1、 API PUBL*4588 93 = 0732290 0533458 683 Development of Fugitive Emission Factors and Emission Profiles for Petroleum Marketing Terminals Volume I: Text Health and Environmental Sciences Department PUBLICATION NUMBER 4588 PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT BY: RADIAN CORPORATION 10389 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD SAC R
2、AM ENTO, CALI FO RN IA MARCH 1993 American Petroleum Institute API PUBLX4588 93 m 0732290 0533459 51iT m FOREWORD API PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. API IS NOT
3、 UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYEXS, MANUFAC- TURERS, OR SUPPLIERS To WARN AND PROPERLY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY AP
4、I 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 BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETIERS PATENT. API, AND ITS MEMBER COMPANIES, DISCL
5、AIM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS MANUAL. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- Copyright O 1993 American Petroleum instimte i API PUBL*4588 93 m 0732290 0533460 231 m ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME
6、 AND EXPERTISE DURING THIS STUDY AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT AFI STAFF CONT ACTS Paul Martino, Health and Environmental Sciences Karin Riaer, Heath and Environmental Affairs WMBERS OF THE AIR TO XICS mm EAR STDY WO RKGROP Kathy Kelly, Shell Oil Company Lee Gilmore, Texaco Richard Russell,
7、API consultant Daniel Van der Zanden, Chevron Corporation Hai Taback, API consultant Additional review of the report was provided by the following individuais, whose assis- rance is gratefully acknowiedged: John King, Shell Oil Company Karen McNeal, Exxon Corporation Lamy McLaughlin, ARCO James Whit
8、e, ARCO in addition, spechi acknowledgement is given to the U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quaiity Planning and Standards, Emission Inventory Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina for separately funding field measurements taken at one terminal and providing QA/QC oversight at the other three termi
9、nais tested in this study. iii API PUBLX4588 73 m O732270 0513461 Li8 m ABSTRACT The American Petroleum Institute (API) commissioned this study to “Develop Fugitive Emission Factors and Emission Profiles for Petroleum Marketing Terminals“ by screening andor bagging components at three marketing term
10、inals. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) separately funded the same test contractor (Radian) to test an additional terminal. The results for all four marketing terminals are presented in this report. New average emission factors, new default zero emission factors, and new
11、emission correlation equations were developed for the majority of the component types found in petroleum marketing terminals. In almost all cases the new average emission factors, new default zero emission factors and new emission correlation equations predict substantially lower emissions than thos
12、e factors and equations determined in previous studies of the chemical and petroleum refinery industries. These emission factors are lower because of lower leak distributions and lower correlations between mass emissions and screening values. In addition to screening and bagging, a test was performe
13、d to determine the quantities of liquid gasoline that leaked out of loading arms after filling the gasoline tank trucks. These drips occur immediately after the trucks have been loaded and the liquid loading arms released from the trucks. Ln almost all cases the measured drip volumes per loading arm
14、 were below the detection limit of the measuring instrument (0.1 mL per truck loading event), indicating that these drips result in minimal emissions. API PUBLX4588 93 M 0732290 0513qb2 004 = TABLE OF CONTENTS Sec ti on Pape Executive Summary e5-1 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Study Objectives . 1-1 1.2
15、Historical Perspective 1-2 1.3 Report Organization . 1-4 2.0 Characteristics of Marketing Terminals Tested and How These Characteristics Affect Emissions . 2-1 3.0 Technical Approach 3-1 3.1 Screening Procedures 3-1 3.2 3.3 Bagging Procedures . 3-6 Soap Scoring Procedures 3-4 3.3.1 Bagging Sampling
16、Techniques 3-6 3.3.2 Analysis of Bag Samples 3-9 Liquid Stream Samples 3-11 3.5 Internal Quality Control Checks 3-11 3.5.1 OVA 108 3-14 3.5.2 Byron 301 and Tracor GC 3-14 3.5.3 Bagging Accuracy 3-15 3.5.4 Performance and Systems Audits 3-15 3.6 Data Analyses Techniques . 3-16 3.6.1 Development of Ma
17、ss Emission Estimates From Bagging Data . 3- 16 3.6.2 Default Zero Emission Factors . 3-20 3.6.3 Emission Correlation Equations . 3-22 3.6.4 Average Emission Factors . 3-24 3.6.5 Stratified Emission Factors 3-26 Comparison of Fugitive Emission Composition with Liquid Stream Composition 3-27 3.4 3.7
18、API PUBL+4588 93 = 0732290 05134b3 T40 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 4.0 Quality Control Results . 4-1 4.1 Accuracy 4-1 4.1.1 Analytical Accuracy of Byron Total Hydrocarbon Analysis 4-1 4.1.2 Method Accuracy of Byron Total Hydrocarbon Analysis 4-1 (Tracor GC) Analysis . 4-2 4.2 Precisio
19、n . 4-3 4.2.1 Analytical Precision 4-3 Method and Sample Precision . 4-4 5.0 Data Analysis Procedures and Results . 5-1 Default Zero Emission Factors 5-1 5.1 . 1 Default Zero Emission Factor Development . 5-1 4 . I . 3 Analytical Accuracy of Specific Hydrocarbon (GCFID 4.2.2 5.1 5.1.2 Comparison of
20、New Default Zero Emission Factors with Established U.S. EPA and Refinery Default Zero Emission Factors . 5-2 Emission Correlation Equations . 5-7 Emission Correlation Equation Development . 5-8 SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations . 5-20 Equations 5-32 Evaluation of Pegged Components 5-
21、37 Average Emission Factors 5-43 5.5 Stratified Emission Factors . 5-49 Evaluation of Screening Value Data . 5-51 5.6.1 Summary of Components Studied . 5-51 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 Comparison of New Emission Correlation Equations to the Additional Analyses of the Marketing Terminals Emission Correlation 5.2
22、.3 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.6.2 5.6.3 Analysis of Distribution of Leaking Screening Values . 5-55 Effects of Load and Service on Screening Value Concentrations 5-62 API PUBL*Ll5BB 93 = 0732290 05134bY 987 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 5.7 Results of Comparison of Vapor Leak Compositions with Liqui
23、d Stream Results of Vapor Leak Composition Analysis and Liquid Stream Compositions. 5-64 Composition Analysis . 5-7 i 5.9 Loading Arm Drip Measurement Results . 5-73 5.8 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations . 6- 1 6.1 Mass Emission Calculations . 6-1 6.2 Fugitive Emission Composition and Liquid Strea
24、m Composition Comparison . 6-8 7.0 References 7-1 API PUBL+YSBB 93 0732290 05134b5 8L3 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 2- I 5- 1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 Comparison of Screening Value Distributions Between Petroleum Marketing Terminals Study (1 992) and Refinery Assessment Study ( 1980) ES-7 Va
25、por Recovery from Trucks at Petroleum Marketing Terminals . 2-6 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Connectors in Light Liquid and Gas Services Combined 5-15 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Act
26、ual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Valves in Light Liquid Service . 5-16 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Loadi
27、ng Arm Valves in Light Liquid and Gas Service (Combined) 5-17 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Open-Ended Lines in Light Liquid and Gas Services (Combined) . 5-18 THC Mass Emission Rate Ve
28、rsus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Pumps in Light Liquid Service . 5- 19 SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations for Connectors in Light Liquid and Gas Services Combined Overlaid with Marketing Terminals D
29、ata - Log-Log Scale . 5-22 SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations for Valves in Light Liquid Service Overlaid with Marketing Terminals Data . Log-Log Scale . 5-23 SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations for Pump Seals in Light Liquid Service Overlaid with Marketing Terminals Dat
30、a . Log-Log Scale . 5-24 New THC Emission Correlation Equation and 95% Confidence Intervals Overlaid on SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations - Connectors in Light Liquid and Gas Services Combined 5-26 API PUBLx4588 93 D 0732290 05L3Ybb 75T LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 5-10 5-
31、1 1 5-12 5-13 5- 14 5-15 6- 1 New THC Emission Correlation Equation and 95% Confidence Intervals Overlaid on SOCMI and Refinery Emission Correlation Equations - Valves in Light Liquid Service 5-27 New THC Emission Correlation Equation and 95% Confidence Intervals Overlaid on SOCMI and Refinery Emiss
32、ion Correlation Equations - Pump Seals in Light Liquid Service. 5-28 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values Illustrating Connector Type and Size . 5-33 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Scr
33、eening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Emission Rate and for Individual Values - Connectors in Light Liquid and Gas Services and Valves in Light Liquid Service. Combined 5-38 THC Mass Emission Rate Versus Actual OVA Screening Value and the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Mean Em
34、ission Rate and for Individual Values - Loading Arm Valves (in Light Liquid and Gas Services) and Open-Ended Lines (in Light Liquid and Gas Services) Combined . 5-39 Comparison of Screening Value Distributions Between Petroleum Marketing Terminals Study (1992) and Refinery Assessment Study (1980) 5-
35、58 Comparison of Screening Value Distributions Between Petroleum Marketing Terminals Study (1992) and Refinery Assessment Study (1980) . 6-5 API PUBLr4588 93 m 0732290 05134b7 bb m LIST OF TABLES . Table Pane 1 Default Zero Emission Factors (Total Hydrocarbons) e5-3 2 Predictive Emission Correlation
36、 Equations for Total Hydrocarbon Mass Emission Rates e5-4 3 Petroleum Marketing Terminal Average and Stratified Total Hydrocarbon Emission Factors . e5-5 2- 1 Comparison of Selected Petroleum Marketing Terminal Characteristics 2-2 Distribution of Screened Values Per Facility for Components in Light
37、2-2 Liquid and Gas Services . 2-3 3-1 Summary of EPA Method 21 Requirements . 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 5- 1 5-2 Summary of Screening Procedures 3-3 Summary of Soap Scoring Procedures . 3-5 Summary of Fugitive Emissions Bagging Test Protocol . 3-8 Bagging Sample Analyte Target List . 3-10 Summ
38、ary of Liquid Sampling Protocol 3-12 QC Checks . 3-13 Mass Emission Calculation Procedure for Tented Leak Rate Marketing Terminal Default Zero Emission Factors (THC) and 95% Confidence Intervals 5-3 Comparison of New Marketing Terminal Default Zero Emission Factors (THC) With Established Default Zer
39、o Emission Factors (THC) . 5-5 . 3-17 5-3 Percent Reduction of New Default Zero Emission Factors (THC) When Compared to the Established Default Zero Emission Factors (THC) . 5-6 5-4 Predictive Emission Correlation Equations for THC Mass Emission Rates . 5-11 5-5 Comparison of Regression Parameters f
40、or Loading Arm Valves in Gas Service and Loading Arm Valves in Light Liquid Service 5-13 API PUBLX4588 73 m 0732270 0533468 522 m LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 5-6 Comparison of New Regression Parameters to Established Regression Parameters . 5-31 5-7 Predictive Emission Correlation Equations for
41、 THC Mass Emission Rates For Combined Component Types . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37 5-8 Summary of Pegged components Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41 5-9 Emission Correlation Equations and Default Zero Emission Fac
42、tors Used to Calculate Average THC Mass Emission Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44 5-10 Petroleum Marketing Terminal Average THC Emission Factors in Lbs/Hr/Component . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 5-46 5-1 1 Comparis
43、on of New Marketing Terminal Average THC Emission Factors to Established Average Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47 5- 12 Petroleum Marketing Terminal Stratified Total Hydrocarbon Emission Factors in Lbs/Hr/Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49 5- 13 Summary of Components Studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 1 5-14 Total Component Counts Per Facility , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53 5-1% Distribution of Number of
45、Components By Screening Value: Ail Plants and All Components 5-55 5-15b Distribution of Percent of Components By Screening Value: Ail Plants and All Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56 5- 16a Petroleum Marketing Terminals Study,
46、 1992 . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 5-57 5-16b Refinery Assessment Study, 1980 . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57 5-17 Distribution of Leaking Components By Screening Value: Ail Plants and Ail Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60 5-18 Summary Statistics for Phase and Load Screening Concentrations by Component . 5-62 API PUBL*4588 93 0732290 05134b9 4b9 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 5-19 5-20 5-2 1 5-22 5-23 5-24 6- 1 6-2 6-3 Terminal “A“ Fugitive vs. Stream C
48、omposition Ratios - Mass Fraction Basis . . . 5-64 Terminal “B“ Fugitive vs. Stream Composition Ratios - Mass Fraction Basis . . . 5-65 Terminal “D“ Fugitive vs. Stream Composition Ratios - Mass Fraction Basis . . . 5-66 Gasoline Liquid Stream Composition Analysis for Marketing Terminal D . . . . .
49、5-71 Terminal B Gasoline Loading Arm Liquid Drip Measurements . . . . . . . . . , , . . 5-73 Terminal D Gasoline Loading Arm Liquid Drip Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-74 Default Zero Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Predictive Emission Correlation Equations for Total Hydrocarbon Mass Emission Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 Petroleum Marketing Terminal Average and Stratified Total Hydrocarbon Emission Factors . . . . . . . . .
