1、41“ American .1 Petroleum Institute DETERMINATION OF EMISSIONS FROM RETAIL GASOLINE OUTLETS USING OPTICAL REMOTE SENSING: PILOT FIELD STUDY AT A NON-VAPOR RECOVERY SITE PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT VOLUME I Health and Environmental Sciences Department Publication Number DR 76 June 1999 American Petroleum
2、Institute American Petroleum Institute Environmental, Health, and Safety Mission and Guiding Principles MISSION PRINCIPLES The members. of the American Petroleum Institute are dedicated to continuous ejfons to improve the compatibility of our operations with the environment while economically develo
3、ping energy resources and SuPplying high qwiliry products and services to consumers. We recogmze our responsibility to work with the public. the government, and others to develop and to use natural resources in an environmentally sound manner while protecting the health and safety of our employees a
4、nd the public. To meet these responsibilities, API members pledge to manage our businesses according to the following principles using sound science to prioritize risks and to implement cost-effective management practices: To recognize and to respond to community concerns about our raw materials, pr
5、oducts and operations. To operate our plants and facilities, and to handle our raw materials and products in a manner that protects the environment, and the safety and health of our employees and the public. To make safety, health and environmental considerations a priority in our planning, and our
6、development of new products and processes. To advise promptly, appropriate officials, employees, customers and the public of information on significant industry-related safety, health and environmental hazards, and to =ommend protective measures. To counsel customers, uansporters and others in the s
7、afe use, transportation and disposal of our raw materials, products and waste materials. To economically develop and produce natural resources and to conserve those resources by using energy efficiently. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the safety, health and environmental
8、 effects of our raw materials, products, processes and waste materials. To commit to reduce overall emission and waste generation. To work with others to resolve problems created by handling and disposal of hazardous substances from our operations. To participate with government and others in creati
9、ng responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environmcnL To promote these principles and practices by sbaring experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of similar raw mateiials, petroleum products and wast
10、eS. Determination of Emissions from Retail Gasoline Outlets Using Optical Remote Sensing: Pilot Field Study at a Non-Vapor Recovery Site Project Summary Report Volume I Health and Environmental Sciences Department API PUBLICATION NUMBER DR 76 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: WILLIAM M. VAUGHAN JUDITH 0.
11、ZWICKER REMOTE SENSING=AIR, INC. 8147 DELMAR BOULEVARD ST. LOUIS MISSOURI63130 JUNE 1999 Reproduced by Global Engineering Documents With the Permission of API Under Royalty Agreement GLOBAL BNGINEERING DOCUMENTS American Petroleum Institute FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A
12、 GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANUFAC TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEAL
13、TH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARATUS, OR PRODUCT COV ERED
14、 BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT. All rights reserved. No pan of tltis wort may be rwprodut:ed, Jtored in a NtrieWJIJYstem, or rransmitted by cmy means, e/t!ctronic, meclumic
15、tJI phorocopying, recording, or otherwise, widaout prior written permission from tM publiJh canisters at 0, 2.5 and 5 m at the 4 hours most downwind pillar. TedJarTM bags at three pillars. 4 hours Determination of At least one OP-FTIR system downwind 10 hours Emission Factors with tracer release, me
16、teorological data, and (Total and Vehicle vehicle fueling data and/or totalizer data. Fueling) Determination of Bulk fuel delivery data, OP-FTIR data 0.5 hours Emission Factors downwind of the vent pipes, tracer release for Bulk Fuel from the vent pipes, vehicle fueling data, and Delivery meteorolog
17、ical data. The total volume of gasoline dispensed was determined by regularly recording the totalizer values at each pump for calculating total emission factors. The amount of fuel dispensed, the type of vehicle, the start and end time of the fueling, the grade of gasoline and pump number as well as
18、 estimates of areas of spills were recorded for each vehicle fueling during certain periods. ES-3 Figure Es-1. Site diagram showing locations of equipment for afternoon monitoring on June 28, 1997. Sign 0 0 Fl Ut Ven!Pipoa . ,- STORE H lm T, IH 1!1 0 “ u 0 C t 0 ES-4 Grassy Slope “ , I FEAT-OJ ETGrn
19、R El _FTIR * , . Cl IN C:. IN- MIIW 0 TCMW I T_,_ STUDY RESULTS The results of the monitoring are swnmarized below: Upwind/Downwind Monitoring No upwind concentrations of benzene or toluene were observed above the OP-UV detection limits for these two compounds (7.5 J.lg/m3 and 12.5 J.lg/m3, respecti
20、vely). Upwind OP-FTIR concentrations were observed when: (a) winds were variable and emissions from the fueling area were transported to the upwind beam, (b) propane was dispensed upwind (winds from the east) of the upwind beam, and (c) winds were steady (about 3 m/s) from the southeast during the r
21、ush hour morning monitoring on June 27, 1997. The upwind concentrations that might be attributed to the rush hour traffic on the nearby interstate were near the minimum detectable limits of 1 00 J.lg/mJ. Determination of Emission Rates Emission rates of gasoline vapors in g/s were determined using t
22、he downwind OP-FTIR gasoline and SF6 path-integrated concentrations and the known tracer release rates (0.03 to 0.16 g/s) for each of the test scenarios. The emission rates that were determined using the OP-FTIR data collected at the downwind fenceline (:0 to 2 g/s) incorporate the impact of vehicle
23、 fueling, spills, and other fugitive emissions. The highest emission rates at the downwind fenceline were observed during the early monitoring with the downwind beam only a few meters from the closest fueling area. The vehicle fueling emission factors are summarized in Tables ES-2. The values are qu
24、ite consistent for all monitoring periods and for both OP-FTIR systems even at different heights and positions. The average and standard deviation of the coefficients are 0.0016 0.0005 kg emitted/kg dispensed or a vehicle fueling emission factor of 0.16% 0.05% mass emissions. This is about 40% highe
25、r than that calculated from AP-42 and it is consistent with those values reported by other direct measurement studies. (See Table ES-2.) Total emission factors for gasoline vapors are presented in Table ES-3 for each of the four intensive monitoring periods. The values for the downwind fenceline mon
26、itoring range from ES-5 Table ES-2. Comparison of vehicle fueling emission factors from various sources. Study Measured Emission Factor Calculated Emission Factor Mass Percent Using AP-42 Equation RGO Pilot Field Study June 1998/Missouri 0.16% 0.05% 0.11%. OP-FTIR (Fl) 0.12%0.02% RGO Pilot Field Stu
27、dy June 1998/Missouri 0.15% 0.03% 0.11%. OP-FTIR (F2) 0.12% 0.02% NPL 1995 February /UK 0.30% Not Available DIALandiR NPL 1996 February /UK 0.15% Not Available DIALandiR CARB 1997 September/California 0.12% 0.05% 0.13% 0.03% Stage II Efficiency Test Quigley 1998 Four Seasons/Texas 0.24% 0.07% 0.20%
28、0.02% Direct Measurement Using the generic temperatures and RVP from AP-42. Using UST temperatures for dispensed fuel and ambient temperatures for vehicle fuel and RVP of7 psi. Using measured dispensed fuel and vehicle tank fuel temperatures and RVP. 0.27% 0.15% mass emissions to 0.42% 0.25% mass em
29、issions during the time period of the study. The values are very similar for the two OP-FTIR beams at different heights when both systems are at the downwind fenceline. However, when the OP-FTIR beam is between the refueling canopy and the convenience store building on the site, the total emission f
30、actor calculated from the resulting concentration data is Jess than half that determined from data collected at the downwind beam (0.16% mass emissions vs. 0.40%). This is because the OP FTIR only captures vapors resulting from vehicle fueling, spillage, high emitting vehicles (HEVs), and the presen
31、ce (if any) of upwind contributions when the beam is located between the canopy and the store. Under these conditions, the beam does not capture vapors from the vent pipes or from liquid left in the spill buckets at the fillports of the underground storage tanks (USTs) northeast of the vehicle fueli
32、ng area and east of the store. ES-6 Table ES-3. Summary of total emission factors by intensive period. Total Emission Factor Difference Event Mass Percent . Fl-F2 Downwind Fenceline Mass Percent Fl F2 June 27 Morning Intensive 08:00 to 09:00 CST 0.42% 0.25% NA Fl Downwind Fenceline (1.5 m) F2 Upwind
33、 Fenceline (1.5 m) June 27 Afternoon Intensive 15:30 to 16:30 CST 0.28%0.13% 0.27% 0.15% 0.01% Fl Downwind Fence1ine (5 m) F2 Downwind Fenceline (1.5 m) June 28 Morning Intensive 07:30 to 08:30 CST 0.33% 0.24% 0.38% 0.24% -0.05% Fl Downwind Fenceline (5 m) F2 Downwind Fenceline (1.5 m) June 28 After
34、noon Intensive 13:30 to 14:30 CST 0.16% 0.12% 0.40% 0.0.9“/o Not Comparable Fl Downwind Vehicle Fueling (5 m) F2 Downwind Fenceline (1.5 m) Average of Downwind Fenceline 0.32% 0.35% -0.03% Standard Deviation 0.08% 0.07% Number of Values 3 Using average mass of vapors emitted and average mass of gaso
35、line dispensed with standard deviation of data. ES-7 Table ES-4 compares the emission factors calculated using the ORS data to represent emissions during the bulk delivery of 8,400 gallons of gasoline fuel with conventional estimates. Bulk fuel drop emission rates (up to 3 g/s) contain the emissions
36、 from the fuel drop as well as those arising from other activities which occurred simultaneously (e.g., vehicle fueling). The bulk delivery emission factor (including vehicle fueling) ranged from 0.0090% or 0.55 lbs/1000 gal to 0.0098% or 0.60 lbs/1000 gal (depending on beam height) and indicated a
37、Stage I efficiency of 93% to 95% (depending on the uncontrolled value used for comparison). The EPA and most state regulations allow for 90% Stage I efficiency. Determination of Spatial Distribution of Vapors OP-FTIR monitoring at the downwind fenceline beams (“30m from the fueling area and downwind
38、 of the store) showed the maximum values for both tracer and gasoline vapors at the 3 and 5 m heights. This pattern of vertical concentrations is consistent with the dispersion of the gasoline vapor and tracer release plumes in relation to the height of the store, located between the vehicle fueling
39、 area and the beam. The vertical profiling data collected by the OP-FTIR at the north edge of the canopy showed nearly the same averages of path-average concentrations of tracer at both the 3 and 5 m beam heights. However, the average gasoline path-average concentration at the 3 m beam height was ab
40、out twice that at the 5 m level. The SUMMA canister data for all four intensive monitoring periods indicated that hydrocarbon concentrations at the 2.5 m level were 1.5 to 3 times those at the 5 m level. This difference between the dispersion of the tracer and the gasoline vapors for the point sampl
41、ing was most likely related to the beam being-20m from the point of the tracer release and -10 m from the closest fueling points. The point sampling data collected during the four 1-hour intensive periods indicated that the tracer was generally well mixed (less than a factor of three difference betw
42、een heights) from ground level to 5 m for all four events at the NW and SW pillars (winds nominally from the SE). The total hydrocarbon concentrations from the NW pillar followed a similar pattern except for one period when the ground level concentration was higher than the others by a factor of 50.
43、 ES-8 Table ES-4. Comparison of Stage I and uncontrolled bulk fuel delivery emission factors. Deliverv Type Emission Factor Emission Factor Method as as lbs/1 000 gal Study Mass Percent Coaxial Vapor Recovery Bulk Delivea with No PN Valve OP-FTIR (5 m beam height) 0.0090%* o.ss 8. Pilot Field Study
44、“ Cll !; Coaxial Vapor Recovery Bulk Delivea with No PN Valve Cll Uncontrolled Bulk Fuel Delivea with No Val!or Recovery Ill: AP-42 Calculations Using General Temperature 0.13% 8.20 (USEP A, 1995) c Cl. “ Uncontrolled Bulk Fuel Deliven: with No Val!or Recovery i:i ORS Measurement 0.17% 10.50 = . (NP
45、L, 1995) Uncontrolled Bulk Fuel Deliven: with No Val!or Recovery c Q Point Monitoring and Calculations 0.14% 8.40 (Kunaniec, 1997) - - These values from the vapor recovery bulk fuel delivery should be (and are) less than 10% of the uncontrolled (no vapor recovery) values listed below the dark line.
46、The vapor recovery emission factors range from S to 7% of the uncontrolled values. I This anomalous value was due to a small spill adjacent to the canister accompanied by very low winds with an easterly to southeasterly direction (toward the canister from the spill). The low windspeeds would result
47、in less mixing with the spill evaporating slowly at ground level near the canister. CONCLUSIONS It is important to note that the testing program was limited to the study of ORS technology at only one uncontrolled RGO facility. The results may be site specific and the conclusions may or may not be di
48、rectly applicable to other situations. Additional evaluation of ORS technology at other types of RGO facilities and under a broader range of conditions will be required in order to generalize the results and conclusions of the present study. Given the above caveat, the major conclusions from the tes
49、t program are listed below relative to the goals of the field study. These conclusions are further expanded for the interested reader in Section 4 of this report. In addition, Section 4 presents recommendations and suggested guidance (relative to each of the goals) for future test programs of this nature. Goal 1. To evaluate the feasibility of using various ORS equipment configurations to capture and detect the total RGO emissions (fUgitive and vehicle fueling emissions from
