| Gossman Consulting, Inc |
GCI
TECH NOTES©
Volume 7, Number 5 A Gossman Consulting, Inc. Publication October 2002
Vapor Balance
System
Control Efficiency
by
Dave Constans,
Gossman Consulting, Inc.
Logic might dictate that AP42, EPA’s bible
for
estimating emissions from various processes, would in section 7.1
(Organic
Liquid Storage Tanks) discuss vapor balance systems and provide
equations for
calculating emissions from tank systems with such equipment. Indeed in 7.1.2.1 vapor balancing is
discussed as one of four methods of controlling emissions from the tank. The four methods are: Floating roof with a
60 to 99% control efficiency, vapor balancing with a 90 to 98% control
efficiency, vapor recovery with a 90 to 98% control efficiency and
combustion
with a 96 to 99% control efficiency.
When it comes to utilizing the “Emission Estimation Procedures”
in
section 7 of AP42 to calculate emissions from systems utilizing vapor
balance
systems the formulas are useless.
Indeed the EPA has provided a software program to calculate tank
emissions. The TANKS4 (version 4.096), developed by the API. However, in a FAQ accessed via the Internet,
one of the FAQ’s listed is: “I have a gasoline service station with
underground
fixed roof tanks that are vapor balanced.
What equations should I use to estimate emissions?”
The response to this question is
illuminating, not because it is useful in calculating the answer but
because it
points out how little thought has gone into providing assistance in
calculating
emissions for one of the four recognized methods of control listed in
7.1.2.1.
The response to this FAQ is to utilize the
equations
in 7.1.3.3. Section 7.1.3.3 deals with
“Variable Vapor Space Tanks” – by definition these are tanks that have
an
“expandable vapor reservoir to accommodate vapor volume
fluctuations”... “most
common types” ... “are lifter roof tanks and flexible diaphragm tanks”
(Section
7.1.1.5 AP42). In addition the text of
7.1.3.3 states... “Special tank operating conditions may result in
actual
losses significantly different from the estimate provided by equation
3-1. For example, if one or more tanks
with
interconnected vapor spaces are filled while others are emptied
simultaneously,
all or part of the expelled vapor will be transferred to the tank, or
tanks,
being emptied. This is called balanced
pumping. Equation 3-1 does not account
for balanced pumping, and will overestimate losses under this
condition.” The text does not provide a
clue as to
where, or even if, any equations exist in AP42 to address a known and
listed
emission control method.
Gasoline storage is a system that utilizes
vapor
balance systems. Section 5.2 of AP42
covers “Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids”. Section 5.2.5.2 the text acknowledges:
“Emissions from underground tank filling operations as service stations
can be
reduced by the use of a vapor balance system... The control efficiency
of the
balance system ranges from 93% - 100% percent.” The
EPA thought highly enough of vapor balance systems that they
mandated the use of them for service stations in certain urban areas
where
“tests on a few systems have indicated overall systems control
efficiencies in
the range of 88% - 92%” (Section 5.2.2.3 AP42). Again, AP42 does not
provide
equations for calculating the reduced emission rates.
What is the purpose in detailing AP42’s
inadequacies
for addressing emissions estimates for systems utilizing vapor
balancing
systems? Clearly this is a valuable
technology. This technology is
documented by the EPA to reduce VOC emissions by 88% - 100%, yet it
does not
use any energy or consumable resource, such as activated carbon, to do
so. Furthermore, AP42 is nearly useless in
providing guidance on how to estimate emissions from tank systems
utilizing
this tank emissions reduction technology.
This puts the facility owner/operator who utilize such systems
at a
disadvantage. Generally the mere use of
AP42 equations and subsequent demonstrations of the required VOC
capture
efficiencies would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance to the
regulations. However, because of AP42’s
inadequacies the
documentation becomes more difficult.
In addition, the lack of an EPA recognized methodology impugns
the
owner/operator’s efforts in the eyes of many regulators.
A widely used vapor balance system is
described in
AP42 section 7.1.3.3 (noted above) as a “Special tank operating
condition”….”called balanced pumping”.
The vacuum/pressure vent valve located next
to the
carbon canisters is designed to be the “first to open”, that is, this
pressure
vent will open before any other relief valve on the piping or tanks,
and
release VOC laden gases into the carbon canister.
The vacuum vent, in turn, will be the first
to open
before any other vacuum vent on the piping or tanks, to allow air into
the
system to preclude the vacuum crush of the tanks. Typical
vacuum/pressure
settings are 0.035-psi vacuum/0.5 psi pressure. In
addition the fuel delivery tank trucks are connected to the
system during unloading. This directs
the vapors displaced from a receiving tank back to the unloading truck,
resulting
in no loss of VOC during the transfer.
Similarly when the receiving tank has been blended and analyzed
and is
transferred to a burn tank the displaced vapor is routed back into the
transferring tank. However unlike
virtually all systems described in AP42 the fuel in the burn tanks is
being
consumed at a nearly constant rate.
This reduction of fluids in these tanks creates a partial vacuum
in the
burn tank pulling vapor from the other tanks, frequently in excess of
the vapor
generation rate attributed to daily temperature changes.
Indeed the system is generally under a
partial vacuum except during periods of time when the kiln is not
utilizing the
hazardous waste fuel.
To document the control efficiency of the
vapor
balance system it is first necessary to calculate the uncontrolled
emissions
from the various tanks using the equations in AP42 section 7.1 as these
equations are utilized in the TANKS4 software.
This emission rate would then be compared to the emission rate
for the
tank system utilizing the vapor balance equipment, but excluding the
additional
reduction attributable to the carbon canisters.
To calculate the vapor emissions from the
tank
system equipped with a vapor balance system it is first assumed that
the use of
the vapor balance system precludes the emissions of VOC attributable to
“working loses” and only those emissions attributable to breathing
losses in
excess of the volume reduction caused by the consumption of the fuel in
the
kiln or during those time periods when fuel is not being consumed.
Uncontrolled Emission Calculation:
Example hazardous waste
storage tanks are described below:
Tanks 1 through 4
are identical, each is a: Nominal
40,000 gallons, 15 ft. dia. x 30’ straight side, vertical tanks with
cone
roof. Tank 5 and 6: Nominal
150,000 gallons, 30’ dia. x 30’
straight side, vertical tank with cone
roof.
The organic vapor
partial pressure is 0.285
atmosphere and the average molecular weight of the organic fuel is
66.84 (This
is typical for a kiln burning commercially available waste fuel.) Other assumptions: The facility processes
16,000,000 gallons per year. Each of
the 40,000-gallon blend tanks sees one-fourth of this throughput and
each of
the burn tanks sees one-half of this throughput annually.
The vacuum/pressure setting for the tanks is
0.035 psi and 0.5 psi. The other
factors are properly selected from the TANKS4 program menus. The TANKS4 program is run and the
uncontrolled vapor emissions coming from each of the tanks is as
follows:
|
Tank |
Working Losses, lbs/year |
Breathing Losses, lbs/year |
Total Emissions, lbs/year |
|
1 |
12,311 |
1,591 |
13,902 |
|
2 |
12,311 |
1,591 |
13,902 |
|
3 |
12,311 |
1,591 |
13,902 |
|
4 |
12,311 |
1,591 |
13,902 |
|
5 |
41,031 |
6,364 |
47,395 |
|
6 |
41,031 |
6,364 |
47,395 |
|
Total |
131,307 |
19,093 |
150,400 |
Emissions Controlled by Vapor Balance System
All of the working losses are reduced to zero
by the
vapor balance system. The breathing
losses are reduced due to the volume of fuel being consistently
consumed by the
kiln as fuel. The 16,000,000-gallon
throughput each year is consumed in about 7920 hours of operation (330
days).
The breathing losses of 19,093 lbs./year are
approximately 285.6 pound-moles or 95,847 ft3 at the average
annual
temperature of 52°F or 262.6 ft3 daily.
There are 35 days each year when hazardous waste fuel is not
consumed. For these 35 days 9,191 ft3
of VOC’s are released from the tanks.
During the other 330 days the consumption of
the
fuel causes 48,484.8 gallons of fuel to be drawn from the burn tank or
6482 ft3
each day. This volumetric flow rate out
of the tanks is 270.1 ft3 per hour, more volume than the
breathing losses from all tanks each day.
Even if the VOC’s were diluted with air at a ratio of 20 to 1
the
volumetric removal rate from the tanks would exceed the VOC generation
rate. Therefore on the 330 days when
fuel is consumed in the kiln there will be no breathing losses.
Consequently the only emissions from the
system are
those attributable to the 35 days each year when hazardous waste fuel
is not
consumed. The 9191 ft3 of
VOC’s is equal to 1,831 lbs./year of VOC, in comparison to the 150,400
lbs./year of uncontrolled emissions.
This demonstrates a 98.9% control efficiency for the vapor
balance
system alone. In addition if these
emissions are then routed through a series of 2 carbon canisters for an
additional 95% + reduction, the overall control efficiency is in excess
of
99.9%.