500 Lier (Antwerp)
Belgium
Mr. Th. Martens
Tel: +32 3491.98.78
e-Mail: info@euro-pem.com
Bekaert CEB Technologies

78, rue du Kemmel
59280 Armentières
France
Tel: +33 320105949
Petrogas Gas Systems BV

Goudse Poort
Doesburgweg 7
2803 PL Gouda
P.O.Box 20, 2800 AA Gouda
Tel: +31 182565395

17 Catalytic Oxidation (CATOX)
Catalytic oxidation requires preheating of the waste gas. For most VOC’s an initial (pre-heating)
temperature of 300 - 350 °C is required (although methane requires > 400°C).
The maximum allowable VOC-concentration is 10 g/Nm3, limited by the allowable temperature increase
in the catalyst bed. For most catalysts the allowable temperature is at least 600 °C. (A VOC-
concentration of 1 g/m3 corresponds to a temperature increase of approximately 30 °C).
Pre-heating of the vapour requires an inline-burner, normally in combination with a heat-exchanger. With
a heat-exchanger a thermal efficiency of approx. 60 % is achievable. Also a heat-exchanger creates the
possibility for auto-thermal operation at a waste gas concentration of 3 - 5 g/Nm3.
Sulphur components will poison the catalyst and can not be treated.
Figure 1 - Catalytic oxidation (CATOX)
Haldor Topsoe
Nymollevej 55, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Rosenberg, Helge, M.Sc
Tel. +45 (0)4527 2000
E-mail: topsoe@topsoe.dk
www.topsoe.com

18 Gas Engine
Vapour flows can be oxidized in a gas engine which is provided with a dual fuel device. In case of low
VOC-concentration methane (natural gas) or propane is used as auxiliary fuel.
The operation is normally fully automatic by application of a fuel management software package. By
installation of a generator electricity can be produced and also the heat of the radiator can be used. The
ability to use of the heat from the radiator will vary with the (un)balance between vapour supply and heat
demand.
The efficiency for electricity production is up to 34% and the efficiency for heat-recovery up to 55%.
For operational reasons (e.g. peak-shaving) normally a gasholder (Gasometer) is applied with a capacity
of 60 – 120 m3.
18.2 Applicability
The capacity of a gas-engine is expressed as the maximum electrical power (kWe) that can be
generated.
The gas-engine requires a heating value of the vapour flow of at least 5 – 6 MJ/Nm3.
At an assumed average heating value of 45 MJ/kg for VOC’s this corresponds to a VOC-concentration in
the vapour flow of approximately 130 g/Nm3.
A lower concentration has to be compensated by addition of auxiliary fuel (e.g. propane).
The electrical power generated by the engine can be estimated according:
45 x C x Qvx 0.34/3.6 = kWe
The recovery of heat can be estimated according:
45 x C x Qv x (0.85 – 0.34)/ 3.6 = kWth

3
C = VOC-concentration in kg/m
3
Qv= vapour flow in m /h
The investment for a gasengine can be estimated according:
Investment (€) = (kWe)0.4 x 67,800
Not included are costs for:

- Site preparation;
- Installation costs;
- Heat exchanger (if applicable);
- Gasometer (for prices see appendix 4);
- Utility connections (e.g. cooling water, propane storage tank);
- Electric cabling.
The operational costs consist of:

- Maintenance: € 450.-- per month;
- plus a fee per operation-hour. This fee amounts from € 2.62 / h for a 60kWe engine up to € 12.50
/ h for a 650 kWe engine.

IPCO Power VPS B.V.

Spinel 400
3316 LG Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Tel. +31 (0)78 6521866
www.ipcopower.com

19 Polishing Techniques
A polishing technique is applied whenever the required emission concentration is not achievable with a
single stage vapour recovery unit (VRU/VDU). Only with the VRU/VDU technique adsorption on activated
carbon (e.g. pressure swing adsorption) an emission concentration of 10 – 50 mg/Nm3 is feasible. Most
other VRU/VDU techniques (applied as a single stage) can achieve emission concentrations as low as 1
3
g/Nm .
Available polishing techniques are:

- Pressure swing adsorption (PSA);
- Thermal Swing Adsorption (TSA);
- Catalytic oxidation;
- Regenerative thermal oxidation;
- Biological oxidation;
- Non-thermal plasma;
- Activated carbon without recovery.
A gas-engine and CEB-flare are not considered as polishing unit because these techniques require a
heating value of the vapour of at least 6 MJ/Nm3. This corresponds to a VOC-concentration of
approximately 150 g /Nm3 in the vapour mixture.
19.1 Adsorption
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) is a technology used to separate some gas species from a mixture of
gases under pressure according to the species' molecular characteristics and affinity for an adsorbent
material. It operates at near-ambient temperatures and so differs from cryogenic distillation techniques of
gas separation. Special adsorptive materials are used as a molecular sieve, preferentially adsorbing the
target gas species at high pressure. The process then swings to low pressure to desorb the adsorbent
material.
This polishing technique is normally applied in combination with membrane-filtration, because:

- The exhaust of a membrane-unit is normally provided with a back-pressure control. This implies
that sufficient pressure is available for vapour transport through the PSA-unit;
- Some configurations of membrane-units also contain a vacuum pump in order to create the
required pressure-ratio over the membranes. This vacuum-pump can be applied for regeneration
of the adsorbent beds.
If PSA is applied as a polishing technique the absorbents is often zeolyte instead of activated carbon.
The investment for a PSA-polishing unit is approximately 30% of the investment for the membrane-unit.
19.2 Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO)
See paragraph 16.3

20 Less Common Techniques for Vopak: Biological Techniques
The most common biological techniques for air purification are:
- Bio-filtration;
- Bio-trickling;
- Bio- scrubbing.
20.1 Bio-filtration
Process description
A bio-filter consists of a bed packed with biological material, sometimes even two or three beds. The gas
stream is lead through the filter bed where the pollution is removed from the waste gas by adsorption to
and absorption by the filtering material. The components are then decomposed by micro-organisms. The
filter or the incoming gas is (intermittently) moisturized with water to prevent the filter from dehydrating.
The bed consists of a carrier containing biological material such as: compost, tree bark, coconut fibers or
peat. To decrease the amount of acidification, calcium or dolomite is sometimes added to the packing
material.
Figure 1 - Bio-filtration unit

20.2 Bio-trickling filter
Process description
A bio-trickling filter is a combination of a bio-filter and a bio-scrubber. It consists of a packed absorption
column that is humidified and supplied with nutrients by discontinuous or continuous circular or singular
supply. The idea is that the biomass stays on the packing and is not carried off by the water. After
absorption in the thin water film the pollution is decomposed by a layer of micro-organisms growing on
the packing (“bio-film”); potential decomposition products are conveyed by the same water phase.
Thanks to the mobile water phase the drainage of acidifying decomposition products is easier than with
bio-filters with a stationary water phase: the degree of acidity of the circulation stream can be (slightly)
corrected by dosing caustic solution or supplementary water. The filtering material consists of synthetic
foam and packing constructed out of lava or plastic. The surface has to be structured in a way allowing
for the biomass to properly attach.
Figure 2 - Bio-trickling unit

20.3 Bio- Scrubbing
A bio scrubber consists of a gas scrubber and a biological reactor. The components that are to be
removed are absorbed from the gas stream inside the gas scrubber. Inside the biological reactor, the
absorbed pollutants in the scrubbing water are biologically decomposed. The cleaned scrubbing fluid is
re-circulated into the scrubber. Biologically decomposable hydrocarbons are turned into water and CO2.
The hydrocarbons that cannot be decomposed remain in the scrubbing water. Components such as H2S
and NH3 are turned into sulphates and nitrates respectively. In order to keep the level of salts and non
decomposable VOC low enough the scrubbing must be drained regularly. This can be done on a basis of
conductivity or by fixed drainage. The degree of drainage is dependent on the composition of the
untreated gas. A hydraulic residence time of the scrubbing water between 20 and 40 days (maximum)
gives the greatest results.
Figure 3 - Bio-scrubbing unit
20.4 Applicability
Bio-filtration, Bio-scrubbing and Bio-tricking are techniques not very suited for discontinuous use. The
micro-organisms in the filter substrate need a continuous flow of VOC loaded vapour for growth and

survival. For specific application like odour control of continuous VOC emissions these techniques could
be applied.
Bio-filtration
Investment costs, EUR/1,000 Nm3/h 8,000 – 14,000

Operational costs -
Personnel 1 man-hour per week per filter + 2 man-days per
year
Help and additives 5 liters of water per 1,000 Nm3, strongly dependent
on the saturation level of the incoming gas < 200
EUR/m3 filtering material
Energy consumption, kWh/1,000 Nm3/h Low
Cost-determining parameters Flow, concentration, type component en desired
efficiency, type of filtering material
Benefits None
Bio-trickling
3
Investment costs, EUR/1,000 Nm /h 10,000 – 30,000
Operational costs Minimal
Personnel, hours/week about 4 (strongly dependent on the situation)
Help and additives Minimal
Energy consumption, kWh/1,000 Nm3/h < 1, excluding the ventilator
Electricity costs, EUR/1,000 Nm3/h Minimal
Cost-determining parameters Flow
Benefits None
Bio-scrubbing
Investment costs, EUR/1,000 Nm3/h 6,000 – 20,000

Personnel, hours/week About 4
Help and additives Relatively low
Energy consumption, kWh/1,000 Nm3/h 0.2 – 0.5
Electricity costs -
Cost-determining parameters Flow, type and concentration of components
Benefits None
20.6 Known suppliers
Waterleau
Radioweg 18, B - 3020 Herent ( Leuven ) Belgium
Mr. Philippe Goossens,
Tel. +32 16 650 657
e-mail: Philip.goossens@water-leau.com
www.water-leau.com
Bioway
Rubenstraat 187, 6717 VE Ede, The Netherlands
Tel. +31(0)318 66 5080
e-mail: bioway@xws.nl

www.bioway.net
DMT Environmental Technology

P.O.Box 231, 8440 AE Heerenveen, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 513 636 789
E-mail: Info@dirkse-milieutechniek.com
www.dirkse-milieutechniek.com

21 Emission, Measurement and Monitoring
21.1 General
The purpose of emission measurement is assessment of either the VOC-concentration in an emission

flow or assessment of the efficiency of an emission reduction measure.
If emission reduction measures are implemented authorities will often require assessment of the
reduction efficiency and/or the VOC-concentration in the clean gas. Normally such an assessment is
required regularly, e.g. once a year. Sometimes continuous measurement (monitoring) of VOC-
concentration is required.
Measurement of emissions implies measurement of both the vapour flow-rate and measurement of the
vapour concentration over longer periods. Longer periods are required, because flow and concentration
will normally vary. These variations are caused by e.g. tank breathing (see fig.1 in Appendix 3) and
loading operations. Typically an average VOC-concentration over a period of 30 minutes is required (e.g.
according Netherlands Emission Standard for Air, NeR).
The applicable measuring technique depends on the components of interest. For determination of the
overall concentration of VOC’s in vapour mixtures or in flows that contain only one component, generally
continuous in-line analyses are applied. For determination of a specific component in a vapour mixture
samples of the vapour are analysed. The sampling period will be 30 minutes, unless a longer period is
required in order to obtain a typical sample of the specific vapour. According NeR the maximum period
for assessment of an average emission is 4 hours.
The applicable Standards for emission measurement are presented in Table 21.1
Measurement Applicable standard Title of standard

Vapour flow ISO 10780 ( 1994) Stationary source emissions-
Determination of velocity and
volume flow-rate of gas streams
in ducts.
Concentration of total NEN-EN 13526 ( 2001) Stationary source emissions-
VOC, Determination of total gaseous
either a vapour mixture or organic carbon in flue gases
a single component from solvent using processes-
vapour Continuous flame ionization
detector method.
Concentration of a NEN-EN 13649 ( 2001) Stationary source emissions-
specific VOC Determination of the mass
in a vapour mixture concentration of individual
gaseous organic compounds-
Activated carbon and solvent
desorption method.
Table 21.1 - Applicable Standards for emission measurement

21.2 Limitations of Measurements
Measurement on VRU/VDU’s
Measurement of flow and concentration is straight-forward for VRU/VDU’s. A VRU/VDU contains a vent-
pipe which can be provided with nozzles for flow-measurement and for mounting equipment for in-line
analyses or for sampling. Also the inlet duct of a VRU/VDU can be provided with such nozzles if
determination of the removal efficiency is required. The requirements for location and sizing of nozzles
are described in ISO 10780.
Measurement on fixed roof tanks

Basically the emissions from fixed roof tanks (with PVV, with or without IFR) can be determined with the
same method as described for VRU/VDU’s. In order to execute the required measurements a PVV on
the tank should be provided with a duct-section with the appropriate nozzles.
However, most storage tanks are provided with several PVV’s in order to comply with the required vent
capacity. Measurement implies that all but one PVV have to be blocked. Blockage of all but one PVV
introduces the risk of damaging the tank. Therefore the need for emission measurement on fixed roof
tanks should be carefully considered.
If the efficiency of an IFR is required, the vapour concentration in the vapour space has to be
determined. This only requires sampling of the vapour without blockage of PVV’s.
The efficiency is determined by comparing the measured vapour concentration with the calculated
concentration (according API) for a situation without IFR.
Measurements on external floating roof tanks

Determination of emissions from external floating roof tanks (with or without geodesic dome) is not
possible by measurements, because the vapour flow can not be determined. Also the vapour
concentrations can only locally be measured e.g. locally at the seal and around roof penetrations.
However, these measurements will not result in an assessment of emissions.
Measurement on barges, tank trucks, railcars

Emissions of barges etc. can be determined if a vent-pipe or pressure relief valve is present. The vent-
pipe or valve has to be provided with a duct-section with nozzles as applied for measurement on fixed
roof tanks. The risk of damage to barge or truck is low, because the vent-pipe or relief valve will not be
blocked by the duct-section.
21.3 Overall Emissions from a Site
The overall emissions of VOC’s can be quantified and sources with high emissions can be identified by
the methods DIAL of Shell Global Solutions and the method SOF (Solar Occultation Flux) of Chalmers
University of Technology/ FluxSense AB, Sweden. Both methods apply optical remote sensing
technology for quantifying fluxes of pollutants.
21.4 Emissions Monitoring
Emission monitoring means continuous measurement of emissions. This can be accomplished by

continuous registration of flow and continuous registration of VOC-concentration. This requires
equipment such as a registering anemometer and a FID-analyser.

References
[1] Vopak Vapour Handling & Treatment Standard.
Royal Vopak, Corporate Operational Excellence
[2] Vopak 2009 Annual Report
[3] Fugitive emissions and emission during storage and transfer

(Only available in Dutch language, based on API publications)
Diffuse emissies en emissies bij open overslag
Handboek emissiefactoren
MilieuMonitor publicatie nr. 14
March 2004
[4] Selection Internal Floating Roofs, Standard.

[5] Tank Design Manual, Design and Construction Requirements for Vertical
Atmospheric Storage Tanks, Standard
[6] Requirements for gasometers in vapour recovery installations

(Only available in German language)
Anforderungen an Dämpfespeicher in Dämpferückgewinnungsanlagen
VdTÜV-Merkblatt Tankanlagen 954, 07.97
[7] Vapour transport during barge loading: Technology and safety

(Only in Dutch language)
Damptransport bij scheepsbelading: Techniek en Veiligheid
Report made for VOTOB-companies
Comprimo Consulting Services
Report nr. 61038-00-31305-02, d.d. October 1992
[8] Prioriteit van maatregelen op Neckarhaven aan de hand van een risico-analyse
Report for Vopak Shared Services B.V.
Royal Haskoning rapport nr. 9P4876.03, d.d. 7 oktober 2004
[9] Evaluatie dampverzamel- en transportsysteem Neckarhaven

[10] Beperking condensaatvorming bij pentaanverlading. Evaluatie van maatregelen.

[11] Reductie van methyleenchloride emissie. Vopak Terminal Chemiehaven B.V.

Royal haskoning rapport nr. 9R2783.01, d.d. 8 november 2005
[12] IPPC Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on Emissions from Storage

European Commission, July 2006
[13] IPPC Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in Common Waste Water and Waste
Gas Systems in the Chemical Sector.
European Commission, Feb 2003
[14] PGS 29, Standard for above ground storage of flammable liquids in vertical cylindrical tanks.
Publication series for dangerous goods of Dutch ministry VROM
[15] Technische Regeln für brennbare Flüssigkeiten.TrbF-20 Läger

(Only available in German language)
[16] ATEX 137; directive 99/92/EC; Minimum requirements for improving the safety and health
protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres, latest edition
[17] IMKO-2. Covenant between Dutch Government and VOTOB (Association of

independent tank storage companies in The Netherlands)
[18] Tank Venting and Vapour Relief Standard

[19] Vapour Handling (Balancing & Treatment), HAZOP Report, revision 3.1,
12 January 2009, Vopak - Jacobs
[20] Emission Control Marketing

VDI 3479 Installation Tank Farms, latest edition
[21] Static Electricity Standard

[22] ISO 28300 - Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries - Venting of atmospheric and
low-pressure storage tanks, First edition 2008-06-15
[23] Word bank group. IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Crude Oil and
Petroleum Product Terminals, April 30, 2007.
[24] Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. www.communities.gov.uk.
[25] Vopak and Sustainability Policy Document, latest edition.
[26] Vopak Vapour Day Symposium, 7 and 8 April 2010
[27] VITO/Infomil. Fact sheets on Air Emission Abatement Techniques. February 2009.

Appendix 1 – Static Accumulators
Fire occurs when there is an ignitable vapour-air mixture and a source of ignition, such as a static electric
spark.
At normal handling temperatures, flammable storage tanks, like those containing gasoline, may contain
vapour-air mixtures that typically cannot be ignited by a static electric spark because the vapour-air
mixture is too rich (i.e., contains too much fuel and not enough oxygen) to burn.
VM&P naphtha's, however, and other flammable liquids (e.g., many NFPA Class IB Flammables), may
form ignitable vapour-air mixtures inside tanks at normal handling temperatures.
Static electricity is generated as liquid flows through pipes, valves, and filters while being transferred. It
can also be produced by entrained water or air, splashing or agitation, and when sediment in the bottom
of the tank becomes suspended. For further details see the Vopak Static Electricity Standard (reference
[18]).
Because nonconductive liquids, such as VM&P naphtha and other flammable liquids, dissipate (or
“relax”) static electricity slowly, they pose a risk of dangerous static electric accumulation that can
produce sparks inside tanks.
The following list shows some common static-accumulating flammable liquids that may form ignitable
vapour-air mixtures:
- VM&P naphtha;
- Cyclohexane;
- n-Heptane;
- Benzene;
- Toluene;
- n-Hexane;
- Xylene;
- Ethyl benzene;
- Styrene.
Note: This list is not showing all of these types of products stored within Vopak.

Appendix 2 – Product compatibility Chart
Reference:
EPA-600/2-80-076 April 1980
'A Method for Determining the Compatibility of Hazardous Waste'
Caution:
The chart is intended as an indication of some of the hazards that can be expected on mixing chemical
wastes. Because of the differing activities of the thousands of compounds that may be encountered, it is
not possible to make any chart definitive and all inclusive. It cannot be assumed to ensure compatibility
of wastes because wastes are not classified as hazardous on the chart, nor do any blanks necessarily
mean that the mixture cannot result in a hazard occurring. Detailed instructions as to hazards involved in
handling and disposing of any given waste should be obtained from the originator of the waste.
Product Compatibility Chart

(for better readability see separate PDF file in the supporting documents section of this standard)

Appendix 3 – Calculations of Maximum Vapour Flow
For assessment of the vapour flow from fixed roof storage tanks both the filling rate and the breathing
emissions have to be considered. The flow due to filling is predictable and generally equal to the pump
capacity, unless a tank is empty and gas free. In the latter situation allowance is required for vapour
evolution. The flow due to breathing is depending on atmospheric conditions of which solar radiation
appears to be the most important factor.
Vapour flow during tank breathing

For assessment of the design-capacity of a VRU/VDU it is necessary to estimate the breathing flow
during worst-case situations, i.e. the flow during a cloudless summer’s day. Often the design-capacity of
a VRU/VDU is over-estimated due to an over-estimated breathing flow.
In IPPC-document ‘Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on Emissions from Storage (July
2006, par.4.1.3.15: Vapour treatment) the following model is suggested for estimating the breathing flow:
Breathing flow (m3/h) = 0.1 x vapour volume (m3) / 6
As it was not clear whether this model describes the average or maximum flow some data of actual
measurements were used for validation of the model.
The data in table 1 are provided by Dow Benelux B.V., Terneuzen, The Netherlands. These data are the
results of actual measurements on breathing flows from fixed roof storage tanks during bright summer
days.
Breathing flows from fixed roof tanks

Tank nr 8070 8080 1152
Volume m3 10,000 10,000 5,000
Height m 22 22 16
Diameter m 24 24 20
Height vapour space m 17 9 ?
Vapour volume m3 7,686 4,069 3,200 2)
Measured max. flow m3/h 90 1) 70 65
90 1)
95 1)
3
Calculation acc. IPPC m /h 128 68 53
1) Measurements on respectively August 23, 24 and 25, 1987
2) For tank 1152 a filling of approx. 60% is assumed.
Table 1 - Data on maximum breathing flows from fixed roof tanks
From the measured data it can be concluded, that the IPPC-model provides an acceptable figure on the
maximum breathing emission during worst-case situations.
The maximum breathing flow occurs at the start of the breathing period, which lasts from approximately
08.00 am to 14.00 pm. During this period the breathing flow gradually decreases from maximum to zero,
as is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Measurement of atmospheric conditions and emissions
from tank nr. 1152
As the vapour volume is not always known and will vary over time it is assumed that the average vapour
volume is 50% of the tank volume. This assumption is conservative and results in the following relation:
Flow (m3/uur) = (0,5 x π/4 x D2 x H)/60 = 0,0065 x D2x H

D = tank diameter (m)
H = height of tank shell (m)
Vapour flow during filling of a tank

It is assumed, that the vapour in a tank is saturated with the stored product. Therefore vapour evolution
is not considered. Based on this assumption the vapour flow corresponds to the pump rate.
Residual vapour flow from a VRU/VDU

The residual vapour flow from a VRU/VDU has to be known in case a polishing unit is required. It is
assumed, that the vapour to be treated in a VRU/VDU contains an “average” VOC-concentration of 10 %
v/v (e.g. benzene has a saturated vapour pressure at 20 ˚C of 100mbar, which corresponds to 10%v/v.
For gasoline the vapour concentration may be as high as 45%v/v).
As the VOC-vapour is almost completely removed in a VRU/VDU the residual vapour flow corresponds
to:
0.9 x pump-rate (m3/h)
Residual vapour flow from a balancing line

If vapour balancing is applied it has to be expected that vapour evolution will occur in the compartment
that is being filled with liquid (e.g. the tank or compartment of barge or truck). That is, if the compartment
is empty and gas-free or if the vapour concentration is low (unsaturated) due to recent emptying.

Evolution of vapour results in a vapour flow through the balancing line that is larger than the pump rate.
Therefore the total flow can not be “balanced” and the excess flow has to be vented from the balancing
line. Normally this excess flow is vented from the storage tank (either to atmosphere or to a VRU/VDU).
Due to evolution the vapour concentration may increase from zero to the saturated concentration. If the
saturated concentration is 10 % v/v (see above), the excess flow will be:
Residual vapour flow

from vapour balancing line = 0.1 x pump rate (m3/h)

Appendix 4 – Background information Gasometers (vapour buffer)
Process description
A Gasometer consists of a non-metallic flexible non-permeable sheeting (often referred to as

“membrane”) mounted in a fixed roof tank. The ”membrane” is mounted at approximately half the height
of the shell. A Gasometer is applied in combination with a vapour recovery unit (VRU/VDU) or a vapour
destruction unit (e.g. incinerator).
The emission from storage and loading activities is characterized by a variable flow and variable VOC-
concentration. If emissions from various sources are collected in a common vapour header the
composition of the vapour may vary also.
The function of the vapour holder is equalizing (peak shaving) these variations, which have the following
effects on VRU/VDU’s:
- The design capacity will decrease, because peak-flows are eliminated;

- The operation will be more efficient;
- The required turn-down rate will decrease. In some situations a continuous VRU/VDU-operation
at constant flow is feasible.
Applicability
General
A typical operating pressure in a Gasometer is 6 mbar. Instead of applying a newly built vapour holder it
is possible to convert an existing (out-of-service) fixed roof tank into a vapour holder.
The resulting buffer volume of a converted tank is significantly smaller than the volume of the original
tank. For small tanks (e.g. 5,000 m3) the resulting buffer volume is approximately 60% of the original tank
3
volume. For larger tanks (e.g. 25,000 m ) the buffer volume is approximately 80 % of the tank volume.
Applicable design standard

The applicable standard for design of Gasometers and connected vapour ducting is:
Anforderungen an Dämpfespeicher in Dämpferückgewinnungsanlagen

(Requirements for vapour holders in vapour recovery systems)
VdTŰV- Merkblatt: Tankanlagen 954, 07-97
This Guidance provides PFD’s for two configurations of vapour holders: A configuration with open vent
above the membrane and a configuration with PV-valves on the holding tank.
Remarks concerning design and operation

The following aspects have to be considered:
- Balancing of the membrane in order to avoid contact with the tank shell;
- Wear of the membrane due to friction during folding and unfolding (even if balanced properly);
- Compatibility of VOC’s in condensate phase;
- Chemical resistance of membrane material
- Inspection and maintenance might be difficult and needs to be seriously considered before deciding
for a Gasometer.
In general a vapour buffer will be more suitable for truck and railcar loading than for barge loading, due to
the relatively short loading period and smaller cumulative volumes for truck and railcar loading.

In Appendix 4 an example of a calculation of the VRU/VDU capacity and volume of the vapour holder is
presented.
Economical Aspects
Investments
The following models for calculation of investments can be applied:
Investment for a new vapour holder with V m3 buffer volume:
Investment (€) = 4,200 x V 0.7

3
V = vapour volume (m )
Investment for converting a tank into a vapour holder with V m3 vapour volume
Investment (€) = 38,000 x V 0.3

3
Operational costs
The operational costs (€ / year) mainly consist of costs for maintenance and costs for calibration of
instruments (e.g. FID-analyser). These costs are independent of the size of the vapour holder. However
the service-life of a membrane is relatively short. Replacement of a membrane is expensive and costs
are dependent on the size.
Therefore the total operational costs are estimated at 4% of the investments for converting an existing
tank.
Operational costs (€/y) = 0.04 x 38,000 x V 0.3 = approx. 1,500 x V 0.3

3
General notes:
- Where better cost information is available from recent, comparable projects, this should be used.
- In Appendix 4 more background information on investment calculation models is presented.
Known Suppliers
Verwater Tankbouw
P.O. Box 48
3190 AA Hoogvliet-Rotterdam
www.verwater.com
CTS
Coventrystraat 2
3047 AD Rotterdam
www.cargotransfer.net

Determination of VRU/VDU capacity and volume of vapour holder
The example below provides a method to determine VRU/VDU-capacities with a and without the use of a
vapour holder and the capacity for the vapour holder itself.
Assumed worst-case emission scenario:
- Loading of one barge from 06:00 am to 11:00 am @ 350 m3/hr

- Unloading another barge from 08:00 am to 12:00 am @ 350 m3/hr
- Continuous loading of tank trucks from 07:00 am to 18:00 pm @ 70 m3/hr
- Loading a barge from 16:00 pm to 21:00 pm @ 350 m3/hr
- Tank breathing from 08:00 am to 14:00 pm @ 100 m3/hr from 08:00-11:00 and
50 m3/hr from 11:00-14:00
Time Cumulative Required Treated volume Buffer volume

(Typical day) Vapour VRU/VDU-cap. by
3
emission Without buffer VRU/VDU-cap. m
3 3 3
m m /hr 300 m /hr 1)
00:00-06:00 0
07:00 350 350 300 50
08:00 770 420 600 170
09:00 1640 870 (see note) 900 740
10:00 2510 870 (see note) 1200 1310
11:00 3380 870 (see note) 1500 1880
12:00 3850 470 1800 2050
13:00 4320 470 2100 2220 (see note)
14:00 4440 120 2400 2040
15:00 4510 70 2700 1810
16:00 4580 70 3000 1580
17:00 5000 420 3300 1700
18:00 5420 420 3600 1820
19:00 5770 350 3900 1870
20:00 6120 350 4200 1920

21:00 6470 4500 1970
22:00 6470 4800 1670
23:00 6470 5100 1370
24:00 6470 5400 1070
01:00 6470 5700 770
02:00 6470 6000 470
03:00 6470 6300 170
04:00 6470 6470 0
3
1) If the vapour holder has to be empty at the end of the day the VRU/VDU has to process 6470 m vapour in a period of e.g.
3 3
22 hours. The required VRU/VDU-capacity has to be approx. 300 m /hr (6470/22 = 294 m /hr).
Conclusions from the data summarised in the table are:

1. The required VRU/VDU-capacity without applying a buffer is 870 m3/;;
2. At a VRU/VDU-capacity of 300 m3/hr the volume of the vapour holder has to be 2220 m3;
3. At approx. 03:00 / 04:00 am the next day the buffer will be empty.

Background on Investment Calculation Models
The calculation models for investments are based on the following economic information:
An existing fixed roof tank (volume 4200 m3) is converted into a vapour holder.
The resulting buffer volume is 2600 m3.
Specification of costs for conversion (provided by Verwater Tankbouw, June 2005):
 Preparation of tank, mounting membrane € 386,000.--
For additional costs the following estimates are applied:
- Piping, detonation arresters, valves € 25,000.--

- Control loops and instrumentation € 100,000.--
Total costs € 511,000.--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The investment for a new vapour holder can be estimated by adding the costs for a new fixed roof tank to
the costs for converting an existing tank.
Costs for a tank (4200 m3) with foundation € 500,000.--
Cost of converting an existing tank € 511,000.--
Total costs € 1,011,000.-- (pricing 2005)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion of an existing fixed roof tank into a gasometer with a net capacity of 4320 m3 Including:
- Small repairs on tank;

- Removal of existing aluminium IFR;
- Preparation of inner tank shell;
- Delivery and installation of excess door to inner walk-way;
- Delivery and installation of inner walk-way (width 600 mm);
- Renovation of excess ladder;
- Installation of vent- and inspection openings in tank roof;
- Delivery and installation of membrane and supports (for gasoline vapour, design pressure 50
mm WK).
Excluding:
- Painting and E&I activities

- Delivery of auxiliary equipment (e.g. instruments, detonation arresters, valves)
- Inspection and testing
Investment (pricing 2008): € 298,500.--, excl. VAT

For additional costs the following estimates are applied:
- Piping, detonation arresters, valves € 25,000.--

- Control loops and instrumentation € 100,000.—
- Contingency ca. 10% € 42,500.--
Total investment: € 466,000.—
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion of a ballast water tank into a vapour holder.

Tank dimensions: D = 36,57 m , height = 22 m , dome roof
3
Resulting buffer volume: 19,000 m .
Preparation of tank (sandblasting, coating) € 220,000.—

Engineering, delivery membrane, instrumentation,
supervision and commissioning services € 420,000.--
Installation of membrane and equipment € 250,000.--
------------------
Total investment € 890,000.-- (pricing 2003)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 5 – Vapour Balancing and Treatment Systems
This appendix describes Process Control and Safeguarding Philosophy for the 'Vapour balancing –
simple system' and the 'Vapour treatment – complex system'. Please note that this will basically cover
the requirements for the remaining two systems as well.
The Process Control and Safeguarding Philosophy is based on how the installation is operated and
which safeguarding measurements are implemented. The normal situation as well as the emergency
(ESD) situation is dealt with.
The vapour treatment unit itself is not part of the scope of this appendix.

1 Vapour balancing - simple system
Reference drawing: 32016-P.01-8001, Rev. B
(for better readability see separate PDF file in Quality-on-Line)
1.1 Description of the vapour system
A dedicated and closed vapour balancing system between storage tank and truck, railcar or ship is
installed. This means that when product is pumped from the storage tank to truck, railcar or ship or vice
versa, the vapours from the vapour space of the receiving vessel are displaced to the vessel that is being
unloaded via a dedicated vapour balancing system.
Each vapour balancing system includes the following main items:
- A detonation arrester at the vapour line connection of the storage tank;

- A detonation arrester including knock-out drum upstream at the truck, railcar or ship
(un)loading position;
- An emergency shut-down valve with position indicators at the truck or ship loading.
Each detonation arrester can be blocked in for maintenance purposes and should be installed in a
vertical part of the pipeline in order to allow for self draining or alternatively an eccentric detonation
arrester shall be installed. A differential pressure measurement should be installed over each detonator
arrester.

Low points in the vapour balancing lines shall be minimized to prevent condensation of vapours.
Depending on the product, the vapour balancing lines are provided with heat tracing.
Note: The system design described in this chapter has been checked in a preliminary HAZOP. The final
safeguards and the necessity of knock-out drums should be evaluated for each project separately
in a detailed HAZOP for that project.
1.2 Storage tank
Normal Operation and Control

During normal operation the pressure in the tank can increase or decrease due to weather changes and
liquid movements in and out of the tank. The pressure in the tank is continuously measured (PI-xxx) and
displayed in the control room.
Some storage tanks require nitrogen blanketing for product quality or safety reasons. The nitrogen
supply is controlled by a pressure control valve (PCV-xxxx). The total amount of nitrogen and is
measured and displayed in the control room (FQ-xxxx).
Safeguarding Philosophy
When the pressure in the tank becomes too high or too low an alarm will be generated in the control
room. The operator is assumed to take appropriate actions.
The tank is protected against high pressure and vacuum by breather valves. If the pressure exceeds the
allowed maximum pressure, the vent opens and releases the overpressure to atmosphere. When the
pressure drops too low, the vent opens to allow air to enter the vapour space. The number of breather
valves for each tank shall be the calculated as the required number of valves for the full capacity of the
largest single contingency or any reasonable combination of contingencies during normal operation, plus
one additional valve.
The tank is equipped with an emergency hatch (EV-xxxx) in order to protect the tank in abnormal
conditions such as rupture of a heating coil or an external fire.
1.3 Vapour balancing line

During loading and unloading of trucks, railcars and ships, the vapour balancing system controls the
pressure changes due to liquid movements.
The vapour balancing line is equipped with a detonation arrester on top of the tank and a second one at
the (un)loading position of truck, railcar or ship. The detonation arresters will prevent the propagation of a
deflagration or detonation.
NOTE: vapour balancing is only applicable for flanged vapour connections, i.e. not for cone loading
arms.
In case the products are susceptible to polymerise or solidify, the pressure drop over the detonation
arrestor shall be monitored. In all other cases the use of pressure drop measurement is optional.
In case the pressure drop across the detonation arresters including manual valves is continuously
measured (dPT-xxxx), a high pressure drop will generate an automatic shutdown of the loading operation
and an alarm in the control room when the pressure drop becomes too high indicating that the detonation
arrester is blocked or one of the manual valves is closed.
At the (un)loading position a knock-out drum is installed just upstream of the detonation arrester to
remove entrained liquid droplets from the vapour flow. Liquid droplets may cause blockage of the

detonation arrester and build-up of static electricity. The knock-out drum is provided with a high level
switch/alarm. In case of high level the loading operation will be stopped automatically and an alarm will
be generated in the control room. In case of a flanged type top loading arm the high level trip will also
protect the vapour system from product overflow from truck or railcar.
In order to protect the truck or railcar from high pressure caused by the vapour balancing line being
blocked it is recommended to install a high pressure switch/alarm in the liquid part of the loading arm. At
high pressure the loading operation will be stopped automatically and an alarm will be generated in the
control room.
A temperature sensor must be installed in an detonation arrester when there is the possibility of
stabilized burning inside the flame arrester. This is the case when the detonation arrester is installed
before a permanent ignition source (flare, incinerator). Furthermore in flame arresters that are installed
after a fan. Normally the temperature sensors are not installed in vapour balancing lines
However if the distance of the detonation arrester to a permanent ignition source, e.g. a fan, is more than
50-100 x diameter the use of a temperature sensor is not required.
The temperature sensor shall initiate an emergency shut-down of the system after a maximal 30 seconds
of temperature above the maximum operating temperature of the detonation arrester.
The vapour balancing line has an emergency shut-down (ESD) valve to isolate the truck, railcar or ship
from the tank in case of an emergency.
All the manual valves in the vapour balancing line are locked open during normal operation.
1.4 Summary
The loading operation will be stopped automatically and can not be started at:
- High pressure drop across one of the detonation arresters;

- High level in the liquid knock-out drum;
- ESD valve in vapour balance line not completely open;
- High pressure in liquid part of loading arm.
Automatic shutdown of the product loading operation includes the following actions:
- Shut-down of the product pump;

- Closure of all automatic emergency shut-down and operational valves in the product line;
- Closure of the emergency shut-down valve in the vapour balancing line.
1.5 Design considerations
When designing a system the internal HAZOP (see reference [16]) should be checked for detailed
requirements including the following considerations:
- Loading arm should have a fixed connection to truck or rail car (no cone);
- DP-cell over DA interlocked with pumping operation in particular when polymerising or
solidifying products are handled:
o Pre-alarm to signal that element has to be cleaned,
o Alarm that activates interlock with pumping operation;
- XV at tank side only required for long vapour lines;
- KO-drum to stop liquid entrainment;
- KO-drums at low point to collect condensate or use tracing and insulation;
- DA in vertical position for self draining.

2 Vapour treatment - complex system
Reference drawing: 32016-P.01-8004, rev. B
(for better readability see separate PDF file in Quality-on-Line)
2.1 Description of vapour treatment system
For some products the generated vapours are collected in a vapour collection system and treated in a
vapour treatment system. In this system all vapours generated during product transfer from ship, truck
and railcar to tank or vice versa are collected in one common collection system.
The vapour collection system includes the following main items:
- A detonation arrester in the vapour line connection of each storage tank;

- A pressure control valve and automatic valve in the vapour line connection of each tank;
- A detonation arrester including knock-out drum in the vapour line at each (un)loading
position of truck, railcar or ship;
- An emergency shut-down valve with position indicators at each (un)loading position of truck,
railcar or ship.
Each detonation arrester can be blocked in for maintenance purposes and should be installed in a
vertical part of the pipeline in order to allow for self draining. In case the products are susceptible to

polymerise or solidify, the pressure drop over the detonation arrestor shall be monitored. In all other
cases the use of pressure drop measurement is optional.
Low points in vapour balancing lines should be minimized to prevent condensation of vapours.
Depending on the product, the vapour balancing lines are provided with heat tracing.
Note: The system design described in this chapter has been checked in a preliminary HAZOP. The final
safeguards and the necessity of knock-out drums should be evaluated for each project separately
in a detailed HAZOP for that project.
2.2 Storage tank

The pressure in the tank is continuously measured (PI-xxx) and displayed in the control room. During
product transfer to the tank the pressure in the tank will rise. The generated vapours will be sent to the
vapour treatment system on a controlled way by the pressure control valve in the vapour line (PV-xxxx).
When the pressure in the tank exceeds the setting of the pressure controller on the tank the control valve
will open to release the vapours to the vapour treatment system.
Some storage tanks require nitrogen blanketing for product quality or safety reasons. The nitrogen
supply is controlled by a pressure control valve (PCV-xxxx). The total amount of nitrogen and is
measured and displayed in the control room (FQ-xxxx). The setting of the pressure control valve in the
nitrogen supply shall be lower than the setting of the pressure control valve in the vapour line to the
vapour treatment system.
When the pressure in the tank becomes too high or too low an alarm will be generated in the control
room. The operator is assumed to take appropriate actions.
The tank is protected against high pressure and vacuum by breather valves. If the pressure exceeds the
allowed maximum pressure, the vent opens and releases the overpressure to atmosphere. When the
pressure drops too low, the vent opens to allow air to enter the vapour space. The number of breather
valves for each tank shall be the calculated as the required number of valves for the full capacity of the
largest single contingency or any reasonable combination of contingencies during normal operation, plus
one additional valve.
The tank is equipped with an emergency hatch (EV-xxxx) in order to protect the tank in abnormal
conditions such as rupture of a heating coil or an external fire.
2.3 Vapour collection system

All vapours generated during product transfer from ship, truck and railcar to tank or vice versa are
collected in one common collection system which is operating under slight underpressure. The
underpressure is created by the blower of the vapour treatment system and is required to prevent
vapours going from one tank to another and to avoid excessive emission of product vapours at cone type
loading arms at the truck and rail car loading gantries.
The vapour lines coming from the tanks are all connected to preferably one common subheader. The
pressure in the subheader is continuously measured and displayed in the control room. Also the vapour
lines from truck and rail car (un)loading gantries and the vapour lines coming from the ship (un)loading
positions are connected to a vapour collection subheader, each equipped with a pressure measurement
and transmitter. The pressure meters in the subheaders are installed on the most critical point of the

header. Via a selector the highest measured pressure is selected to control the speed of the blower of
the vapour treatment unit.
The vapours coming from the storage tanks are sent to the vapour treatment unit on a controlled way by
the pressure control valve in the vapour line while the release of vapours from trucks, railcars or ships is
not controlled.
A detonation arrester is installed at:
- The vapour line connection of each tank;

- The vapour connection at each truck and railcar (un)loading gantry;
- The vapour connection at each ship (un)loading position;
- The emergency vent to safe location.
The detonation arresters will prevent the propagation of a deflagration or detonation.
In case the products are susceptible to polymerise or solidify, the pressure drop over the detonation
arrestor shall be monitored. In all other cases the use of pressure drop measurement is optional.
The pressure drop across all detonation arresters including manual valves is continuously measured
(dPT-xxxx) and will generate an automatic shutdown of the loading operation and an alarm in the control
room when the pressure drop gets too high indicating that the detonation arrester is blocked or one of the
manual valves is closed.
Except from the detonation arresters on top of the tanks and in the emergency vent a knock-out drum is
installed upstream of the detonation arrester in order to remove entrained liquid droplets from the vapour
flow. Liquid droplets may cause blockage of the detonation arrester and build-up of static electricity. The
knock-out drum is provided with a high level switch/alarm. In case of high level the (un)loading operation
will be stopped automatically and an alarm will be generated in the control room.
In case of a flanged type top loading arms the high level trip will also act as protection against product
overflow from truck or railcar.
A temperature sensor must be installed in an detonation arrester when there is the possibility of
stabilized burning inside the flame arrester. This is the case when the detonation arrester is installed
before a permanent ignition source (flare, incinerator). Furthermore in flame arresters that are installed
after a fan.
However if the distance of the detonation arrester to a permanent ignition source, e.g. a fan, is more than
50-100 x diameter the use of a temperature sensor is not required.
The temperature sensor shall initiate an emergency shut-down of the system after a maximal 30 seconds
of temperature above the maximum operating temperature of the detonation arrester.
In order to protect the truck or railcar from high pressure caused by the vapour balancing line being
blocked it is recommended to install a high pressure switch/alarm in the liquid part of the loading arm. At
high pressure the loading operation will be stopped automatically and an alarm will be generated in the
control room.
The vapour lines coming from the tanks are all provided with an emergency shutdown (ESD) valve to
isolate the tanks in case of an emergency. Also the vapour lines from truck, railcar and ship (un)loading
positions have an emergency shutdown (ESD) valve that will be closed at an emergency situation.
All the manual valves in the vapour balancing line are locked open during normal operation.
The pressure meters in the vapour collection subheaders are equipped with a low and high pressure
alarm to generate an alarm in the control room when the pressure in the subheader becomes too low or

too high. This could occur when the pressure regulation of the blower fails whereby the blower is driven
at a higher or lower speed than appropriate.
As the vacuum valves on the storage tanks, trucks, railcars and ships are probably not designed for the
full capacity of the vapour treatment blower, the different subheaders are provided with a vacuum valve
designed for the full capacity of the vapour treatment blower (to be checked in design).
On the main header to the vapour treatment unit a pressure meter with low and high pressure
switch/alarm is installed to stop all (un)loading operations at high pressure or vacuum in the main header
indicating that the off gas treatment unit is not working properly.
The vapour treatment unit itself is not specified further but is equipped with an emergency shut-down
(ESD) valve and detonation arrester at the inlet and a sufficient number of flame arresters around the
blower which can isolate a fire of the blower.
The main vapour collection header can be equipped with a vent to safe location to relief pressure when
the vapour treatment unit is out of service (to be checked in design).
Note: As there is no flow controlling device in the vapour lines coming from trucks, railcars and ships
(un)loading positions, a ship or truck under slight overpressure at its arrival might cause overload
and even worse a shutdown of the off gas treatment unit since a large amount of vapours will be
suddenly released and sent to the treatment unit.
2.4 Summary
Product loading to a tank will be stopped automatically and can not be started at:
- High pressure drop across the detonation arrester;

- ESD valve in vapour line not completely open.
Product loading to a truck, railcar or ship will be stopped automatically and can not be started at:
- High pressure drop across the detonation arrester;

- High temperature in detonation arrester;
- High level in the liquid knock-out drum;
- ESD valve in vapour line not completely open;
- High pressure in liquid part of loading arm.
Automatic shutdown of a product loading operation includes the following actions:
- Shut-down of the product pump;

- Closure of all automatic emergency shut-down and operational valves in the product line;
- Closure of the emergency shut-down valve in the vapour line.
A general emergency shutdown of the off gas treatment system will be activated automatically at:
- High pressure in main header to the vapour treatment unit;

- Vacuum in main header to the vapour treatment unit;
- Failure of the vapour treatment unit.
A general emergency shut-down of the vapour treatment unit includes:
- Shut-down of the all product pumps;

- Shut-down of vapour treatment unit;
- All automatic valves in their fail safe position.

2.5 Design considerations
When designing a system the internal HAZOP (see reference [16]) should be checked for detailed
requirements including the following considerations:
- Flow control of loading operations (liquid side):

o Truck /rail car flow control using flow meter or weigh bridge,
o Ship flow control based on tank liquid level or using a simple flow meter (clamp on sonic
type);
- Orifice in truck vapour line to restrict flow in abnormal situations e.g. depressurizing of trucks;
- ESV at tank opens at under pressure in header plus over pressure in tank;
- PCV at tank required to control vapour flow to vapour treatment unit.

Appendix 6 – Filling Small Containers
Small containers (e.g. IBC’s, 200 litre drum) are normally filled directly from tank-truck or from a small
tank. Filling is executed either by hand or by use of an automatic filling installation, with which products
are filled by weight or by volume. During filling the emitted vapour is vented together with an amount of
ambient air. The ventilation system is designed for dilution of vapour to a concentration below the lower
explosion limit.
Normally the filling emissions cannot be treated in a VRU/VDU for storage and loading emissions,
because:
- The filling emission has a very low VOC-concentration, while VRU/VDU are designed for
high concentrations;
- The emission flow is too large (due to dilution) for most VRU/VDU’s.
The ventilated vapour can be treated in either an activated carbon filter (non-regenerative) or in a
scrubber. Due to the variable and low concentration a high efficiency in vapour treatment cannot be
guaranteed.

Appendix 7 – Application of flame--arresters
1 Purpose of this document
This document is part of the Vopak standard 'Vapour Handling and Treatment' and provides an overview
of the application of flame-arresters.
2 Introduction
Caution: Flame-arrester is a general name for deflagration and detonation arresters.
During collection and transport of vapours containing flammable VOC’s the concentration of the VOC’s
may be within the flammable (explosive) limits. Unless it can be guaranteed that the VOC concentration
can never be within these limits the vapour collection and transport system should be provided with flame
arresters. The conditions of the vapour flow, the specific type of VOC and the lay-out of the system
determine which type of flame arrester has to be applied, where it should be located and which test-
certificate is required. This note discusses several aspects of the application of flame arresters and
focuses on the hazards due to mis-application of flame-arresters.
3 Definitions
3.1 Deflagration
Deflagration is a a flame front propagating at subsonic velocity. The overpressure from a deflagration can
reach 10 times the initial absolute operating pressure (up to 10 bara in vapor vent systems).
3.2 Detonation
Overdriven (unstable):
A flame front that propagates at supersonic velocity and characterised by a shock wave.
A detonation is unstable during the transition of the combustion process from deflagration into a stable
detonation. The transition occurs in a limited spatial zone of a few pipe diameters where the velocity of
the combustion wave is not constant and where the explosion pressure is significantly higher than in a
stable detonation. The position of this transition zone depends, among others on the pipe diameter, pipe
configuration, and vapour.
This condition exists during the transition from deflagration to a stable detonation;
Stable detonation:
A flame front that propagates by shock wave ignition ( a compressed amount of vapor in front of the
shock-wave is ignited);
A detonation is called stable when it progresses through a confined system without significant variation of
velocity and pressure characteristics, typical flame front velocities range between 1700 m/s and 2200
m/s for atmospheric conditions. The overpressure ranges from 20 to 100 times the initial pressure.

ig n itio n h e a te d c o m p re s s e d v a p o u r U n b u rn e d v a p o u r
fla m e -fro n t s h o c k -w a v e
ig n itio n U n b u rn e d v a p o u r
s h o c k -w a v e
and
ra d ia l p re s s u re fla m e -fro n t
lo g P (b a ra )
2 5 0 0 m /s
20
10
20 x D
p ip e le n g th
Figure 1 - Flame front propagation
The sequence of flame front propagation is schematically presented in figure1. The deflagration to
detonation transition starts at L/D > 50 (for products in explosion groups IIA, IIB1-IIB3) and L/D > 30
(explosion groups IIB, IIC).
3.3 Endurance burning
A stabilised flame on the arrester element for an unlimited time. If the flow of the explosive vapour cannot
be stopped or is not intended to be stopped flame arresters which prevent stabilised burning are suitable.
To detect the endurance burning a temperature element with alarm in the control room shall be installed
on the flame arrester.
3.4 Short time burning
A stabilised flame on the arrester element for a specified time, typical time is 1 minute. The flow of the
explosive vapour shall be stopped within the specific time.
To detect the short time burning a temperature element with alarm in the control room shall be installed
on the flame arrester on the down stream side.
4 Classification of flame arrestersarrester

The arrester element has to be designed for the specific vapour flow conditions (temperature, pressure)
and for the specific vapour components. Therefore any change in condition or composition of the vapour
flow (e.g. due to changing process conditions) requires a check on the specifications of the arrester
element (e.g. M.E.S.G., Maximum Experimental Safe Gap).

4.1 End-of-line flame arrester
End-of-line flame arresters are designed to prevent flame transmission from an external ignition source
close to an open-air vent into the vent system. It is not designed to arrest flames and maintain structural
integrity when subjected to travelling flame fronts and detonations in closed piping systems.
An example of an end-of-line flame arrester is presented in figure 2.
Figure 2 - End-of-line flame arrester during endurance burning test
4.2 In-line deflagration arrester
This arrester is designed to quench an in-line deflagration flame front with a limited “run-up distance” of
maximum 50 times the pipe diameter for explosion group IIA and IIB3 respectively maximum 30 times
the pipe diameter for explosion group IIB and IIC. In-line deflagration arresters shall be installed as close
as possible to the ignition source.
An example of an in-line deflagration arrester is presented in figure 3.

Figure 3 - In-line deflagration on arrester
Construction for easy exchange of internals
4.3 In-line detonation arrester
In-line detonation flame arresters are designed to stop flame fronts in deflagration ranges and in ranges
of overdriven and/or stable detonations. Some types can withstand stabilized burning for short periods.
An example of an in-line detonation arrester is presented in figure 4.
Figure 4 - In-line detonation arrester

5 Application parameters
5.1 End-of-line flame arrester
The typical location is on top of open vent pipes on storage tanks, vessels or vents in piping systems (
e.g. on pressure relief valves). Therefore these arresters only operate at atmospheric pressure and
temperatures.
If not located at the end of a vent pipe: The maximum length of pipe separating the arrester from the
external ignition source (opening to atmosphere) is 1.5 m.
These end of line arresters can only withstand endurance burning if located at the end of a vent pipe.
Note: In ref. [11] it is stated that it is not allowed to provide PVV’s on tanks with flame arresters. Also the
company policies of Vopak and Shell do not allow flame arresters on PVV’s.
However, ref. [12] states that flame arresters on PVV’s are mandatory!!
5.2 In-line deflagration arrester
These arresters are applied for quenching flames generated inside a pipe and should be located close to
an ignition source. Elbows, bends, pipe-fittings and protected-side restrictions should be reduced to a
minimum.
An in-line deflagration arrester is only suited for atmospheric conditions, unless specifically tested at
elevated pressures or temperatures.
5.3 In-line detonation arrester
These arresters are suitable for installation at any distance from an ignition source.
They can be installed anywhere in the piping system, regardless of the configuration of the piping system
(unaffected by elbows, bends, pipe-fittings and protected-side restrictions) provided the same pipe-size is
applied.
An in-line detonation arrester is only suited for atmospheric conditions, unless specifically tested at
elevated pressures or temperatures.
5.4 Bidirectional arresters
Bidirectional detonation arresters shall be installed in vapour lines. On tanks and at loading arms
unidirectional detonation arresters are sufficient to protect the tank, rail car, truck or vessel against a
detonation in the vapour lines.
5.5 Application of in-line blowers
Blowers of category 1 for Zone 0 shall be tested by a Notified Body. The exception could be a blower
with detonation arrester in a distance of 120 times the pipe diameter at the vacuum and pressure side.
An example of a safeguarded blower with integrated arrester is presented in figure 5.

Figure 5 - Safeguarded blower (ATEX-blower)
5 Hazards due to misapplication
Hazards of misapplication are:

 Application of uncertified (not approved) flame arresters (e.g. wrong category of components);
 Operating pressure and/or operating temperature above atmospheric (>60°C, >1,1 bara);
 Vapor component more volatile than according acceptance test;
 Wrong Explosion group (IIA, IIB3, IIC);
 Longer run-up distance (end-of-line and deflagration arresters);
 Elbows and fittings in pipe configuration (deflagration arresters);
 Larger line size than flame arrester;
 Restrictions on protected side of arrester (end-of-line and deflagration arresters);
 Pre-volume or vessel in the vapour system. Ignitions originating in pre-volume (tanks, vessels, knock-
out vessels) connected to piping systems propagate as high-pressure deflagration and detonation
flame fronts. In-line deflagration arresters will fail if not tested for these conditions!!.
7 Conclusions and recommendations
If a vapor flow has to be safe-guarded it is recommended to apply in-line detonation arresters. These
allow the optimal flexibility in piping configurations.
If applied upstream an ignition source (e.g. blower) the detonation arrester should be provided with a
temperature sensor to detect any burning on the arrester. At alarm the vapour flow should be stopped.
8 Cost aspects
Due to the diversity of flame-arrester types, available materials (CS, SS) and sizes it is impossible to
present an overview of prices in this document. For specific applications it is advised to contact suppliers.
However, for a general indication of prices the following information may be of help.

Detonation flame-arrester in carbon steel, applicable for products in explosion groups IIA / IIB-3 prices
are:
Line-size 4” € 3,500
9 Known suppliers
PROTEGO Nederland
Ton Kerkmeer
Tel: +31 (0)35 526 3578
ton.kerkmeer@protego.nl
www.protego.com
10 Further reading
See "HSG158 Flame Arrestors", which can be found in the supporting document section of this standard.

Appendix 8 – Calculation of vapour concentration
Based on the mol weight and the partial pressure of a component in a gas mixture, can the concentration
of the components in the gas phase be determined.
The estimation of the concentration of a gaseous component at temperature T in the vapour is:
ConcT (gram/m3) = Ppart X MW * 273/ (22,3 x T)
ConcT = concentration of component in vapour at temperature T (gram / m3)

Ppart = partial pressure of component at temperature T (mbar)
MW = mol weight of the component (gram / mol)
In case of saturated vapours the partial pressure is equal to the vapour pressure of the component. The
actual concentration is the calculated concentration times the saturation.
To calculate the concentration back to normalised cubic meters, the following formula shall be used.
ConcT,0 (gram/Nm3) = ConcT x 273 / T
ConcT, 0 = Concentration of component in vapour at temperature T with normal cubic meters

ConcT = Concentration of component in vapour at temperature T
T = vapour temperature in degrees Kelvin
To determine the saturated vapour concentrations of mixtures, like gasoline or naphtha, the true vapour
pressure of the mixture shall be used. The True Vapour Pressure and an estimation of the mol weight of
the vapour can be found in table 30.1.
The actual concentration is the calculated concentration times the saturation.
Product Mol weight (g/mol) TVP (kPa)

Crudes Various crudes 50 20 – 50
Gasolines Mogas summer 68 41
Mogas winter 65 55
Light Naphtha C5 – C6 73 48
Full range Naphtha C5-C10 76 21
Kerosenes Jet-naphtha (JP-4) 76 11
Table 1 - Estimation of TVP and mol weight of known mixtures

Appendix 9 – Pre-selection matrix vapour treatment
Vapour Recovery Techniques Vapour Destruction Techniques
Membrane filtration
PSA
(Cryo-)condensation
Absorption
Incinerator
CEB-flae
Catox
RTO
Gas engine
VRU-VDU Techniques
Chemical groups
Remarks S- S-components
components not allowed
not allowed
Paraffins Yes Yes/no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- (C4 – C10) Yes Yes CH
- naphtha Yes Yes CH
Olefins, e.g. Yes Yes/no Yes/no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- 1-butene Yes CH
- nonene No CH
Alkins, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- acetylene heat CH
production
Alcohols, e.g. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- 1-butanol H2O
- 2-butanol H2O
- cyclohexanol H2O
- ethanol H2O
- GTBA H2O
- methanol H2O
Aldehydes, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- butyl aldehyde heat H2O
- methyl aldehyde production H2O
- propyl aldehyde H2O
Aromatics, e.g. Yes Yes/no Yes/no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- benzene Yes Yes CH
- ethylbenzene Yes Yes CH
- styrene No No CH
- toluene Yes Yes CH
- m-xylene No Yes CH
Esters, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- butyl acrylate heat Yes Caustic
- ethyl acetate production Yes H2O
- methyl acrylate Yes Caustic
- methyl methacrylate Yes Caustic
- vinyl acetate Yes H2O
Ethers, e.g. Yes Yes/no Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- 1,4 dioxane Yes Yes H2O
- diethyl ether No Yes Glycol
- dimethyl ether No Yes Glycol
- MTBE
Epoxides, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- ethylene oxide Yes H2O
- propylene oxide Yes H2O

Vapour Recovery Techniques Vapour Destruction Techniques
Membrane filtration
PSA
(Cryo-)condensation
Absorption
Incinerator
CEB-flae
Catox
RTO
Gas engine
VRU-VDU Techniques
Chemical groups
Halogenated CH, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes/no No/yes No/yes No/yes No/yes No/yes
- HClorobenzene heat Yes No (HCl) (HCl) (HCl) (HCl) (HCl)
- diHCloroethane production Yes No
- methyleenHCloride Yes H2O
Ketones, e.g. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- acetone heat Yes H2O
- cyclohexanone production CH
- MEK Yes H2O
Nitriles, e.g. Yes Yes/no Yes Yes Yes/no Yes/no Yes/no Yes Yes/no
- acetonitrile Yes Yes H2O (NOx) (NOx) (NOx) (NOx)
- acrylonitril No Yes H2O
Anorganics Yes Yes/no Yes/no Yes Yes/no Yes/no Yes/no Yes Yes/no
- Ammonia No Yes H2O (NOx) (NOx) (NOx) (NOx)
Table A9.1 Example pre-selection technical feasible VRU and VDU techniques
Explanations:
Yes/no: based on physico-chemical properties of products a technique is in principle technical possible yes or no
CH: hydro carbon as absorption liquid
H2O: water as absorption liquid
Caustic: caustic as absorption liquid
Glycol: glycol as absorption liquid
NOx: at combustion of N-compounds besides thermal NOx also additional product NOx is formed in flue gases
HCl: at combustion of halogenated products HCl is formed in flue gases

Appendix 10 – Example Multi Criteria Analysis
it
op n io un
H op b ati y
- R E om ns tt
E tio st on
2 HD r c de r je
tio 1 n
e
A - R ou on p
2
u
H 1 ap l c ru
n
S V tra v
H 3 - en ted
TE 2 - edi r
B D cto
B C ca
D
TE 1 - fa
B ng
TE ghi
S
ei
A
Option
W
0 Knockout criteria
Compliance with Environmental permit 2 2 -2 2 2
Required peak and yearly capacity available 2 2 1 2 1
Chance of product contamination -2 2 2 2 2
1 Technical criteria
Proven Technology 4 2 2 0 0 0
Plot space requirements 4 -1 0 1 1 -1
2 Operational and Maintenance criteria
Operational restrictions during construction 2 2 -2 1 -1 -1
Reliability 6 2 2 1 1 1
Maintainability 2 2 1 1 1 1
Redundancy 4 2 1 1 0 0
Degree of automation/required operational effort 2 0 1 1 1 1
3 Future expansion criteria
Future expansion to 4000m3/h possible 4 1 -1 2 0 -1
Estimated capex for expansion 1 1 -1 2 0 -1
4 Financial criteria
NPV 9 1 0 1 -1 -1
Maintenance costs 2 1 0 0 0 1
Energy consumption 3 -1 -1 2 1 1
Delivery conditions (one supplier issues) 2 0 0 0 -1 -1
5 Safety & Environmental criteria
Safety aspects 4 0 0 -2 0 0
Environmental aspects 2 0 0 2 1 1
5 Others (during meeting)
Permitting (building) 2 1 -1 1 -1 -1
Flexibility changing loading profiles 4 1 1 0 -1 -1
TOTAL SCORE 51 18 43 0 -11
Figure A10.1 - Example of a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)

Criterion Short description / remark Proposed weight
factor
Knock-out criteria In case an option scores -2, the option has
 Process safety to be rejected unless the knock-out
 Compliance with environmental criterion can be mitigated without high
permit costs.
 Required peak and yearly
capacity available
 Chance of product contamination
 Other specific project related
knock-out criteria
Technical criteria For a good judgement practical references

 Proven technology / experiences of the technology shall be 6
 Plot space requirements available. 4
Operational and maintenance Sufficient information from

criteria vendors/contractors and investigations by
 Operational restrictions during e.g. reliability block diagram modelling 2
construction shall be available.
 Reliability 6
 Maintainability 4
 Availability/redundancy 5
 Required operational effort / 2
degree of automation
Future expansion criteria Weight factors very dependant on actual
 Future expansion possible project. Weight factors to be defined by 4
 Estimated CAPEX for expansion the team. 1
Safety and Environmental criteria More detailed review of safety and

 Safety aspects environmental aspects. The use of a Risk 6
 Environmental aspects Assessment Matrix is recommended 3
Sustainability criteria
 Energy consumption / CO2 Refer to Vopak Sustainability Policy [Ref. 5
production 25]
 Demolition after project life / LCA 3
Other criteria depending on Defined during meeting

specific project
Total score technical criteria

Financial criteria Weight factors dependant on actual
 NPV project. Weight factors to be defined by 9
 Maintenance costs the team. 2
 Energy and utility costs 3
 Delivery conditions 2
Total score including financial

criteria
Table A10.1 – Example of a MCA for VH&T projects with proposed weight factors.


0122F560845B0135 - 1 - Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

0122F560845B0135 - 1 - Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0122F560845B0135 - 1 - Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vapour Handling and Treatment

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Confidentiality and Distribution

December 2010 03 Minor improvements on revision 02 for final publication in QoL

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

2 SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY 7

PART A: SELECTION PROCESS 19

5 INVENTORY OF EMISSION SOURCES AND COLLECTION OF RELEVANT DATA 19

6 EMISSION LEGISLATION AND DIRECTIVES 23

7 EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES 24

7 EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES 25

8 EMISSION PREVENTION & REDUCTION MEASURES ON STORAGE TANKS 27

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

11 VAPOUR HANDLING & TREATMENT SELECTION PROCESS 32

PART B: TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF VRU AND VDU TECHNIQUES 37

16 THERMAL OXIDATION (INCINERATOR, CEB FLARE, RTO) 61

17 CATALYTIC OXIDATION (CATOX) 74

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

20 LESS COMMON TECHNIQUES FOR VOPAK: BIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES 78

21 EMISSION, MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING 83

APPENDIX 1 – STATIC ACCUMULATORS 87

APPENDIX 2 – PRODUCT COMPATIBILITY CHART 88

APPENDIX 3 – CALCULATIONS OF MAXIMUM VAPOUR FLOW 89

APPENDIX 4 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION GASOMETERS (VAPOUR BUFFER) 92

APPENDIX 5 – VAPOUR BALANCING AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS 97

APPENDIX 6 – FILLING SMALL CONTAINERS 106

APPENDIX 7 – APPLICATION OF FLAME--ARRESTERS 107

APPENDIX 8 – CALCULATION OF VAPOUR CONCENTRATION 114

APPENDIX 9 – PRE-SELECTION MATRIX VAPOUR TREATMENT 115

APPENDIX 10 – EXAMPLE MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS 117

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

PART A: SELECTION PROCESS

The following items will be discussed in the successive chapters of part A:

Chapter 5: Inventory of Emission Sources and Collection of relevant data

Chapter 6: Emission legislation and Directives

Chapter 7: Emission Control Measures (ECM)

Chapter 8: Emission Prevention & Reduction Measures on Storage Tanks

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Chapter 9: Vapour Balancing

Chapter 10: Vapour Treatment (VRU/VDU) Selection Process

Chapter 11: Vapour Handling and Treatment Selection Process

PART B: VRU AND VDU TECHNIQUES DETAILS

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Vapour handling and treatment systems should:

For safeguarding the following methods are applicable:

4.2 Treated and Untreated Vapour Transport

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Main conclusions from the HAZOP were:

1 Flammable atmospheres can be present in tanks:

3 Take special precautions for certain products:

4 Carry out a management of change when changing products:

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010

Present in External Safety Reports arguments that sufficient mitigation

4.3 Vapour Handling Systems

Types of Vapour Handling Systems

Vapour Handling and Treatment Guidance Document l 03 l December 2010