National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I), Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SUMMARY: The Agency is today proposing standards which would limit

emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) from existing and new

bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. These proposed

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (1990

amendments), which requires the Administrator to regulate emissions of

the HAP's listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (Act). Several

of these pollutants are emitted from all gasoline distribution

facilities (pipeline pumping stations, pipeline breakout stations, bulk

terminals, bulk plants, and service stations). The intent of the

proposed standards is to protect the public health by requiring new and

existing major sources to control HAP emissions to the level attainable

by the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Pipeline breakout

stations and bulk gasoline terminals are the only two subcategories

within the gasoline distribution network that have been found to

include major source facilities. Therefore, the proposed standards

would apply only to major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk

gasoline terminals.

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested

persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or

arguments concerning the proposed standards for gasoline distribution

facilities.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 11, 1994.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak

at a public hearing by March 1, 1994 , a public hearing will be held on

March 10, 1994 beginning at 9 a.m. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony must contact Ms. Lina Hanzely of EPA at (919) 541-5673 by

March 1, 1994. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call

Ms. Hanzely at the same number to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air Docket Section (6102), ATTN: Docket No. A-92-38, Room

M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Background Information Document. The background information

document (BID) may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``Gasoline

Distribution (Stage I)--Background Information for Proposed

Standards,''.

Docket. Docket No. A-92-38, containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the Agency's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room 1500,

1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical information

concerning the proposed standards, contact Mr. Stephen Shedd at (919)

541-5397, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division

(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711. For general information or information regarding

the economic effects of the proposed standards, contact Mr. Scott

Mathias at (919) 541-5310, Standards Development Branch, Emission

Standards Division (MD-13), also at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Description of the Source Category and Subcategories

II. Background

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources Covered

1. Applicability Determination

2. Emission Points Covered

B. Standards for Sources

C. Effective Date for Compliance

D. Compliance Extensions

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of

the Proposed Standards

A. Number and Type of Affected Sources or Facilities

B. Air Emission Reductions

C. Secondary Environmental Impacts

D. Energy Impacts

E. Cost Impacts

F. Economic Impacts

V. Decision Process for Setting the NESHAP

A. Authority for the Development of the NESHAP

B. Criteria for Development of the NESHAP

C. Regulatory Development Process for the NESHAP

D. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ``Floors''

VI. Selection Rationale

A. Selection of Source Category(s) Controlled

B. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered

C. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards for New and

Existing Sources

1. Determination of Applicability

2. Determination of Floor Control Levels

3. Formulation of Regulatory Alternatives

4. Consideration of Environmental Impacts

5. Consideration of Cost

6. Consideration of Economic Impacts

7. Consideration of Secondary Impacts

8. Consideration of Energy Impacts

9. Selection of the Proposed Standards

D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

E. Equivalent Systems of Emission Reduction

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements and Emission Test Methods

G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

H. Selection of Compliance Deadlines

I. Solicitation of Comments

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Clean Air Act Section 117

G. Regulatory Review

I. Description of the Source Category and Subcategories

The 1990 amendments require, under Section 112, that the Agency

evaluate and control emissions of HAP's. The control of HAP's is to be

achieved through promulgation of emission standards under Sections

112(d) and (f) for categories of sources that emit HAP's. Pursuant to

Section 112(c) of the Act, the Agency published in the Federal Register

the initial list of source categories that emit HAP's on July 16, 1992

(57 FR 31576). This list includes major and area sources of HAP's that

the Agency intends to regulate before November of the year 2000. The

list reflects the Section 112(a) definition of major source as a source

that emits 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25

tpy or more of any combination of HAP's. Area sources are stationary

sources that do not qualify as ``major.''

The initial list of major source categories includes the gasoline

distribution source category. For purposes of the proposed standards,

the gasoline distribution network refers to the storage and transfer of

gasoline as it is moved from the production refinery process units to

the service station storage tank. The gasoline distribution facility

category is made up of several distinct facility types. During the

analysis of this category, it was determined that this category should

be subcategorized by facility type. Therefore, the following gasoline

distribution subcategories were analyzed in the context of this

proposed rulemaking:

--Pipeline pumping stations

--Pipeline breakout stations

--Bulk gasoline terminals

--Bulk plants

--Service stations

Gasoline is carried from production units at refineries to

terminals by pipelines, which may span great distances, or be co-

located or adjacent to refineries. The pipeline is made of sections of

steel pipe, welded together, and usually buried underground. At the

refinery, a pump sends the refined gasoline toward its destination.

Since the primary pump is incapable of ``pushing'' the gasoline the

entire distance, pumping stations are located along the pipeline to

keep the gasoline flowing. Occasionally, flow may be interrupted as a

quantity of gasoline is pumped out of the pipeline into storage tanks.

These ``breakout'' stations usually are coincident with pumping

stations.

Bulk gasoline terminals are facilities that receive gasoline from

refineries via pipeline, ship, or barge and place it in storage tanks

until it is distributed. Also, bulk terminals can be located onsite or

adjacent to refineries. At these terminals, gasoline is loaded into

railcars (which typically transport gasoline between terminals) or tank

trucks. From the terminal, the tank trucks normally deliver gasoline to

service stations or intermediate storage and handling facilities known

as bulk plants.

Bulk plants, using smaller delivery tank trucks, primarily supply

service stations and small accounts such as farms because they are long

distances from terminals or are unable to accommodate the large

terminal delivery tank trucks. At service stations, gasoline is

transferred to storage tanks and ultimately to motor vehicles. Vehicle

refueling (known as Stage II) and ship and barge handling of gasoline

are being addressed by the Agency under separate programs.

II. Background

As noted above, section 112(b) of the 1990 amendments contains a

list of HAP's to be regulated by Agency standards. Volatile organic

compound (VOC) and HAP emission sources at gasoline distribution

facilities have been studied and regulated by Federal, State, and local

air pollution regulatory agencies for some time.

Beginning in the mid 1970's, the Agency issued control techniques

guideline documents (CTGs) for the control of VOC from sources at

several gasoline production and distribution facilities. These CTGs

recommended control techniques for gasoline vapor emissions from

service stations (November 1975), tank truck loading terminals (October

1977), bulk plants (December 1977), fixed-roof petroleum storage tanks

(December 1977), external floating roof petroleum storage tanks

(December 1978), and tank trucks (December 1978). The Agency also

developed a general volatile organic liquid storage tank CTG (June

1984), and is in the process of revising this document (July 1992

draft). In addition, there is a CTG pertaining to the control of VOC

from leaking equipment at petroleum refineries (issued in June 1978,

and later superseded by a CTG issued in 1984). Most State and local

agencies have implemented rules reflecting the CTG recommended control

technologies in areas with ozone nonattainment problems.

The VOC emissions from sources at gasoline distribution facilities

have also been addressed in Federal new source performance standards

(NSPS). On March 8, 1974, the Agency promulgated an NSPS (subpart K of

40 CFR part 60) regulating VOC emissions from new petroleum liquid

storage tanks. Subsequent updates (subparts Ka and Kb) require more

stringent control levels for new storage tanks. Subpart Ka was

promulgated on April 4, 1980, and subpart Kb on April 8, 1987 (52 FR

11428). Tank truck loading racks at new bulk gasoline terminals are

covered by subpart XX of 40 CFR part 60, which was adopted on August

18, 1983 (48 FR 37578). On May 30, 1984, 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG

(referencing subpart VV provisions) NSPS were promulgated covering

equipment leaks of VOC at petroleum refineries. Additionally, national

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, 40 CFR part 61,

subpart J (referencing subpart V provisions) were promulgated in June

6, 1984 covering equipment leaks from equipment in benzene service.

The regulatory emission limits applied in some areas are more

stringent than either the CTG or NSPS level. For example, rules for the

Bay Area and Sacramento Air Quality Management Districts in California

have bulk gasoline terminal emission limits that are more stringent

than the levels required under the NSPS.

Methods for control of HAP emissions from gasoline distribution

facilities have also been evaluated in past studies. In 1978, the

Agency studied benzene emissions from gasoline distribution facilities

(not including vehicle refueling) and presented its findings to the

National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC).

After this presentation, the Agency decided not to proceed with a

benzene standard but rather to proceed with the NSPS development for

bulk gasoline terminals. On August 8, 1984, the Agency published in the

Federal Register (49 FR 31706) a notice of the availability of a

document on regulatory strategies being considered for controlling air

pollutants from bulk gasoline terminals, bulk plants, and service

stations. After the public comment period on the regulatory strategies,

a Federal regulation for controlling vehicle refueling (Stage II)

emissions with on the vehicle controls (onboard) was proposed on August

19, 1987, but no control requirements were included for bulk gasoline

terminals, bulk plants, or other sources at service stations.

On February 7, 1987, in response to a petition filed in 1984 by the

Natural Resources Defense Council, et. al., the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Agency to publish either

a notice of intent not to regulate or a notice of proposed regulation.

This order covered several sources of benzene emissions, including bulk

gasoline terminals, bulk plants, and gasoline service stations

(including the filling of service station storage tanks by gasoline

tank trucks, but not the refueling of motor vehicles). On September 14,

1989 (54 FR 38083), the Agency proposed regulations for the gasoline

distribution facilities noted above. However, on March 7, 1990 (55 FR

8292), the Agency withdrew these proposed standards. The rationale for

this withdrawal was that the baseline benzene emissions were found to

be within a safe range with regard to health risk, and that additional

controls were unnecessary to provide an ample margin of safety. This

earlier decision not to regulate these three types of gasoline

distribution facilities was based on the health effects from benzene

alone and were under the provisions of the Act as amended in 1977.

The HAP list presented in the Act section 112(b), as amended in

1990, contains additional compounds normally contained in gasoline

vapor, including, but not limited to benzene, toluene, hexane,

ethylbenzene, naphthalene, cumene, xylenes, n-hexane, 2,2,4-

trimethylpentane, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Additionally, new

provisions on how to develop NESHAP were provided in the 1990

amendments to the Act. Therefore, it became necessary to reevaluate

emissions from gasoline distribution facilities to consider a

combination of HAP's and the new provisions for setting NESHAPs.

There are other requirements and regulatory programs that will

affect the HAP emissions from gasoline distribution facilities. These

include the major and area source determination provisions for pipeline

facilities covered in section 112(n)(4)(A) of the 1990 amendments, fuel

volatility restrictions, and reformulated and oxygenated fuel

requirements.

Section 112(n)(4)(A) stipulates that

``emissions from any pipeline compressor or pump station shall not be

aggregated with emissions from other similar units, whether or not such

units are in a contiguous area or under common control to determine

whether such units or stations are major sources''.

Consequently, these facilities were evaluated separately for major

source determination.

The Agency has promulgated a program that requires the use of lower

volatility blends of gasoline during the summer months, which will

reduce HAP and VOC emissions from the gasoline distribution network.

Reformulated and oxygenated fuel requirements in Title II of the

Act will affect gasoline composition and the resulting HAP emissions.

Reformulated fuel requirements specify a reduced benzene content, a

minimum oxygen content, and a likely reduction in aromatic components

of the blend. Reformulated gasoline is required throughout the year in

the nine worst ozone nonattainment areas in the United States to reduce

ozone forming VOC emissions during the summer months and air toxic

emissions (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, POM)

year-round from gasoline vehicles by 15 percent beginning in 1995 and

25 percent in 2000. Other areas may choose to implement the prohibition

provision [Section 211(k)(5) of the 1990 amendments] and thus enter the

program as well. Oxygenated fuels program requires the use of

oxygenates in gasoline during the winter months in all carbon monoxide

(CO) nonattainment areas to reduce CO emissions. While significantly

decreasing VOC, CO, and air toxics emissions, both the reformulated and

oxygenated fuels programs could lead to an increase in HAP emissions

due to the fact that MTBE is listed as a HAP in the Act section 112(b)

of the Act and is expected to be used in a large portion of the market

to meet the oxygenate requirements of these programs.

This increase will come about because to meet minimum oxygen

requirements under the reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuels

programs, approximately 11 percent and 15 percent by volume of MTBE is

needed in liquid gasoline, respectively. Since MTBE is much more

volatile than the aromatic compounds that it will replace in the blend,

a much higher concentration of HAP's in the vapor phase of this fuel

will result. Therefore, it is expected that the inclusion of MTBE may

increase the HAP/VOC ratio in gasoline vapor from approximately 5

weight percent for normal gasoline to nearly 15 percent for oxygenated

gasoline. The actual increase in HAPs at facilities distributing

reformulated gasolines and oxygenated fuels will depend on the fraction

of their fuel containing MTBE as opposed to other oxygenates such as

ethanol or ETBE. Furthermore, while the weight percent of HAP's may

increase due to the presence of MTBE, this will be offset to some

extent under the reformulated gasoline program by reducing the toxic

air pollutants required by the ACT and the deep volatility controls

expected to result from the reformulated gasoline program during the

summer months.

The above mentioned programs, guidelines, and standards (fuels

programs, CTGs, NSPS) were considered, and their impacts on the

gasoline distribution network estimated, before the development of

control alternatives for this proposed rulemaking began. As a

consequence, all emission reductions, costs, and other impacts

discussed in the forthcoming sections are incremental to existing

control programs.

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources Covered

Sources in the gasoline distribution category are a combination of

major sources and area sources. Some pipeline breakout stations and

bulk gasoline terminals have been determined to be major sources, since

larger breakout stations and terminals may emit either 10 tpy or

greater of individual HAP's (i.e. hexane, MTBE) or 25 tpy or greater of

a combination of HAP's. For purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency is

proposing that major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk

gasoline terminals in the gasoline distribution source category be

regulated under maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.

The following is a summary of the methods used to determine

applicability of the proposed rule.

1. Applicability Determination

The proposed standard applies to all major source pipeline breakout

stations and bulk gasoline terminals. Today's proposed standards

provide two ways to determine if a facility is not a major source and

not subject to the rule. They are: (1) The owner or operator provides

documentation to the Administrator that the facility is not a major

source as defined in section 112(a) by means of completion of an

emissions audit at the facility, or (2) from the result of the

following equations for estimating facility emissions.

The Agency has determined the following equations properly estimate

if the facility is a major source. A bulk gasoline terminal is not

considered a major source if the result of the calculation in equation

(1), ET, is less than 1.

(1) ET = 0.63(TF) + 0.19(TE) + 0.092(TES) +

0.03(TI) + 0.0012(V) + 0.024(P) + KQ

where:

ET = major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline

terminals, ET 1 means bulk gasoline terminal is a

major source,

TF = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,

TE = total number of external floating roof gasoline storage

tanks with only primary seals,

TES = total number of external floating roof storage tanks

with primary and secondary seals,

TI = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an

internal floating roof,

V = number of valves in gasoline service,

P = number of pumps in gasoline service,

Q = gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),

K = 3.18 x 10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with

uncontrolled loading racks (no vapor collection and processing

systems), OR

K = (4.5 x 10-9)(EF + 70) for bulk gasoline terminals with

controlled loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and

processing systems installed on the emission stream), and

EF = the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor

processor (mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

A pipeline breakout station is not considered a major source if the

result of the calculation in equation (2), Ep, is less than 1.

(2) EP = 2.4(TF) + 0.09(TE) + 0.043(TES) +

0.027(TI) + 0.0009(V) + 0.009(P)

where:

EP = major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout

stations, EP 1 means pipeline breakout station is a

major source, and

TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are the same as defined

for bulk terminal equation (1).

The above equations are not allowed to be used if the bulk gasoline

terminals or pipeline facilities are located within the contiguous area

of and under common control with a major source petroleum refinery. For

those facilities, they would demonstrate they are not a major source by

providing an emission audit of all emission sources in the facility,

including, but not limited to the refinery process units, wastewater

systems, etc.

2. Emission Points Covered

Emission points affected at bulk gasoline terminals are storage

tanks that contain or have the potential to contain gasoline, equipment

leaks from the piping system that handles gasoline or gasoline vapors,

loading racks that load gasoline into tank trucks or railcars, and

gasoline vapor leakage from sealed tank trucks or railcars during

loading. Emission points affected at pipeline breakout stations are

individual storage tanks that contain or have the potential to contain

gasoline, and equipment leaks from the entire breakout station piping

system that handles gasoline.

There are two types of storage tanks found at bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations, fixed-roof and floating roof

tanks. The greatest portion of emissions occurring from fixed-roof

tanks are those emitted through the breather (pressure-vacuum) valve as

a result of tank breathing and filling. Floating roof tanks may have

either external or internal floating roofs. The sources of greatest

emissions associated with an external floating roof tank occur as a

result of an improper fit between the seals and the tank shell, leaks

associated with roof fittings, and withdrawal losses from evaporation

when a wet portion of the tank wall is exposed. Losses from internal

floating roof tanks occur mainly through vents in the metal shell of

the tank.

Pumps and valves are used at pipeline breakout stations to move and

route gasoline along the pipeline or to transfer gasoline to or from

breakout station storage tanks. Pumps and valves at bulk gasoline

terminals are used to transfer gasoline from storage tanks to tank

trucks or railcars. In addition, other equipment at these facilities,

such as compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection

systems, flanges, or other connectors is in gasoline service.

Loading rack emissions from tank truck or railcar loading

operations at bulk gasoline terminals occur when gasoline being loaded

displaces vapors from the cargo tank of the truck or railcar to the

atmosphere.

There is a potential for emissions due to vapor leakage even from

controlled tank trucks or railcars during loading if their cargo tanks

are not vapor-tight. Vapors may leak to the atmosphere from dome cover

assemblies, pressure-vacuum (P-V) vents, and vapor collection piping

and vents.

B. Standards for Sources

The Agency is proposing an equipment standard for storage tanks at

new and existing major source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations. These proposed standards specify new and existing

storage tanks comply with the equipment standards of the NSPS 40 CFR

part 60, subpart Kb, they would require: (1) External floating roof

tanks to have specified types of primary and secondary seals, and (2)

fixed-roof tanks to have internal floating roofs with specific types of

primary seals or secondary seals.

Additionally, the Agency is proposing an emission limit of 10

milligrams (mg) of total organic compounds (TOC) per liter of gasoline

loaded (10 mg TOC/l) for the process stream outlet of control devices

and continuous compliance monitoring of certain operating parameters of

control devices installed at the loading racks of new and existing

major source bulk gasoline terminals. Operating the control device in a

manner that exceeds or fails to maintain, as appropriate, the monitored

operating parameter value established during the emission performance

test would be an exceedence of the emission limit. New major source

bulk gasoline terminals would also be required to install vacuum

assisted vapor collection equipment on their loading racks where

gasoline tank trucks or railcars are loaded. This system would prevent

vapor leakage from tank trucks that can occur due to the pressures

normally developed in fuel compartments during loading.

The Agency is also proposing equipment and performance standards

for all tank trucks and railcars loading at existing and new major

source bulk gasoline terminals. Trucks and railcars loading at these

facilities would be required to pass an annual vapor tightness test

according to EPA Method 27. This requirement controls fugitive vapor

losses at existing facilities and supplements the vacuum assist system

at new facilities in providing the best control for vapor leakage

during loading.

Pumps, valves and other equipment at new major source bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations would all be subject to the

same work practice and equipment standards specified by the leak

detection and repair (LDAR) program in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. LDAR

requirements at bulk gasoline terminals include components of the vapor

collection and processing systems. Existing major source bulk gasoline

terminals and pipeline breakout stations would be required to perform

LDAR for pumps and valves four times per year (quarterly LDAR). New

major source facilities would be required to implement a monthly LDAR

program for pumps and valves, and follow the other equipment standards

for other equipment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Provisions of

these LDAR programs allow new and existing facilities with demonstrated

low leak frequencies for valves to decrease the frequency of

monitoring.

When promulgated, these standards will be codified under part 63 of

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Proposed General

Provisions of part 63 (58 FR 42760, August 11, 1993) to be located in

subpart A, will, when promulgated, codify procedures and criteria to

implement emission standards for stationary sources that emit one or

more HAP's, and will provide general information and requirements that

apply under the section 112 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA amendments

of 1990.

C. Effective Date for Compliance

Section 112(i)(3)(A) of the Act requires compliance by existing

sources within 3 years after rule promulgation, notwithstanding the

provisions of sections 112(i)(1) and (2). Today's proposed regulation

requires compliance by all affected sources within 3 years after

promulgation of the rule. Finally, major source facilities in the bulk

gasoline terminal and pipeline breakout station subcategories must

implement LDAR programs within 180 days after promulgation of this

rule. New major source facilities must comply with all provisions of

the standards upon startup.

D. Compliance Extensions

Section 112(i)(3)(B) allows the Administrator (or a State with a

program approved under Title V) to grant existing sources an extension

of compliance of up to 1 year, upon application by an owner or operator

of an affected facility, if such time period is necessary for the

installation of controls.

Additionally, under the early reduction provisions of section

112(i)(5), existing sources may be granted a 6-year extension of

compliance with an otherwise applicable section 112(d) standard (MACT

standard) upon demonstration by the owner or operator of the source

that HAP emissions have been reduced by 90 percent or more prior to the

date of this proposal, or the source makes an enforceable commitment to

achieve such reduction prior to January 1, 1994. The general notice

governing early reduction compliance extensions was published in the

Federal Register on June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27338).

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

The tests required under the proposed standards include initial

performance testing of the bulk terminal vapor processing system, vapor

leak monitoring and repair of the vapor collection system before each

performance test, and annual vapor tightness testing of gasoline tank

trucks and railcars. Storage tanks at terminals and pipeline stations

would require periodic visual and seal gap measurement tests.

Continuous monitoring of an operating parameter would be required for

vapor processing systems to ensure continuous compliance with today's

proposed 10 mg TOC/l emission limit. At new bulk gasoline terminals,

the vacuum achieved in the tank truck or railcar during loading would

have to be monitored continuously to verify continuous compliance with

maintaining the vacuum during truck and railcar loading operations.

The schedule for performance testing is provided in Sec. 63.7 of

the proposed General Provisions. The initial performance test is

required 120 days after the effective date of the standards or after

initial startup for a new facility, or 120 days after the compliance

date specified for an existing facility.

Methods 2A, 2B, 25A, and 25B in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 are

specified for measurement of total organic compound emissions from the

vapor collection and processing system. Due to the inherent inability

to measure mass emissions from elevated flares (elevated flare's flame

is open to atmosphere and therefore the emissions cannot be routed

through stacks), these test methods are not applicable. Therefore, the

Agency has established performance requirements for flares. These

performance requirements, including a limitation on visible emissions,

are provided in Sec. 63.11 of the proposed General Provisions, which

specifies Method 22 for determining visible emissions from this hard to

test type of flare.

Before each performance test, the owner or operator would be

required to use Method 21 to monitor potential leak sources in the

terminal's vapor collection system during the loading of a gasoline

tank truck or railcar. Leaks from the vapor collection and processing

system would have to be repaired before conducting the rest of the

performance test.

Each gasoline tank truck and railcar loading at an affected bulk

terminal would have to pass an annual vapor tightness test using Method

27. This will ensure that fugitive vapor leakage from loading cargo

tanks is minimized.

Today's proposed emission standard includes continuous monitoring

of an operating parameter as a requirement for vapor processing systems

to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed 10 mg TOC/l emission

limit. The vapor processing system's operating parameter ``value''

would be established during the initial performance test of the vapor

processor. Exceeding or failures to maintain, as appropriate, that

operating parameter value would be a violation of the emission limit

requiring maintenance and repair and documentation in a quarterly

report to the Administrator. The parameters that may be monitored

include organic compounds concentration for carbon adsorption and

refrigeration condenser systems, and combustion or condenser

temperature for thermal oxidation and refrigeration condenser systems.

An owner or operator may substitute an alternative parameter or vapor

processor type upon the approval of the Administrator.

At new bulk gasoline terminals installing a vacuum assisted vapor

collection system, the proposed standards require continuous monitoring

of the pressure in the collection system, to ensure that a vacuum

exists at all times during loading. No specific vacuum limits are being

proposed. As with parameter monitoring of the vapor processing system,

this vacuum monitoring will ensure that fugitive vapor leakage is

effectively reduced through the continuous compliance for the proposed

vacuum requirements for the vacuum assist system.

The pumps, valves, and other specified equipment in the gasoline

liquid and vapor transfer lines at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations may be sources of fugitive HAP emissions. The

proposed standards include a requirement for an LDAR program in which

pumps and valves are manually monitored using a portable VOC detector

on a periodic basis, and then repaired if a leak is found. Under the

proposed standards, monitoring would initially be carried out monthly

at new facilities and quarterly at existing facilities. Provisions are

included to reduce monitoring frequencies for valves on the basis of

demonstrated low leak rates. When a leak is detected (meter reading of

10,000 ppm on a portable organic monitor), the owner or operator would

have 5 calendar days in which to make an initial repair attempt, and 15

calendar days in which to complete the repair. Other equipment in

gasoline liquid or vapor service at new facilities are required to have

specified equipment.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

The proposed standards require four types of reports: initial

notification, notification of compliance status, periodic reports, and

other reports. The initial notification report apprises the regulatory

authority of applicability for existing sources or of construction for

new sources. This report also includes a statement as to whether the

facility can achieve compliance by the required compliance date. The

notification of compliance status demonstrates that compliance has been

achieved. This report contains the results of the initial performance

test, which includes calculation of the monitored operating parameter

value for the vapor processor, and a list of equipment subject to the

standard. Periodic reports submitted quarterly would specify

exceedences of the emission standards, such as when the monitored

operating parameter of a vapor processor is outside the value

established during the performance test. Other periodic reports, which

are submitted semiannually, include LDAR program and annual storage

vessel inspection results. Certain additional reporting is occasionally

necessary because a short-term response may be needed from the

reviewing authority. For example, the Administrator may request more

frequent reports of monitored operating parameter or LDAR data if it is

deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the standard.

Records required under the proposed standards must be kept at the

facility for 5 years. These include records of tank truck and railcar

vapor tightness test certifications, as well as monitoring data from

the vapor processor and from the vacuum assist system at new bulk

gasoline terminals. Records from the LDAR program and storage vessel

inspections, and records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of

the vapor processor are required to ensure that the controls in place

are continuing to be effective.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Standards

A. Number and Type of Affected Sources or Facilities

In 1998, the base year of the analysis, it is estimated that there

will be approximately 403,600 facilities in the entire gasoline

distribution network. However, only two subcategories within the

network (pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals),

comprising a total of 1,300 facilities, are being addressed by this

rulemaking. Of this total, it is estimated that about 20 pipeline

breakout stations and about 280 bulk gasoline terminals qualify as

major sources and therefore would be subject to today's proposed

standards.

For the purpose of the analysis conducted in connection with these

standards, all facilities built or reconstructed between today's

proposal and the 1998 base year are considered ``new'' facilities in

the base year analysis (see proposed General Provisions, subpart A of

40 CFR part 63). All other facilities prior to proposal were considered

to be ``existing'' sources in this analysis. The estimated impacts of

the levels of control specified by the proposed regulation within each

subcategory are discussed below.

1. Existing Facilities

The base year population of existing pipeline breakout stations is

estimated to be about 245 facilities (18 major source sites, 227 area

source sites). Sources of emissions at these facilities arise from

gasoline storage and various equipment components in the process line

piping. Under the proposed regulation, each existing major source

pipeline breakout station would be required to implement a quarterly

LDAR program for leaks from pumps and valves.

Additionally, the 18 major source facilities would be required to

retrofit external floating roof tanks with primary and secondary seals

and install internal floating roofs with primary seals on fixed-roof

tanks. It is estimated that 35 external floating roof storage tanks and

11 fixed-roof storage tanks at these major source sites would need to

be upgraded to meet these equipment standards.

It is estimated that in 1998, there will be 737 bulk gasoline

terminals that qualify as ``existing'' sources. It is further estimated

that nearly 200, or 27 percent, will qualify as major sources. Under

the proposed standards, existing major sources would be required to

meet a 10 mg TOC/liter of gasoline loaded limit on their loading rack

emissions. It is estimated that 33 percent of the loading racks at

existing bulk gasoline terminals will already be meeting this level of

control. Therefore, 134 of these facilities (the remaining 67 percent)

would need to newly install, replace, or otherwise upgrade their

control devices to meet this proposed standard.

It is estimated that there are approximately 1,600 storage tanks at

existing major source bulk gasoline terminals. Furthermore, it is

estimated that 400 external floating roof tanks and 500 fixed-roof

tanks already have controls that satisfy the proposed standards (i.e.,

primary and secondary seals on external floating roof tanks and

internal floating roofs with primary seals installed in all fixed-roof

tanks). Consequently, it is estimated that approximately 470 external

floating roof tanks and 210 fixed-roof tanks would need to improve

their control level to meet the proposed standards.

There are an estimated 31,600 tank trucks and approximately 400

railcars that load at existing bulk gasoline terminals. It is estimated

that 22,400 tank trucks are already subject to annual vapor tightness

testing and nearly all of the remaining 9,200 are not tested. The

proposed regulation would require all tank trucks and railcars loading

at major source facilities to be vapor tightness tested annually using

Method 27.

Essentially no terminals have been determined to routinely use an

instrument to detect leaks from equipment (pumps and valves). Under the

proposed standards, all existing major source bulk gasoline terminals

would be required to implement the quarterly LDAR program for pumps and

valves discussed previously for pipeline breakout stations.

Additionally, the proposed standards requires monitoring of

equipment, maintaining records, and providing reports to verify

compliance with the control requirements discussed above.

2. New Facilities

It is estimated that there will be 10 storage tanks classified as

new at the 2 new major source pipeline breakout stations through base

year 1998. Although these tanks would be subject to these standards,

they are also subject to the existing NSPS standard as defined in 40

CFR part 60, subpart Kb.

It is estimated that there will be nearly 80 major source bulk

gasoline terminals subject to the new facility requirements of the

proposed regulation (28 percent of the base year major source bulk

gasoline terminals). The proposed standards would limit loading rack

HAP emissions from these sources to 10 mg TOC/liter instead of 35 mg

TOC/liter as under the NSPS standards.

As with pipeline breakout stations, the projected 600 storage tanks

at new major source bulk gasoline terminals would be subject to this

regulation (as well as the NSPS for storage tanks) with the same levels

of control outlined previously.

All new major source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout

stations would also be required to implement a monthly LDAR program to

control equipment leaks from pumps and valves, as well as implement

other 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV standards for other equipment. Lastly,

new major source bulk gasoline terminals would be required to install,

operate, and maintain a vacuum assist vapor collection system on their

loading racks that fill gasoline tank trucks or railcars.

Additionally, the proposed standards require monitoring of

equipment, maintaining records, and providing reports to verify

compliance with the control requirements discussed above.

B. Air Emission Reductions

1. Existing Sources

For the existing gasoline distribution network (approximately

390,000 facilities in base year 1998), the nationwide baseline HAP

emissions are estimated to be 46,000 Mg/yr. Of this total, 8 percent or

4,200 Mg/yr can be attributed to major source pipeline breakout

stations and bulk gasoline terminals. Implementation of the proposed

regulation would reduce these emissions to approximately 43,400 Mg/yr.

2. New Sources

For new sources through 1998, total nationwide HAP emissions from

gasoline distribution facilities, approximately 13,000 total

facilities, are estimated to be about 6,700 Mg/yr at baseline. The HAP

emissions from pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals

account for 46 percent of this total (major sources contribute 12

percent of the total). The proposed regulation would reduce these

emissions to a total of approximately 6,200 Mg/yr.

C. Secondary Environmental Impacts

Since implementation of the proposed regulation would encompass no

additional water discharges, there would be no negative impact on water

quality. There is a potential for a positive benefit to water quality,

however, due to decreased amounts of gasoline entering drains, sewers,

and waste sumps because of improved leakage control.

There is projected to be no significant solid waste or noise impact

as a result of implementation of the proposed regulation. Neither

flares, thermal oxidizers, nor refrigeration condenser systems generate

any solid waste as a by-product of their operation. The only solid

waste that may be generated is spent activated carbon if carbon

adsorption is chosen by an owner or operator of a bulk gasoline

terminal for loading rack emission control. It is estimated that, in

this case, the total environmental impact would average about 680

kilograms of carbon per year for each bulk terminal choosing this

option. Therefore, the solid waste impact can be considered to be

small. This impact would be minimized if the carbon were reactivated

and reused. The Agency has also tested the noise level from vapor

processors, and found these levels to be moderate (less than 70 db at 7

meters).

D. Energy Impacts

The use of vapor recovery systems on loading racks at bulk gasoline

terminals, and pollution prevention measures such as equipment

standards for storage tanks and implementation of LDAR programs for

equipment components will all keep gasoline in the system that would

have escaped as emissions to the atmosphere. Nationwide annual gasoline

savings are estimated to total 2.34 million gallons at pipeline

breakout stations and 12 million gallons at bulk gasoline terminals.

E. Cost Impacts

Total capital and annualized control costs (third quarter 1990

dollars), including recovery credits, have been estimated for both

existing and new sources. The control costs of the proposed regulation

at existing facilities is estimated to require a total capital

investment of $93 million, with an annualized cost of $8.4 million per

year. The implementation costs of the proposed regulation will be lower

for new facilities than for existing facilities primarily due to the

smaller estimated number of new facilities (26 percent of the total

number, encompassing both subcategories) and because new storage tanks

are regulated by an existing NSPS standard and require no additional

retrofit under the proposed standards. As a consequence, the control

costs of the proposed regulation at new facilities is estimated to

result in a total capital investment of $32 million, with annualized

costs of approximately $7.4 million per year. Additional implementation

costs for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the

proposed rule are estimated to be 4 million.

F. Economic Impacts

The proposed standards were analyzed with regard to their impact on

gasoline price and consumption, facility closures, and declines in

employment. While the proposed standards require additional control

only at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations,

facilities downstream from terminals and breakout stations might be

affected by the regulation due to higher gasoline wholesale prices and

reduced consumption. The national average base year increase in the

price of retail motor gasoline as a result of the proposed standards is

estimated at $0.001 per gallon. The national base year decline in

gasoline consumption is estimated at less than 100 million gallons

(0.08 percent). The base year facility closure estimate is nearly 650,

more than 90 percent of which is projected for the service station

sector. While the number of service station closures is estimated to be

in the hundreds, it should be noted that a total of over 380,000

stations is projected in the base year, so that the number of

facilities that might close constitutes less than 0.2 percent.

Furthermore, due to a consumption-spurred projection of modest industry

growth from 1993 to 1998, some closures due to the regulation may be

more accurately interpreted as reductions in new facility openings

rather than closures of existing facilities. Employment reductions due

to reduced consumption and facility closures are estimated at just over

1,100 jobs, 70 percent of which are projected for the service station

sector. However, this constitutes only around 0.05 percent of the base

year service station sector employment. For the same reason given for

facility closures, some employment reductions may be more accurately

interpreted as reductions in industry job opportunities rather than

losses of existing jobs.

V. Decision Process for Setting the NESHAP

A. Authority for Development of the NESHAP

Title III of the 1990 amendments was enacted to help reduce the

increasing amount of nationwide air toxics emissions. Under Title III,

section 112 was amended to give the Agency the authority to establish

national standards to reduce air toxic emissions from sources that emit

one or more HAP's. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP's, which are

the specific air toxics to be regulated by the standards developed

under section 112. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use this

pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for

which the NESHAP will be developed. The Agency must list all known

categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' defined earlier as

those sources that emit 10 tons/yr or greater of individual HAP's or 25

tons/yr or greater of any combination of HAP's. Area source categories

selected by the Agency for the NESHAP development will be based on the

Administrator's judgment that the sources in a category, individually

or in aggregate, pose a ``threat of adverse effects to health and the

environment.'' The initial list of source categories was published on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

B. Criteria for Development of the NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both

new and existing sources pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act. The Act

requires the standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP's achievable for new or existing sources. Each NESHAP

must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the emission

reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements. The emission reduction may be accomplished through

application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques

including, but not limited to, measures that:

1. Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, HAP's through

process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;

2. Enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;

3. Collect, capture, or treat these pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;

4. Are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards

(including requirements for operator training or certification) as

provided in Section 112(h); or

5. Are a combination of the above [Section 112(d)(2)].

C. Regulatory Development Process for the NESHAP

During development of a NESHAP, the Agency collects information

about the industry, including information on emission source

characteristics, control technologies, data from HAP emission tests at

well-controlled facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and

other environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The Agency

uses this information in the development of possible regulatory

approaches.

If the source category contains major sources, then a MACT standard

is required. The level of control corresponding to the MACT ``floor''

needs to be determined as a boundary for developing the regulatory

alternatives. (Procedures for determining MACT floors are discussed in

part D of this section.)

Once the floor has been determined for new and existing sources for

a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards

that are no less stringent than the floor level. Such standards must

then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. However,

in establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory

[Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(1)]. Thus, for example, the Administrator

could establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory

based on size and establish a different emission standard for each

class.

In addition, the Act provides the Administrator further flexibility

in regulating area sources. Section 112(d)(5) provides that, in lieu of

establishing MACT standards under Section 112(d), the Administrator may

promulgate standards that provide for the use of ``generally available

control technologies or management practices'' (GACT standards). Area

source standards promulgated under this authority are not subject to

the MACT ``floors'' described in part D of this section.

The next step in establishing a MACT or GACT standard is the

development and analysis of regulatory alternatives. First, information

about the industry is analyzed to develop model plant parameters and

populations for the purpose of projecting national impacts, including

HAP emission reduction levels, costs, and energy and secondary

environmental impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels (which may

be different levels of emission control, different applicability

cutoffs, or both) are then evaluated to determine the most appropriate

regulatory alternative to reflect the MACT or GACT level.

In addition, although the NESHAP are normally structured in terms

of numerical emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes

necessary (e.g., source testing may be impossible or at least

impractical due to technological and economic limitations). In these

cases, work practice or equipment standards may be considered.

In the Agency's decision-making process, the regulatory

alternatives considered for new versus existing sources may be

different and each alternative must be technically achievable. In

selecting a regulatory alternative to represent MACT or GACT, the

Agency considers the achievable reduction in HAP emissions; the cost of

control; and economic, energy, and other environmental impacts.

The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a

proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT or GACT

decision typically includes Sections addressing applicability,

standards, test methods and compliance demonstration, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation,

published in the Federal Register, provides an explanation of the

rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the

proposed regulation during the public comment period. Following an

evaluation of these comments, the Agency reaches a decision and

promulgates the final standards.

D. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ``Floors''

Once the Agency has identified the specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources and area sources that it intends to

regulate under section 112, MACT standards are set at a level at least

as stringent as the ``floor'', unless the decision has been made to

regulate area sources under section 112(d)(5). Congress has provided

certain very specific directives to guide the Agency in the process of

determining the regulatory floor.

Congress specified that the Agency must establish standards which

require ``the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous

air pollutants * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is

achievable * * *''

[Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(2)]. In addition, Congress limited the

Agency's discretion by defining the minimum baseline (floor) at which

standards may be set, as follows:

(1) For new sources, the standards for a source category or

subcategory

``shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator.''

(2) For existing sources, the standards ``may be less stringent

than standards for new sources * * * but shall not be less stringent,

and may be more stringent than: (A) The average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for

which the Administrator has emissions information) * * * or (B) the

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources *

* * for categories or subcategories * * * with fewer than 30 sources''

[Section 112(d)(3)].

VI. Selection Rationale

A. Selection of Source Category(s) Controlled

The gasoline distribution facility category is made up of several

facility types, which taken together form the gasoline distribution

network. The pollutants emitted at each of the facilities in the

gasoline distribution network are essentially the same. These emissions

consist of a mixture of organic compounds (essentially all of which

qualify as VOC under the Agency's definition). Section 112(b) of the

Act contains a list of HAP's for which the Agency has been directed to

set national emission standards. A comparison of profiles of normal

gasoline vapors to the HAP list reveals several compounds common to

both. Benzene, toluene, hexane, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, cumene, all

three chemical orientations of xylene (para, meta, and ortho), n-

hexane, and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (iso-octane) appear on both lists.

Section 211 of the Act contains provisions that will affect

gasoline composition in the 1998 base year and, therefore, the HAP

emissions from gasoline distribution sources. This section of the Act

requires that fuels purchased and sold in nonattainment areas contain

higher levels of oxygenates (reformulated and oxygenated fuel

programs). While the focus of these fuels programs is the reduction of

both tailpipe (combustion) and evaporative emissions of CO and air

toxics (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and POM)

emissions from gasoline vehicles, the intent of today's proposed rule

is to reduce major stationary source evaporative HAP emissions from

gasoline distribution facilities. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) is

projected to be a major source of oxygen that will be added to gasoline

to meet the oxygenate content requirements for the reformulated

gasoline and oxygenated fuels programs. MTBE is also listed in Section

112(b) as a HAP.

On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the Agency published an initial

list of source categories that emit HAP's, in response to Section

112(c) of the Act. In this listing, the gasoline distribution network

was included as a major source but was not listed as a category whose

area source facilities were to be considered for regulation.

The Agency's subsequent analysis (summarized in the background

information document (BID)) of HAP emissions from all subcategories of

the gasoline distribution network concluded that only two of these

subcategories, pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals,

contained major sources and should therefore be considered for

regulation under Section 112(d). All the other subcategories of the

network (pipeline pumping stations, bulk plants, and service stations)

encompass only area sources and as a consequence were not included in

the proposed standards. These sources will be studied and may be

considered for regulation at a future date pursuant to the urban area

source provisions of Section 112(c)(3) of the Act. Public comments and

data are specifically requested on today's proposal to exclude area

sources in this rulemaking and on the analysis contained in the BID to

estimate emissions for determining area and major source facilities.

Also, the Agency is specifically requesting any data that would

document that any service station, bulk plant, or pipeline pumping

station could be considered a major source of HAP's.

B. Selection of Emission Points Covered

The proposed standards would regulate all HAP emission points at

major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals.

As noted in Section III.A.2, there are two HAP emission source

types at pipeline breakout stations. These sources are: (1) Equipment

leaks from pumps, valves, and other components, and (2) losses from

storage tanks. Both of these sources can be significant sources of

emissions. Of the total of nearly 7,200 Mg/yr baseline HAP emissions

from gasoline at pipeline breakout stations, it is estimated that 12

percent can be attributed to equipment leaks and 88 percent is emitted

from storage tanks. Emissions from pumps arise from liquid gasoline

leaking from packed or mechanical seals in the pumps used to move the

product through the pipeline. Leaks also occur from seals around stems

of valves and other equipment components that control or isolate

gasoline from the environment such as connections, drain lines, and

pressure relief devices.

Storage tanks at breakout stations may be of either fixed-roof,

external floating roof, or fixed-roof with an internal floating roof

construction. Emissions from fixed-roof tanks consist of breathing and

working losses. Breathing loss is a vapor loss due to expansion or

contraction of the vapor space in the tank above the liquid because of

daily changes in temperature or barometric pressure. These emissions

may occur in the absence of any liquid level change in the tank.

Working losses consist of emptying and filling losses. Emptying losses

occur during the expansion of air that is drawn into the tank during

liquid removal. This air becomes saturated with hydrocarbon vapor and,

when it expands due to changes in temperature or barometric pressure,

exceeds the fixed capacity of the vapor space. Overflow then occurs

through the pressure-vacuum valve. Filling losses occur when incoming

gasoline displaces air and vapors through vents to the atmosphere.

Standing-storage losses, which result from causes other than a

change in the liquid level, constitute the major source of emissions

from external floating roof tanks. The largest potential source of

these losses is an improper fit between the floating roof seal and the

tank shell (seal loss). Withdrawal loss is another source of emissions

from floating roof tanks. When liquid is withdrawn from a tank, the

floating roof is lowered and a wet portion of the tank wall is exposed.

Withdrawal loss equals the amount of liquid vaporized from the wet tank

wall.

Standing-storage losses from internal floating roof tanks arise

through a somewhat different mechanism due to the enclosed design of

the tanks. As ambient air flows over the exterior of the tank, it flows

into the enclosed space between the fixed and floating roofs through

some of the shell vents and flows out of the enclosed space through

others. Any vapors that have evaporated from the exposed liquid surface

and that have not been contained by the floating deck are swept out of

the enclosed space. The withdrawal loss from an internal floating roof

tank is similar to that discussed for tanks with external floating

roofs.

There are four contributors to HAP emissions at bulk gasoline

terminals, all of which contribute significantly to the overall totals:

(1) From loading racks when gasoline is loaded into tank trucks or

railcars (about 18 percent of the nationwide baseline total of 16,500

Mg/yr HAP emissions from bulk gasoline terminals), (2) fugitive leakage

of vapors from tank trucks or railcars during loading of gasoline (23

percent of baseline total), (3) evaporation of gasoline from storage

tanks (33 percent of the baseline total), and (4) equipment leaks from

pumps, valves, and other components (26 percent of baseline values).

Emissions occur at loading racks when gasoline that is loaded into

cargo tanks of trucks or railcars displaces vapors inside these

containers. These emissions may occur either uncontrolled (when

facilities are not using vapor collection and processing equipment)

from tank truck or railcar cargo compartments, or from the outlet vents

of control systems used to process these displaced vapors.

Even at controlled loading racks (ones equipped with vapor

collection and processing systems), fugitive emissions from leaking

truck transport tanks or railcars may occur through the dome covers,

pressure-vacuum relief valves or vents, and several other potential

sources. The dome or hatch cover designed to seal each cargo

compartment during transport and during loading and unloading

operations can develop leaks over time. Valves, which include the

pressure-vacuum (P-V) vent under the dome plate assembly and the vent

valve connected to the overturn rail on tank trucks, can leak if they

become dirty or worn. Improperly installed or damaged hose couplings

can also be sources of vapor emissions. The transport tank shell, if

damaged, also can produce vapor emissions from cracks or failures in

welds. This latter type of leak occurs less frequently than those at

the dome cover and vents, but may be a large emission source for some

transport tanks.

Storage tank and equipment component (pumps and valves) leak

emissions at bulk gasoline terminals are identical in the manner of

their occurrence to those described earlier for pipeline breakout

stations. However, HAP emission reductions are not the same due to

differences in turnover rates and storage tank sizes as well as

differences in the numbers of estimated equipment components in the

process line piping between the two facility types.

C. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards for New and

Existing Sources

At the present time, a majority of sources within the gasoline

distribution network are being controlled under State regulations and

Federal new source performance standards (approximately one-third of

the storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations; one-half of the

storage tanks, nearly 70 percent of loading racks, and most of the tank

trucks and railcars that load at bulk gasoline terminals). However,

since the States are required to adopt regulations consistent with CTG

recommendations only in areas not attaining the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, many States have regulations that

cover only those areas. Today's proposed standards will require more

stringent emission control levels for major source facilities located

in areas designated as ozone nonattainment, and will extend the same

controls to major source facilities located in attainment areas.

1. Determination of Applicability

To determine which pipeline breakout stations or bulk gasoline

terminals are to be regulated (i.e., which ones are classified as major

sources), owners and operators of these facilities either may provide

documentation to the Administrator that the facility is not a major

source as defined in section 112(a) by means of completion of an

emissions audit or may employ one of the equations discussed later in

this section that have been developed for estimating facility

emissions. However, regardless of the applicability criteria equation

that is chosen, bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations

that are located within the contiguous area and under common control

with a petroleum refinery are considered major sources if that

petroleum refinery is a major source. This is because refinery process

equipment in combination with bulk terminal and pipeline breakout

station equipment is likely to emit more than the threshold levels for

major source determination.

Initially, the Agency considered a throughput cutoff determination

for distinguishing major source from area source facilities in each

subcategory. However, for pipeline breakout stations, HAP emissions are

a function of the number of individual emission sources (storage tanks,

pumps, and valves), while emissions from bulk gasoline terminals occur

from these sources as well as from sources which depend upon gasoline

throughput (loading racks and tank truck or railcar leakage).

Since major source determinations are not based solely on

throughput at each facility type, another approach was investigated for

distinguishing between major and area sources. Equations were developed

to estimate total HAP emissions from both bulk gasoline terminals and

pipeline breakout stations. The equation approach allows a potential

subject facility to input the type of equipment present at the facility

and calculate emissions accordingly. These equations were developed to

include all potential equipment; however, if a particular portion of

the equation does not apply (e.g., no fixed-roof tanks), then that

portion of the equation will equal zero and fall out of the

calculation.

At first, several equations were developed to attempt to cover many

different equipment combinations, different HAP contents in gasoline

emissions, and the two major source criteria, 10 tons of a single HAP

or 25 tons of combination of HAPs. One equation was developed for each

subcategory that would handle normal gasoline (estimated HAP content of

4.8 percent), a second set of equations was developed for each facility

handling reformulated or oxygenated fuels (estimated HAP emission

content of 16 percent) and a third set of equations was developed for

each facility handling the single-HAP (estimated to be gasoline vapor

with MTBE with a HAP content of 12 percent).

The initial equations were simplified to match the desired approach

to provide a simple and reasonable set of equations to distinguish

between area and major sources. The initial equations were simplified

and narrowed through testing the equations against different model

facility parameters and assumptions. Consequently, the original

equations were reduced to a limited number of equipment parameter

variables and reduced to one equation for bulk terminals and another

for pipeline breakout stations. The resulting equations presented below

are determined by the Agency to capture all major sources under the

realistic mix of facility equipment and operating parameters.

A bulk gasoline terminal is not considered a major source if the

result of the calculation in equation (1), ET, is less than 1.

(1)

ET=0.63(TF)+0.19(TE)+0.092(TES)+0.03(TI)+0.0012

(V)+0.024(P)+KQ

where:

ET=major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline

terminals, ET1 means bulk gasoline terminal is

estimated to be a major source.,

TF=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,

TE=total number of external floating roof gasoline storage

tanks with only primary seals,

TES=total number of external floating roof storage tanks with

primary and secondary seals,

TI=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an

internal floating roof,

V=number of valves in gasoline service,

P=number of pumps in gasoline service,

Q=gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),

K=3.18 x 10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with uncontrolled

loading racks (no vapor collection and processing systems), OR

K=(4.5 x 10-9)(EF+70) for bulk gasoline terminals with

controlled loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and

processing systems installed on the emission stream), and

EF=the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor

processor (mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

A pipeline breakout station is not considered a major source if the

result of the calculation in equation (2), EP, is less than 1.

(2)

EP=2.4(TF)+0.09(TE)+0.043(TES)+0.027(TI)+0.0009

(V)+0.009(P)

where:

EP=major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout

stations, EP1 means pipeline breakout station is

estimated to be a major source., and

TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are the same as defined

for bulk terminal equation (1).

The Agency provides the above equations to simplify and reduce the

implementation burden to affected and non-affected facilities. The

Agency requests public comments on the utility, accuracy, and need for

these equations.

2. Determination of Floor Control Levels

A boundary in the formulation of the regulatory alternatives is a

determination of the MACT floor for new and existing sources. The

statutory requirements for determining these floors was previously

discussed in section V.D of this preamble. Selection of floor levels of

control using the statutory criteria is described in the following

subsections.

a. Loading racks. In many of the areas where bulk terminal loading

rack controls are mandated authorities have imposed control

requirements more stringent than the limit of 80 mg TOC per liter of

gasoline loaded recommended in the CTG for bulk gasoline terminals. A

summary of State regulations pertaining to gasoline tank truck loading

indicated that some terminals currently are operating under a 10 mg TOC

per liter limitation in parts of California. In addition, the NSPS for

tank truck loading at bulk gasoline terminals (subpart XX of 40 CFR

part 60) limits emissions to 35 mg/liter. There are currently three

types of vapor processor systems, refrigeration condensers, carbon

adsorbers, and thermal oxidation systems, used to meet these three

control requirement emission limits. Each type of control can be

specifically designed to meet each limit.

To establish the control requirements for new sources the Agency is

required to select controls not less stringent (floor) than the control

achieved in practice by the best similar source. The best performing

control systems at similar sources, or systems achieving the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions, are those systems designed and

operated to meet the 10 mg TOC per liter standard. Therefore, control

systems achieving the 10 mg TOC per liter limit are considered the

floor control level for new sources.

To establish the limit for existing sources the Agency is required

to select a limitation no less stringent (floor) than the average

emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of

sources. To support setting the floor for existing sources the Agency

collected information on the number of facilities under each control

requirement and the results of the measured emission rates achieved

during performance tests of vapor processors at over 100 bulk gasoline

terminals.

It is estimated that 70 percent of the approximately 1,000

terminals nationwide are required to meet one of the three levels of

control requirements, 10, 35, and 80 mg TOC per liter of gasoline

loaded. Performance test data were collected for terminals subject to

each of those three levels. Performance test data collected from vapor

processors at terminals regulated by the 10 mg standard all met the 10

mg limit, but less than 3 percent of terminals are subject to a 10 mg

emission limitation. The majority (about 70 percent) of performance

test data collected from terminals under the 35 mg NSPS standard

achieved less than 10 mg TOC per liter. This indicates that the 10 mg

standard is achievable by processors designed to achieve the 35 mg

standard. About 40 percent of the terminals are subject to the 35 mg

standard. Therefore, the average emission limitation achieved by the

best performing 12 percent of the existing sources is a 10 mg standard,

thus 10 mg limit is the floor control level for existing bulk gasoline

terminals.

b. Tank truck and railcar vapor leakage. The CTG detailing control

of fugitive emissions from tank trucks recommends that cargo tanks be

tested for vapor leakage on an annual basis, and repaired as necessary.

Also, the bulk terminal tank truck loading NSPS (subpart XX of 40 CFR

part 60) requires that tank trucks that load gasoline at bulk gasoline

terminals be ``vapor-tight;'' that is, they must pass an annual vapor

tightness test in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A. A second form of leak testing is carried out by the Department of

Transportation (DOT), whose required annual leak tightness testing

specifies pressurization of the cargo tank to 80 percent of its maximum

allowable working pressure. The DOT considers Method 27 to be an

acceptable alternative to its own pressure test. However, since the

relief vents on each fuel compartment (which have been found to be the

major sources of vapor leakage) are capped off during the DOT test,

this test is considered less stringent than Method 27 pressure test.

Also, the DOT test does not include a vacuum test as specified in

Method 27. The Agency estimates that over 70 percent of existing tank

trucks are required to pass the annual vapor tightness testing using

Method 27. It has also been determined that the same test can be

applied to railcars.

Through contacts with one State control agency, the Agency

discovered a system that provides additional control of vapor losses

from cargo tanks. In this system, a negative pressure is created in the

vapor collection system during loading, ensuring that vapors will not

be forced out into the air through any leakage points. This ``vacuum

assist'' system is in use at a few bulk gasoline terminals (in addition

to Method 27 testing) in Texas, so it meets the Act requirement to

consider the best controlled similar source in establishing the floor

level of control for new terminals. Since less than 1 percent of

terminals use this vacuum assist system it is not considered the floor

for tank trucks at existing terminals. Annual vapor tightness testing

using Method 27 is the next highest or best emission level and

therefore represents the average emission limitation achieved by the

best performing 12 percent of existing sources as specified in the Act.

Therefore, annual vapor tightness testing using Method 27 is considered

the floor for tank trucks loading at existing terminals.

Industry sources have expressed concerns regarding the operational

reliability of a vacuum assist system, especially under extreme cold

weather conditions. These commenters also believe that the system could

present a safety hazard if excess negative pressures were developed

within a tank truck fuel compartment. To the Agency's knowledge, the

systems in operation have not experienced any significant problems, and

one of the systems has been operating for over 2 years. These systems

contain safety pressure relief devices in combination with the

pressure-vacuum vents already installed on each tank truck compartment.

However, safety concerns are important to the Agency. The Agency

specifically requests comment, including technical documentation and

data where available, on the reliability, effectiveness, safety

aspects, and any other issue concerning vacuum producing equipment for

bulk terminal vapor collection systems.

On the basis that this technology has been demonstrated, the Agency

has selected the vacuum assist system for the loading of tank trucks

and railcars at new bulk gasoline terminals (in combination with the 10

mg TOC/liter emission limit and continuous monitoring of the vapor

processing system) as the floor level of control for fugitive cargo

tank leakage at new facilities.

c. Equipment leaks. The control of emissions from equipment

components leaking liquid or vapors at pipeline breakout stations and

bulk gasoline terminals has never been specifically addressed by the

Agency in a federal regulation or in a CTG. The Agency has determined,

based on information obtained on site visits and from various industry

contacts, that many facilities conduct periodic visual inspections to

identify leaking components, and a few (less than one percent) perform

leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs with a portable organic vapor

analyzer. Therefore, the existing facility floor for the control of

emissions from leaking equipment components at both pipeline breakout

stations and bulk gasoline terminals was determined to be periodic

visual inspections, or no formal (federally enforceable) inspection

procedure.

The control of emissions from leaking equipment components at other

facilities with similarities to pipeline breakout stations and bulk

gasoline terminals has been studied extensively. LDAR programs to

conduct periodic monitoring of these components are in effect for many

types of sources, including equipment in VOC service at petroleum

refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and VV) and equipment operated

in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service (40 CFR part 61,

subparts J and V). These programs include monthly inspections of pumps

and valves involving the use of a portable organic vapor analyzer to

identify leaking components, a protocol for tagging leaking components,

and a time limit for performing repairs.

In determining the frequency of monitoring that would reflect best

control of these emission sources, the Agency found that some bulk

gasoline terminals are already carrying out equipment leak monitoring

with a portable organic analyzer. Some of these programs involve

quarterly monitoring, while others involve monthly monitoring. Bulk

gasoline terminals co-located with or within the contiguous area of

refineries are performing LDAR under 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and

VV and 40 CFR part 61, subparts J and V. Since these similar source

control requirements are achieved in practice the Agency has selected

an LDAR program based on 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as the floor level

of control for equipment leaks at new bulk gasoline terminals and

breakout stations. The proposed standards require monthly leak

monitoring of pumps, no detectible emissions from pressure relief

valves (after overpressure release to insure proper reseating of

valve), barrier fluid systems for compressors, closed-purge or closed-

vent systems for sampling collection systems, and caps or plugs for

open-ended valves or lines. Requirements for valves are that they be

monitored monthly, with provisions allowing the monitoring frequency

for valves that do not leak for 2 successive months to be relaxed from

monthly to quarterly. Additionally, an alternative standard for valves

allows for equal to or less than 2 percent of all valves to leak above

the detection limit, and contains procedures that allow monitoring

frequency to decrease from monthly to either quarterly or to annually.

d. Storage tanks. NSPS standards have been promulgated (40 CFR part

60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) that cover new, modified, and reconstructed

petroleum and volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage tanks, and CTG

recommendations have been implemented for existing storage tanks in

ozone nonattainment areas. The requirements specify that external

floating roof tanks be equipped with certain primary and secondary

seals and that fixed-roof tanks be equipped with internal floating

roofs with certain types of seals.

Following an analysis of State regulations, the Agency estimated

that approximately 76 percent of the storage tanks at pipeline breakout

stations are of external floating roof design, while 24 percent are of

fixed-roof construction. The corresponding numbers for storage tanks at

bulk gasoline terminals are 53 and 47 percent, respectively. Further

analysis showed that of the external floating roof tanks at pipeline

breakout stations, 36 percent have the NSPS and CTG required primary

and secondary seals, while 64 percent have only primary seals. At bulk

gasoline terminals, the numbers are 43 and 57 percent for the

respective seal types. Similarly, of the fixed-roof tanks at pipeline

breakout stations, it was estimated that 38 percent have internal

floating roofs (72 percent at bulk gasoline terminals) as required by

NSPS and recommended by the CTG, while 62 percent are uncontrolled at

pipeline breakout stations (28 percent at bulk gasoline terminals).

Based on the above analysis, the most recent NSPS standard (40 CFR

part 60, subpart Kb) represents the average emission limitation

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. Thus

the floor level of control for storage tanks at both existing pipeline

breakout stations and existing bulk gasoline terminals has been

determined to be the control level defined in subpart Kb. Since it has

not been demonstrated that, in practice, there are any better controls

than this level for storage tanks, the level of control defined by 40

CFR part 60, subpart Kb was also selected as the floor level of control

for storage tanks at new pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline

terminals.

Degassing and cleaning of tank bottom sediments are necessary to

safely retrofit the different or additional seals on existing tanks to

meet the floor level of control (subpart Kb requirements). Degassing

and cleaning of the bottom of the tank are routine maintenance

practices that have been reported to occur at least every ten years.

Degassing and cleaning also results in air emissions. As discussed

earlier in this preamble, section 112(i)(3) in the Act allows for up to

three years to comply with this standard and an additional one-year

permit extension. Also there is the additional time between proposal

and promulgation. During this three to five year period, it is logical

to assume that many of the tanks requiring the retrofit of controls

will be experiencing their routine maintenance cleaning and degassing;

these tanks could be retrofitted during this time. Thus, for these

tanks the retrofitting required by this proposal would not result in

earlier degassing and cleaning emissions than would otherwise occur.

For those tanks that would not be degassed or cleaned during that

period, degassing and cleaning emissions would be required by this

proposed rule to occur earlier than normal. This early emissions

increase is estimated to be more than off-set by the emission

reductions achieved from the required improved seals. Comments and data

are requested on any situations where estimated emissions increase will

not be off-set by the emission reduction achieved by the controls; for

these situation, the data should include the number and description of

tanks in this atypical situation, their existing equipment and

maintenance history, determinations of the emissions and costs for tank

degassing and cleaning, and the basis for any calculations.

The floor level of control for existing storage tanks was discussed

earlier and was determined to be the level of control achieved under

the NSPS subpart Kb. Gasoline storage tanks meeting the control level

in subpart Kb were determined to represent the average emission

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing

sources. Comments and data are specifically requested on the number of

gasoline storage tanks at these facilities with seal types meeting

subpart Kb.

3. Formulation of Regulatory Alternatives

After establishing the MACT floor control levels, the Agency

developed regulatory alternatives for the affected subcategories. The

first alternative developed was one that specified control levels at

the floor for all new and existing major sources. This alternative was

designated Alternative IV. Next, various combinations of control

options were examined, ranging in stringency from the floor level

controls specified in Alternative IV to the most stringent controls for

each subcategory. A cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed to

eliminate the alternatives with higher costs for the same or lesser

emission reductions. A final set of three regulatory alternatives

(Alternatives IV, IV-Q, and IV-M) was then evaluated as the potential

basis for the proposed standards. Alternatives IV-Q and IV-M are

similar to Alternative IV except, they contain increasingly stringent

levels of equipment leak control at existing facilities. The following

paragraphs and Table 1 describe these alternatives.

Table 1.--Major Source Regulatory Alternatives IV, IV-Q, IV-M

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulk terminals Pipeline

----------------- breakout

Emission source and controls for major stations

sources New Existing ----------------

New Existing

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV

Storage Tanks:

--External Floating Roof Tanks X X X X

Install Primary and Secondary Seals.

--Fixed Roof Tanks Install Internal X X X X

Floating Roofs with Primary Seals.

Tank Truck Loading:

Collect and Process Vapors to 10 X X

milligrams TOC per liter of

Gasoline Loaded.

Tank Truck Leaks:

--Vacuum Assist Loading............. X

-- Annual Vapor Tightness Testing... X X ..... ........

Equipment Leaks:

--Leak Detection and Repair Program: X X

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV-Q

(ALTERNATIVE IV PLUS THE FOLLOWING)

Equipment Leaks:

Quarterly LDAR for pumps and valves. X X

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV-M

(ALTERNATIVE IV PLUS THE FOLLOWING)

Equipment Leaks:

--Monthly LDAR for pumps and valves. X X

------------------------------------------------------------------------

At pipeline breakout stations, Alternative IV requires that

secondary seals be installed on both new and existing external floating

roof storage tanks and that fixed-roof tanks be retrofitted with

internal floating roofs with primary seals. The control level for

storage tanks is the same as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. It also

requires that an LDAR program equivalent to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV

be implemented for equipment leaks at new facilities.

At new and existing bulk gasoline terminals, Alternative IV

specifies a 10 mg TOC/liter emission limit for vapor processors at

loading racks, and requires the same storage tank requirements

discussed above for pipeline breakout stations. Also, new facilities

must use vacuum assist vapor collection for loading of gasoline tank

trucks and railcars, and an LDAR (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) program.

Also, at existing bulk gasoline terminals, Alternative IV requires tank

trucks and railcars to undergo an annual vapor tightness test. Under

this alternative, no LDAR program is required for equipment leaks at

existing bulk gasoline terminals.

Alternatives IV-Q and IV-M specify controls identical to those of

Alternative IV, with the addition of a pollution prevention LDAR

program for both pumps and valves at existing bulk gasoline terminals

and pipeline breakout stations. Alternative IV-Q adds a quarterly LDAR

program for pumps and valves at existing facilities, and Alternative

IV-M adds a monthly LDAR program for pumps and valves at these same

sources. LDAR programs at existing sources achieve emission reduction

at little additional annual cost to each facility, and are in use at

facilities with similar equipment.

During the development of today's proposal, EPA considered

including an emissions averaging approach but did not identify any

viable alternatives. EPA would be interested in pursuing the

development of an averaging alternative if such an alternative would be

protective of the environment and, as expected, lower the cost of

achieving any particular emission reduction. A possible benefit of an

averaging approach is that it may provide sources greater flexibility

in achieving emissions reductions that may also translate into cost

savings for the source. EPA is interested and requests data and

comments that could be used to develop an emissions averaging

alternative in the final rule.

4. Consideration of Environmental Impacts

For the entire gasoline distribution network, total nationwide HAP

emissions are estimated to be 52,440 Mg/yr at baseline. Of these

emissions, approximately 23,750 Mg/yr (45 percent of the total) can be

attributed to the two subcategories of the network subject to today's

proposed regulation; nearly 7,250 Mg/yr of HAP's are emitted by

pipeline breakout stations, while about 16,500 Mg/yr are associated

with bulk gasoline terminals.

All individual sources of emissions at facilities in these two

subcategories are significant contributors to total facility emissions,

with equipment leaks at pipeline breakout stations being the smallest

(12 percent of the baseline subcategory total, due to the relatively

small number of equipment components in the process piping at these

facilities). Storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations contribute the

remaining 88 percent of the total for this subcategory. At bulk

gasoline terminals, HAP emissions are more evenly distributed: loading

racks account for 18 percent of the baseline subcategory total, storage

tanks contribute 33 percent, fugitive leaks from cargo tanks of trucks

or railcars account for 23 percent of the subcategory total, and it is

estimated that leaking pumps and valves in the process line piping

account for the remaining 26 percent.

It is estimated that implementation of Alternative IV would reduce

these HAP emissions from pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline

terminals by 11 percent, implementation of Alternative IV-Q would

reduce them by a little less than 13 percent, and Alternative IV-M by

slightly more than 14 percent. All of these are significant amounts in

view of the fact that these reductions are incremental to existing

programs, and that only an estimated 23 percent of the total

subcategory facilities are major sources. (The analysis estimates that

7.4 percent of pipeline breakout stations and 27 percent of bulk

gasoline terminals qualify as major sources.) If only major source

pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals are considered

at baseline, implementation of Alternative IV reduces these emissions

by 48 percent, Alternative IV-Q by 55 percent, and Alternative IV-M by

59 percent.

Data directly from bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline facilities

was not available to analyze the equipment leak potential emissions and

reductions. The Agency used the emissions data that had been previously

collected at petroleum refineries, including the Agency's published AP-

42 emission factors. Subsequent to the Agency's analysis, new data

specific to leaking components at bulk gasoline terminals was released

in a published report. This data appeared to indicate lower emissions

than those derived from the refinery data, and industry commenters

urged the Agency to reconsider leak detection and repair standards for

this subcategory. These commenters also stated that equipment

components in use at gasoline production and distribution facilities

are quite different, so the assumption that the leakage characteristics

of components at these two types of facilities are similar may not be

valid. To address this latter comment first, the Agency believes that

the magnitude and frequency of leaks from components at these

facilities are similar. This conclusion is based on several years of

gathering and analyzing data on all configurations and uses of

equipment at refineries and chemical production facilities. The Agency,

in these data gathering efforts, found no correlation between

temperature, pressure, or component size and the magnitude or frequency

of leaks.

The Agency performed a thorough review of the new data collected at

bulk gasoline terminals. It was determined that, while acceptable test

protocols were used, the quantity of data (which were for only a few

terminals) were insufficient to warrant a change in the emission

calculations for these components. Therefore, the Agency's conclusion

that a periodic equipment monitoring program would be a cost-effective

means of ensuring maximum HAP emission reductions is unchanged. The

data discussed above indicates potentially lower equipment leak

emissions rates than those found in testing refineries. It should be

noted that any facilities where this may be the case, could qualify for

the less frequent monitoring requirements in today's proposed

standards, as provided for in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.

The Agency is open to receiving additional data that could be used

to quantify emissions and control levels of leaking equipment at bulk

gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. This includes leak

frequency data, leak correlation data, and information on programs that

may be in place to reduce equipment leaks. Such data should include

specifics on test procedures, applicable rules, control methods, etc.

The Agency will review all data received in developing and assessing

the final control requirements. The full range of control options

presented here will be included in the consideration.

5. Consideration of Cost

Implementation of Alternative IV, IV-Q, or IV-M is estimated to

result in identical capital costs, approximately $125 million. This

cost is primarily associated with retrofit or installation of vapor

collection piping and vapor processors for loading racks at bulk

gasoline terminals. However, there is a difference in annualized cost

among these three alternatives due to annual costs and recovery credits

associated with implementing LDAR programs at existing sources.

Recovery credits are calculated based on the value and the amount of

gasoline not allowed to evaporate or collected under each control

alternative. Alternative IV-Q requires the smallest annualized cost,

$15.8 million/yr, due to having the largest recovery credit per dollar

spent on implementation of the program. Alternative IV-M is slightly

more costly at $16.3 million/yr (recovery credits per dollar spent are

not quite as large as IV-Q). Alternative IV has similar annualized cost

as Alternative IV-M.

6. Consideration of Economic Impacts

The implementation of either Regulatory Alternative IV, IV-Q, or

IV-M is projected to result in gasoline price and consumption impacts,

facility closures, and declines in employment. The national average

base year increase in the retail price of motor gasoline as a result of

these alternatives is estimated at $0.001 per gallon. The national base

year decline in gasoline consumption is estimated at less than 100

million gallons (0.08 percent). There are a limited number of facility

closures estimated to result from the regulatory alternatives. The base

year facility closure estimate is nearly 650, of which more than 90

percent are projected for the service station sector. While the

estimated number of service station closures is estimated to be in the

hundreds, it should be noted that a total of over 380,000 stations are

projected being in operation during the base year, so that the number

of facilities closing would constitute less than two-tenths of one

percent. Furthermore, due to a consumption-spurred projection of modest

industry growth from 1993 to 1998, some closures due to the regulation

may be more accurately interpreted as reductions in new facility

openings rather than closures of existing facilities. Employment

reductions due to reduced consumption and facility closure are

estimated at just over 1,100 jobs, of which 70 percent are projected

for the service station sector. However, this job loss constitutes only

about 0.05 percent of the total employment attributed to the service

station sector in the base year. For the same reason given for facility

closures, some employment reductions may be more accurately interpreted

as reductions in industry job opportunities rather than losses of

existing jobs.

7. Consideration of Secondary Impacts

As discussed earlier, there is projected to be no adverse secondary

air pollution or water pollution impacts associated with standards

based on implementation of any of the alternatives. In fact, there is

likely to be some benefits. For example, implementation of any of the

alternatives would be based in major part on an LDAR program. LDAR

programs at most facilities should actually reduce the water pollution

impact through detection and repair of faulty equipment in a shorter

timeframe than in the past. Additional benefits may be realized through

decreased intrusion of rainwater into storage tanks at both facility

types.

The small amount of water condensed from the air-vapor stream by

refrigeration condenser systems installed at loading racks should pose

no threat to the environment because the gasoline is recovered

(typically in an oil-water separator) and the gasoline-water portion is

collected and stored for processing off-site.

The only potential secondary impact involves solid waste disposal,

which may result in cases where carbon adsorbers are used to comply

with the emission standards at bulk terminal loading racks. Spent

activated carbon from these units is normally reclaimed for reuse

during the carbon's useful life, and then discarded when it is no

longer effective (usually 10 years) or reactivated in a furnace. If the

average annual solid waste impact of this disposal (assuming no

reactivation) is spread over the estimated life of the carbon, an

overall environmental impact of about 230 megagrams per year (0.7

megagrams per terminal) results. Consequently, the magnitude of the

adverse solid waste disposal impact occurring from the implementation

of any of these alternatives is considered small.

8. Consideration of Energy Impacts

There is a beneficial nationwide energy impact associated with

implementation of each of the alternatives. Implementation of LDAR

programs and installation of secondary seals on storage tanks both

result in energy savings, since additional gasoline is kept in the

tanks and lines, and remains available for sale rather than being

allowed to escape to the atmosphere. Only a small amount of electrical

energy would be required for most flares that may be installed at bulk

terminal loading racks for emission control; however, assist gas may be

necessary for some systems. Where thermal oxidation, refrigeration

condenser, or carbon adsorption systems are installed to achieve

compliance for loading racks, however, a moderate amount of electrical

energy will be required.

As mentioned earlier, vapor recovery (noncombustion) systems would

recover gasoline from vapors collected at bulk terminal loading racks;

LDAR programs, storage tank monitoring, and vacuum assist vapor

collection all operate to reduce evaporation and improve leak

prevention, so they result in gasoline savings. Assuming that 25

percent of the emission reduction at bulk terminal loading racks would

be accomplished using recovery devices (the remainder would be the

result of combustion devices) and subtracting the energy used by the

recovery devices from the energy in the recovered product, the savings

resulting from implementation of each of the alternatives are as

follows: Alternative IV results in recovery of approximately 16 million

gallons of gasoline per year, Alternative IV-Q saves almost 18 million

gallons per year, and Alternative IV-M recovers slightly more than 19

million gallons per year.

9. Selection of the Proposed Standards

In accordance with Clean Air Act section 112(d), the Administrator

is required to set emission standards for new and existing sources of

HAP's from source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c) [see the

source category list proposal of July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576)]. In doing

so, the Administrator must require the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAP's that is achievable, taking into consideration the

cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Having given full

consideration to these directives, the Administrator has selected

Alternative IV-Q as the basis for the proposed standards for gasoline

distribution major sources.

All three alternatives discussed earlier (IV, IV-Q, and IV-M)

satisfy the Act's criteria. Alternative IV achieves the least HAP

emission reduction and is the least stringent possible alternative

allowed by the Act statutory language. However, the Act provides for

setting standards above the floor. As a result, Alternatives IV-M and

IV-Q contain control levels more stringent than the floor for existing

sources (monthly and quarterly leak detection and repair of pumps and

valves, respectively). Results of emission reduction calculations show

that Alternative IV-M achieves greater HAP emission reductions than IV-

Q or the floor Alternative IV. Additionally, analysis shows that

Alternative IV-Q and IV-M would have minor economic and nonair quality

environmental impacts, and beneficial energy impacts.

Although Alternative IV-M would achieve the maximum reduction in

HAP emissions, there is uncertainty in the calculation of emission

reductions for leak detection and repair (as discussed in section 4).

Due to this uncertainty in emissions and the increased cost of

Alternative IV-M, Alternative IV-Q was chosen over the more stringent

Alternative IV-M.

D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

Section 112(h) of the Act requires that standards be promulgated in

terms of a numerical emission standard except when it is not feasible

for the pollutants to be emitted through a conveyance or it is not

practicable to apply measurement methodology due to technological or

economic limitations. In these cases, the Administrator may promulgate

a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard that is

consistent with the intent of section 112.

As discussed under Section B above, there are four distinct

categories of emission sources at bulk gasoline terminals: (1)

Displacement losses when gasoline tank trucks or railcars are loaded at

loading racks, (2) fugitive vapor losses from leaking tank trucks or

railcars during controlled loading operations, (3) losses from storage

tanks, and (4) vapor leaks from equipment components. The latter two

emission sources also occur at pipeline breakout stations.

To set a numerical emission limit for tank truck loading

operations, the total HAP emissions would have to be measurable, so

that a comparison with this emission limit could be made. Since the

small portion of the displaced vapors which may leak from the tank

trucks cannot be quantitatively measured, accurate measurements of

total HAP emissions from tank truck loading are not possible. However,

the major portion of the displaced vapors can be measured after the

vapors are collected at the loading rack. Vapor collection systems

typically include the equipment at the loading rack used to contain and

route emissions, and generally consist of hoses or arms, manifolding,

piping, and check valves. This type of system is consistent with the

current state-of-the-art collection systems in use at many existing

bulk gasoline terminals. Because of its demonstrated control

effectiveness, and because it is not possible to set a standard of

performance for the total emissions from the loading operation, an

equipment standard requiring a vapor collection system at each loading

rack was selected by the Administrator as the format for controlling

HAP emissions at the loading racks.

Since emissions from the vapor collection system can be measured,

standards of performance in the form of a numerical emission limit can

be applied to emissions from the vapor collection system. Several

formats for these standards of performance are possible. Three formats

considered for limiting emissions from the vapor collection system

include a concentration standard, a control efficiency standard, and a

mass emissions standard. A vapor processing system would be necessary

under any of these formats to achieve the required emission limit.

A format expressed in terms of concentration would limit the HAP

concentration in the exhaust from the vapor processing system. However,

test data from these systems indicate a variation in exhaust gas flow

rates and concentrations among the various types of systems. Separate

concentration limits might be required for each type of control system

at each affected terminal if a concentration format were selected.

Information from the manufacturers and test results indicate that

the control efficiencies of the processing systems are dependent on the

inlet concentration to the processor. The data further indicate that

concentrations at the inlet of the processor vary considerably from

terminal to terminal. It would be difficult to adjust the calculations

to account for these variations. Also, control efficiency testing would

require two separate measurements of pollutant concentration instead of

just one measurement as required in the concentration or mass

approaches.

A mass standard based upon the vapor processor outlet emissions

would involve a simpler, less expensive, and more straightforward test

procedure. This testing would require measurement of mass emissions at

the processor outlet only. In addition, the affected industry has over

15 years experience in conducting this type of testing at bulk gasoline

terminals and, in fact, this is the type of test data analyzed to

determine the MACT control levels for the facilities to be regulated in

this source category. Due to these considerations, a mass emission

format, based on measurements at the outlet of the vapor processor

only, was selected for the standard to be applied to bulk terminal tank

truck and railcar loading emissions. This mass emission format is the

same type analyzed to determine the MACT control levels for vapor

processors.

The test methods that have proved to be acceptable for measuring

pollutant emissions from bulk terminal control systems measure the

total organic compounds content of the exhaust stream. To analyze the

stream specifically for HAP content, more complex testing would have to

be carried out. The emission reduction processes utilized in vapor

processing systems have been found to reduce HAP's in proportion to the

reduction of total organics. Therefore, the emission limit for loading

rack vapor collection systems is expressed in terms of mass

(milligrams) of total organic compounds emitted per volume (liter) of

gasoline loaded into tank trucks and railcars.

Even at loading racks controlled through installation of vapor

collection and processing systems, gasoline vapor emissions may occur

from the loading operation due to vapor leakage from closed gasoline

tank trucks or railcars during loading. These leakage emissions

originate from pressure-vacuum vents and defective hatch covers and

seals. Due to the fugitive nature of these emissions, it is not

feasible to collect the escaping vapors and route them through a

conveyance. Since cargo tank leakage measurements at the loading racks

do not provide a quantitative measurement of total organic

concentration, flow rate, or mass emissions, an enclosure around a

loading tank truck or railcar would be necessary in to trap emissions

for measurement. An enclosure or conveyance to accomplish this is not

technologically or economically practicable. Due to these

considerations, the Administrator determined that a standard of

performance, in the form of a numerical emission limit, could not be

set, and that a work practice standard would be appropriate for

controlling cargo tank vapor leakage emissions.

One method for monitoring fugitive tank truck or railcar emissions

would involve the use of a portable hydrocarbon analyzer to detect

emissions during loadings. However, such a requirement is considered to

represent an excessive burden, especially at unmanned terminals where

entry is gained through a cardlock system. Another method for

exercising control over leaking tank trucks would consist of a work

practice standard. The work practice standard format would consist of a

requirement that the owner or operator of the terminal restrict

loadings of gasoline tank trucks to those for which documentation was

on file that the tank had passed an appropriate vapor tightness test

within the last year. This type of requirement is in effect in many

areas of the country under current State rules and is the basis for

setting the MACT control level. Since it is the most practical and

effective means of controlling tank truck or railcar fugitive emissions

at loading racks with vapor control systems, this work practice

standard was selected by the Administrator as the requirement for

fugitive tank truck leakage control.

Emissions from gasoline storage tanks at bulk gasoline terminals

and pipeline breakout stations consist of a combination of standing and

working losses. These emissions consist of vapors that escape through

rim seals on the circumference of the tank (internal and external

floating roof tanks), and for fixed-roof tanks, through several vents

and other openings necessary to relieve built up internal tank

pressures. The large number of emission points makes testing these

sources excessively expensive and burdensome. Based on the best

industry practice in use for controlling these emissions, an equipment

and work practice standard is being proposed for the control of these

storage tanks, which is identical to the national standards in practice

for new storage tanks, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. For fixed-roof

tanks, an internal floating roof would be added, and for existing

external floating roof tanks, a secondary seal would have to be added

for those tanks with only a primary seal on the floating roof. Periodic

visual inspections and seal gap measurements would be necessary to

ensure that the seals are continuing to maintain the required control.

Both bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations utilize

pumps, valves, and other liquid and vapor transfer equipment components

that may develop leaks over time. Due to the large number of sources,

testing each to quantify emissions would be expensive. Thus, an

equipment leak LDAR program and specific equipment standards similar to

those currently being practiced at petroleum refineries, chemical

manufacturing facilities, and a few terminals could be used to identify

leaking components so that timely repair could be carried out. It is

proposed that monthly monitoring of components and specific equipment

standards at new facilities and quarterly monitoring of pumps seals and

valves only at existing facilities, with the described provisions to

modify these frequencies on the basis of monitoring results, be carried

out.

E. Equivalent Systems of Emission Reduction

The Administrator does not preclude selection of alternative means

of compliance to those described above in part D of this section,

provided that the owner or operator provides proof of compliance as

specified under section 112(h)(3) of the Act. If, after notice and

opportunity for comment, the owner or operator of any source

establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an

alternative means of emission limitation will reduce emissions of any

air pollutant at least as much as would be achieved under the design,

equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination

thereof, the Administrator shall permit the use of the alternative

means.

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Continuous Monitoring

Requirements

The proposed standards require several types of performance tests,

as well as both periodic and continuous monitoring to ensure that the

intent of the standards to achieve maximum emission reductions is

realized. The tests include performance testing of the bulk terminal

control system, vapor leak monitoring and repair of the vapor

collection system before each performance test, and annual vapor

tightness testing of tank trucks and railcars that will load at the

affected terminals. All of these procedures have been used with

acceptable results and are consistent with Sec. 63.7 of the proposed

General Provisions for performance testing. Storage tanks at terminals

and pipeline stations would require periodic visual and seal gap

measurement tests (consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb).

Equipment components would have to be monitored and repaired as

necessary in accordance with the applicable LDAR program (requirements

are detailed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV).

Continuous monitoring of an operating parameter would be required

for vapor processing systems. At new bulk gasoline terminals, the

vacuum achieved in the tank truck or railcar during vacuum assist

loading would have to be monitored continuously. These monitoring

requirements are required to verify that the control systems continue

to provide the control level required by the proposed standards.

1. Emission Test Methods

Performance tests ensure that a vapor control system at a bulk

gasoline terminal is in initial compliance with the required control

level, and they also establish operating conditions under which the

system should continue to meet the required standard. An initial

performance test would be required, in accordance with the schedule in

Sec. 63.7 of the proposed General Provisions. This initial test is

required 120 days after the effective date of the standards or after

initial startup for a new facility, or 120 days after the compliance

date specified for an existing facility. In accordance with

Sec. 63.7(a)(2) of the proposed General Provisions, the Administrator

may require a performance test at any other time it is authorized by

section 114 of the Act.

The proposed standards require the use of approved test methods to

ensure consistent and verifiable results for the initial performance

test and for demonstration of continuous compliance. Methods 2A, 2B,

25A, and 25B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are specified for

measurement of total organic compound emissions from the vapor

collection and processing system. These methods have been used

routinely for many years at bulk gasoline terminals. Due to the

difficulties involved in measuring mass emissions from flares without

an outlet stack (which can be used to control loading rack emissions),

the above test methods will not be applicable. In these cases, flares

must comply with Sec. 63.11 of the proposed General Provisions which

includes a compliance determination according to Method 22 of 40 CFR

Part 60, Appendix A, and design specifications for exit velocity and

heat content.

Before each performance test, the owner or operator would be

required to monitor potential leak sources in the terminal's vapor

collection and processing system during the loading of a gasoline tank

truck or railcar. Leaks (defined as a meter reading of 500 ppm or

greater calibrated with methane) would have to be repaired before

conducting the performance test. This leak definition is consistent

with the definition in other equipment leak monitoring regulations;

i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG.

The proposed standards would require each gasoline tank truck and

railcar loaded at an affected bulk terminal to be certified as vapor-

tight through an annual vapor tightness test according to Method 27 of

40 CFR part 60, appendix A. This test verifies that the tank

compartments will not emit fugitive vapors or admit fresh air into the

tank truck during loading. The pressure-vacuum test of Method 27 is

presently required annually for gasoline tank trucks operating at

terminals subject to the bulk gasoline terminals NSPS.

2. Continuous Monitoring Requirements

In addition to the initial performance test required for bulk

terminal vapor processing systems, continuous monitoring of the

operation of these systems is also part of the proposed standards.

Selection of the format for this monitoring and the rationale for the

selection are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Continuous monitoring systems that monitor vapor processor exhaust

organic emissions in the units of the proposed standard (mg/liter)

would require measuring not only total organics concentration in the

system exhaust, but also exhaust gas flow rate, volume of product

dispensed, temperature, and pressure. Such systems are not currently in

use at bulk gasoline terminals. However, monitoring equipment is

available and in use for monitoring the operational variables

associated with the operation of the processing systems.

Today's proposed standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart R) require

continuous monitoring of operating parameters of vapor processing

systems, and reports of periods when the monitored value exceeds or

there is a failure to maintain, as appropriate, the parameter value

established by monitoring data recorded during the performance test.

The Agency is requiring each source to establish a site-specific

monitoring parameter value and if exceeded or not maintained, as

appropriate, it would be an enforceable violation of the emission

limit. System-specific values for monitored parameters would account

for deviations in the design, installation, and operational

characteristics of individual control systems.

Under the NSPS and the earlier NESHAP programs, parameter

monitoring has traditionally been used as a tool in determining whether

control devices are being maintained and operated properly. However,

section 114(a)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.6(c) of the operating permit

rule (57 FR 32251, July 21, 1992) require the submission of

``compliance certifications'' from sources subject to the operating

permit program. Sources must certify whether compliance was continuous

or intermittent, as well as their compliance status at the end of the

reporting period. In light of these requirements, the Agency has

considered how sources subject to this rule would demonstrate

compliance. The Agency has found that operating parameter monitoring is

already being used successfully at some bulk gasoline terminals and can

be applied for this purpose. The Agency considers that each exceedence

or failure to maintain, as appropriate, of a operating parameter value

would constitute a violation of the emission limit.

Organic compounds concentration at the processor outlet is the best

indication of system operation and corresponding emission reduction. A

monitor to measure this parameter would be appropriate for carbon

adsorption and possibly refrigeration condenser systems. To achieve

representative organic concentration measurements at the processor

outlet, the concentration monitoring device should be installed in the

exhaust vent of the vapor processor: (1) At least two equivalent

diameters downstream from the nearest control device, the point of

pollutant generation, or other point at which a change in the pollutant

concentration or emission rate may occur and (2) at least a half

equivalent diameter upstream from the effluent exhaust.

For some vapor processing systems, monitoring of the exhaust

organics concentration may be impracticable and monitoring a process

parameter may be an equally accurate measure of system performance. For

example, temperature monitoring of the combustion section of a thermal

oxidation system or the temperature of the air-vapor mixture on the

outlet side of a refrigeration condenser system establish performance

of the system. If a flare is used to control loading rack emissions, a

heat-sensing device such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or a

thermocouple to indicate the presence of a flame during the loading

operation is required.

The Agency is requesting comment, including data and other

supporting technical information, on whether the proposed approach on

continuous monitoring and types of monitoring parameters ensure

continuous compliance of vapor control systems that would be installed

at affected bulk gasoline terminals to meet today's proposed emission

standard. Additionally, comments and data are requested on how

representative the control equipment parameters are of actual

performance of the control equipment and in determining compliance.

Also, comments and data are requested on alternative methods to those

proposed today that can be used to ensure continuous compliance with

the emission standard. The proposed regulation also allows for

substituting an alternative vapor processing system for those mentioned

above or the monitoring of some other parameter if it can be

demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that the processing

system achieves the emission limit, and the value of the alternative

monitoring parameter ensures continuous compliance with the emission

standard.

The operating parameter value would be established during the

initial performance test. During the test, the operating parameter

would be continuously recorded during all the times a gasoline tank

truck or railcar was being loaded. Only monitoring data from

performance tests in which the system shows compliance with the 10 mg

TOC/liter emission limit are valid for the determination of the

monitored operating parameter value. The operating parameter value

would be the average of the values recorded during which loadings of

gasoline tank trucks occur over the six-hour performance test. Today's

proposal requires facilities to monitor this operating parameter value

continuously, calculate and record a rolling six-hour average valve,

and report exceedences or failures to maintain, as appropriate, the

average value.

New bulk gasoline terminals must install a vacuum assist vapor

collection system to ensure that loading tank trucks and railcars do

not emit fugitive HAP vapors. The vapor collection system must be

continuously monitored to verify that a vacuum always exists in the

system while loading is taking place. The monitoring location must be

within 0.3 meter (1 foot) of the tank truck/vapor return line

interface. The Agency is not proposing any specific vacuum levels that

must be maintained (although the vacuum must never exceed the level at

which the system's or transport tank's safety vents automatically begin

to open). Therefore, the monitoring device need not be highly precise.

However, a continuous record indicating that a vacuum is being

maintained for the duration of all loadings must be created and

maintained at the facility.

Comments on the proposed approaches to monitoring the vacuum assist

system, or vapor collection and processing systems, and any other

suggested approaches are requested. In particular, the Agency requests

that commenters submit data on parameters or values of parameters that

might be used to better establish performance of these devices and

continuous compliance with the emission standards.

G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed standards would require an owner or operator to submit

the following four types of reports:

1. Initial Notification,

2. Notification of Compliance Status,

3. Periodic Reports, and

4. Other reports.

The purpose and contents of each of these reports are described in this

section. The proposed rule requires all reports to be submitted to the

``Administrator.'' The term Administrator refers either to the

Administrator of the Agency, an Agency regional office, a State agency,

or other entity that has been delegated the authority to implement this

rule. In most cases, reports will be sent to State agencies. Addresses

are provided in the proposed General Provisions (subpart A) of 40 CFR

part 63.

Records of reported information and other information necessary to

document compliance with the regulation are generally required to be

kept for 5 years. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the

control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the

equipment.

1. Initial Notification

The proposed standards would require owners or operators who are

subject to today's proposed standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart R

to submit an Initial Notification. This report notifies the agency of

applicability for existing facilities or of construction for new

facilities as outlined in Sec. 63.5 of the proposed General Provisions,

whichever is applicable. A respondent must also report any facility

modifications as defined in Sec. 63.5 of the proposed General

Provisions. This report will establish an early dialogue between the

source and the regulatory agency, allowing both to plan for compliance

activities. The notice is due within 45 days after the date of

promulgation for existing sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days

before commencement of construction or reconstruction, or 45 days after

promulgation of today's proposed rules, whichever is later.

The Initial Notification must include a statement as to whether the

source can achieve compliance by the specified compliance date. If an

existing source anticipates a delay that is beyond its control, it is

important for the owner or operator to discuss the problem with the

regulatory authority as early as possible. This report will also

include a description of the parameter monitoring system intended to be

used in conjunction with the vapor processing system. Pursuant to

section 112(d) of the Act, the proposed standards contain provisions

for a 1-year compliance extension to be granted by the Administrator on

a case-by-case basis. Further discussion of compliance issues is

included in section VI.H of this notice.

2. Notification of Compliance Status

The Notification of Compliance Status (NCS) would be submitted no

later than 30 days after the facility's initial performance test. It

contains the information necessary to demonstrate that compliance has

been achieved, such as the results of the initial performance test on

the vapor processing system and results of the LDAR monitoring program.

The submission of the performance test report will allow the regulatory

authority to verify that the source has followed the correct sampling

and analytical procedures, and has performed all calculations

correctly.

Included in the performance test report submitted with the NCS

would be the calculation of the operating parameter value for the

selected operating parameter to be monitored in the vapor processing

system. The notification must include the data and rationale to support

this parameter value as ensuring continuous compliance with the

emission limit.

3. Periodic Reports

Periodic Reports are required to ensure that the standards continue

to be met and that vapor control systems are operated and maintained

properly. Generally, periodic reports would be submitted semiannually

or quarterly. However, if monitoring results show that the parameter

values for the vapor processing system exceed or fail to maintain, as

appropriate, the operating parameter value for more than 1 percent of

the operating time in a quarterly reporting period, or the monitor is

out of service for more than 5 percent of the time, the Administrator

may request that the owner or operator submit more frequent reports.

After 1 year, the facility may return to quarterly reporting if

approved by the regulatory authority.

The Agency has established this reporting system to provide an

incentive (less frequent reporting) for good performance. Due to

uncertainty about the periods of time over which sources are likely to

experience exceedences or failures to maintain, as appropriate, the

operating parameter value or monitoring system failures, the Agency is

seeking comment on the 1 percent and 5 percent criteria triggering the

potential for more frequent reporting. In particular, data are

requested on both the frequency of exceedences and monitoring system

downtime. As discussed in section VI.F.2, records must be kept of the

parameter value.

Owners and operators are also required to keep records of monthly

or quarterly leak detection and repair, and to furnish reports on

program results, as specified in Sec. 63.428(f). These reports can be

made a part of the Periodic Report, unless the frequency of the reports

exceeds that of the Periodic Report. Facilities must also retain

records and submit reports of annual inspections of storage vessels, in

accordance with Sec. 63.428(e). These reports may also be included in

the appropriate Periodic Report.

4. Other Reports

There are also a limited number of other reports required under the

proposed standards. Where possible, subpart R is structured to allow

information to be reported in the semiannual (or quarterly) Periodic

Report. However, in a few cases, it is necessary for the facility to

provide information to the regulatory authority shortly before or after

a specific event. For example, notification before a performance test

or a storage vessel inspection is required to allow the regulatory

authority the opportunity to have an observer present (as specified in

the proposed General Provisions). This type of reporting must be done

separately from the Periodic Reports because some situations require a

shorter term response from the reviewing authority.

Reports of start of construction, anticipated and actual startup

dates, and modifications, as required under Sec. 63.5 and Sec. 63.9 of

the proposed General Provisions, are entered into the Agency's

Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) and are used to

determine whether emission limits are being met.

Records required under the proposed standards are generally

required to be kept for 5 years. General recordkeeping requirements are

contained in the proposed General Provisions under Sec. 63.10(b). These

requirements include records of malfunctions and maintenance performed

on the vapor processing system and the parameter monitoring system. At

bulk gasoline terminals, vapor tightness (annual test) documentation

for each gasoline tank truck and railcar using the terminal is

required. Continuous monitoring data from the parameter monitor on the

vapor processor and the pressure monitor on the vacuum assist vapor

collection system will provide a record of continuous compliance with

the emission standards. Records of storage vessel inspections,

operating plans, and other details of controlled storage vessels at

terminals and pipeline stations are to be kept as specified under

Sec. 60.115b. Records documenting the LDAR program at subject

facilities must be kept in accordance with Sec. 60.486 (b) through (j).

H. Selection of Compliance Deadlines

The Agency proposes to allow affected sources the following time

periods after promulgation for compliance, as provided for in Clean Air

Act section 112(i). All sources, whether uncontrolled or having in

place control systems or measures requiring upgrading to meet the new

standards, would be required to reach full compliance within 3 years

after promulgation of the standards. All sources must implement an LDAR

program as soon as practical, but not later than 180 days after

promulgation of this rule. These compliance deadlines allow a

reasonable time for replacement of operating equipment at existing

sources, for construction and installation of vapor control devices and

piping, and for retrofit of storage tanks.

I. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any

aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble

or the referenced supporting documents.

The proposed standards were developed on the basis of information

available. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual

information that may support either the approach taken in the proposed

standards or an alternate approach. To receive proper consideration,

documentation or data should be provided.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed standards in accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the Act.

Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the proposed standards

for gasoline distribution should contact the Agency at the address

given in the Addresses section of this preamble. Oral presentations

will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a

written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing.

Written statements should be addressed to the Air Docket section

address given in the Addresses section of this preamble, and should

refer to Docket No. A-92-38.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements

will be available for public inspection and copying during normal

working hours at the Agency's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see

Addresses section of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by the Agency in the development

of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in

the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review (except for interagency review materials) [Section

307(d)(7)(A) of the Act].

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined to treat this action as a ``significant regulatory action''

within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket listed

at the beginning of today's notice under ADDRESSES. The docket is

available for public inspection at the Agency's Air Docket Section,

which is listed in the Addresses section of this preamble.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by the Agency (ICR No. 1659.01) and a copy

may be obtained from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., (2136), Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is

estimated to average 400 hours per respondent for the first year after

the date of promulgation of the rule, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. The cost for this additional burden per

respondent is estimated to be about 14,000 dollars during the first

year.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, (2136), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 10460; and to the

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked

``Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.'' The final rule will respond to

the OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA

to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business

``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed

regulation would have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be

prepared. However, regulatory alternatives that would alleviate the

potential impact of the proposed standards on directly affected

companies were not selected because the CAA requires all facilities

that are members of a category or subcategory of major sources to meet,

at a minimum, the requirements of the MACT floor.

For the affected industry sectors, the Small Business

Administration's definition of small business is independently owned

companies with less than 100 employees. The proposed standards directly

impact small companies owning gasoline bulk terminals and pipeline

breakout stations. Due to downstream wholesale gasoline price

increases, the proposed standards would indirectly impact small

companies owning gasoline bulk plants and gasoline service stations.

A definitive estimate of the number of small businesses that would

be directly and indirectly affected by the proposed standards could not

be feasibly obtained because of the lack of data related to the extent

of vertical integration in the gasoline distribution chain. However,

the EPA believes that a maximum of 56 percent of all gasoline bulk

terminals are owned by small companies. Potentially, up to 99 percent

of the indirectly affected gasoline bulk plants and service stations

are owned by small companies. The percentage of actual small companies

in these sectors, especially the gasoline bulk terminal sector, is

projected to be much smaller due to vertical integration with petroleum

refiners. No estimate has been made of the percentage of pipeline

breakout stations owned by small companies, but since they are

typically affiliated with petroleum refiners, the percentage is

projected to be small.

A preliminary assessment indicates that the proposed regulations

would not result in financial impacts that would significantly or

differentially stress affected small companies. The compliance costs

for all but the smallest throughput facilities in directly affected

industry segments are a minute fraction of production costs and

revenues. Even so, the per unit compliance cost differential between

large throughput and small throughput facilities are minor. Small

facilities are likely to be serving small or specialized markets, which

makes it unlikely that the differential in unit control costs between

large throughput and small throughput facilities will seriously affect

the competitive position of small companies, even assuming that small

companies own small facilities.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify

that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant

impact on small companies, even though a substantial number of small

companies may be affected.

F. Clean Air Act Section 117

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

The Administrator welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposed

regulation, including health, economic, technological, or other

aspects.

G. Regulatory Review

In accordance with Clean Air Act sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2),

this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of

promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,

improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.

Dated: January 31, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63

of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as

follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart R,

consisting of Secs. 63.420-63.429, to read as follows:

Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution

Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)

Sec.

63.420 Applicability.

63.421 Definitions.

63.422 Standards: Loading racks.

63.423 Standards: Storage vessels.

63.424 Standards: Equipment leaks.

63.425 Test methods and procedures.

63.426 Alternative means of emission limitation.

63.427 Continuous monitoring.

63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.

63.429 Delegation of authority.

Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution

Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)

Sec. 63.420 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each bulk gasoline

terminal, except those facilities:

(1) For which the result, ET, of the following equation is

less than 1:

ET=0.63(TF)+0.19(TE)+0.092(TES)+0.03(TI)+0.0012

(V)+0.024(P)+KQ

where:

ET=major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline terminals,

ET1 means bulk gasoline terminal is a major source,

TF=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,

TE=total number of external floating roof gasoline storage tanks

with only primary seals,

TES=total number of external floating roof storage tanks with

primary and secondary seals,

TI=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an

internal floating roof,

V=number of valves in gasoline service,

P=number of pumps in gasoline service,

Q=gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),

K=3.18x10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with uncontrolled loading

racks (no vapor collection and processing systems), OR

K=(4.5 x 10-9) (EF+70) for bulk gasoline terminals with controlled

loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and processing

systems installed on the emission stream), and

EF=the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor processor

(mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

or

(2) For which the owner or operator has documented to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major source as

defined in section 112(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.

(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each pipeline breakout

station, except those facilities:

(1) For which the result, EP, of the following equation is

less than 1:

EP=2.4(TF)+0.09(TE)+0.043(TES)+0.027(TI)+0.0009

(V)+0.009(P)

where:

EP=major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout

stations, EP1 means pipeline breakout station is a

major source, and

the definitions for TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are

the same as provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or

(2) For which the owner or operator has documented to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major source as

defined in section 112(a)(1) of the Act.

(c) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2)

of this section, do not apply to bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline

breakout stations located within a contiguous area and under common

control of a petroleum refinery if the petroleum refinery is a major

source under section 112(a)(1) of the Act.

(d) The owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart that is also

subject to applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, Kb,

VV, XX, and GGG of this chapter, or 40 CFR part 61, subparts J and V of

this chapter, shall comply only with the provisions in each subpart

that contain the most stringent control requirements for that facility.

Sec. 63.421 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have

the meaning given them in the Act; in subparts A, K, Ka, Kb, VV, XX,

and GGG of part 60 of this chapter; in subparts A, J, and V of part 61

of this chapter; or in subpart A of this part. All terms defined in

both subpart A of part 60 of this chapter and subpart A of this part

shall have the meaning given in subpart A of this part. For purposes of

this subpart, definitions in this section supersede definitions in

other parts or subparts.

Controlled loading rack means a loading rack equipped with vapor

collection and processing systems that reduce displaced vapor emissions

to no more than 80 milligrams of total organic compounds per liter of

gasoline loaded, as measured using the test methods and procedures in

Sec. 60.503 (a) through (c) of this chapter.

Equipment means each valve, pump, pressure relief device, sampling

connection system, open-ended valve or line, and flange or other

connector in the gasoline liquid transfer and vapor collection systems.

This definition also includes the entire vapor processing system except

the exhaust port(s) or stack(s).

Gasoline tank truck means a delivery tank truck or railcar used at

bulk gasoline terminals which is loading gasoline or which has loaded

gasoline on the immediately previous load.

In gasoline service means that a piece of equipment is used in a

system that transfers gasoline or gasoline vapors.

In VHAP service or In VOC service means, for the purposes of this

subpart, in gasoline service.

Operating parameter value means an established value for control

equipment or operating condition, which, if achieved by itself or

combination with one or more other operating parameter values,

determines that and owner or operator has complied with an applicable

emission limit or standard.

Pipeline breakout station means a facility along a pipeline

containing storage vessels used to temporarily store gasoline from the

pipeline.

Uncontrolled loading rack means a loading rack used to load

gasoline tank trucks that is not a controlled loading rack.

Vapor-tight gasoline tank truck means a gasoline tank truck which

has demonstrated within the 12 preceding months that its product

delivery tank will sustain a pressure change of not more than 750

pascals (75 mm of water) within 5 minutes after it is pressurized to

4,500 pascals (450 mm of water) or evacuated to 1,500 pascals (150 mm

of water). This capability is to be demonstrated using the pressure and

vacuum test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter,

appendix A, Reference Method 27.

Volatile organic liquid (VOL) means, for the purposes of this

subpart, gasoline.

Sec. 63.422 Standards: Loading racks.

(a) Each owner or operator of loading racks at a bulk gasoline

terminal subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with

the requirements in Sec. 60.502 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, of this

chapter except for paragraphs (b) and (c) of that section. For purposes

of this section, the term ``affected facility'' used in Sec. 60.502 of

this chapter means the loading racks that load gasoline tank trucks at

the bulk gasoline terminals subject to the provisions of this subpart.

(b) Emissions to the atmosphere from the loading racks and the

vapor collection and processing system due to the loading of gasoline

tank trucks shall not exceed 10 milligrams of total organic compounds

per liter of gasoline loaded. Each owner or operator shall comply as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than February 8, 1997 at

existing facilities and upon startup for new facilities.

(c) Owners or operators of new bulk gasoline terminals shall

install a system at the loading racks used to load gasoline tank trucks

that will maintain a vacuum in each gasoline tank truck during loading.

The system shall satisfy the following requirements:

(1) During loading, a continuous vacuum shall be maintained in the

vapor collection system as measured no more than 0.3 meter from the

interface between the vapor collection system coupler and the gasoline

tank truck vapor collection adapter; and

(2) An interlock system shall prevent loading from beginning until

a vacuum has been achieved, and shall shut down the loading process if

the vacuum is lost.

Sec. 63.423 Standards: Storage vessels.

The owner or operator of each storage vessel greater than or equal

to 75 cubic meters used to store gasoline shall equip each storage

vessel according to the requirements in Sec. 60.112b(a)(1) through (4)

of this chapter. At new bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout

stations, compliance shall be achieved upon startup. Existing bulk

gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations shall be in

compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than February

8, 1997

Sec. 63.424 Standards: Equipment leaks.

(a) Each owner or operator of a new bulk gasoline terminal or new

pipeline breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart

shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 60.482-1 to 60.482-10 of

this chapter, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. At

new bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations, initial

compliance shall be achieved upon startup.

(b) Each owner or operator of an existing bulk gasoline terminal or

pipeline breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart

shall:

(1) monitor pump seals in accordance with Sec. 60.482-2 of this

chapter, except the frequency of monitoring specified in Sec. 60.482-

2(a)(1) of this chapter shall be on a quarterly basis; and

(2) monitor valves in accordance with Sec. 60.482-7 of this

chapter, except the frequency of initial monitoring specified in

Sec. 60.482-7(a) of this chapter shall be on a quarterly basis. The

provisions of Sec. 60.482-7(c) of this chapter do not apply. At

existing bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout stations, initial

compliance shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no

later than August 8, 1994.

(c) An owner or operator may elect to comply with the alternative

standards for valves in Sec. 60.483-1 and Sec. 60.483-2 of this

chapter.

(d) Owners or operators of bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not

cause or allow gasoline to be spilled, discarded in sewers, stored in

open containers, or handled in any other manner that would result in

vapor release to the atmosphere.

Sec. 63.425 Test methods and procedures.

(a) Each owner or operator subject to the emission standard for

loading racks in Sec. 63.422(b) shall conduct a performance test on the

vapor processing system according to the test methods and procedures in

Sec. 60.503 of this chapter, except a reading of 500 ppm shall be used

to determine the level of leaks under Sec. 60.503(b) of this chapter to

be repaired. If a flare is used to control loading rack emissions, and

emissions from this device cannot be measured using these methods and

procedures, the provisions of Sec. 63.11(b) shall apply.

(b) For each performance test conducted under paragraph (a) of this

section, a monitored operating parameter value for the vapor processing

system shall be determined using the following procedure:

(1) During the performance test, continuously record the

appropriate operating parameter as determined under Sec. 63.427(a);

(2) The monitored operating parameter value is the average of

values recorded during loadings of gasoline tank trucks that occur

during performance test period in which the source has demonstrated

compliance with the emission standard.

(c) For performance tests performed after the initial test, the

owner or operator shall document the reasons for any change in the

value for the operating parameter since the previous performance test.

(d) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the equipment leak provisions of

Sec. 63.424 (a), (b), or (c) shall comply with the test methods and

procedures in Sec. 60.485 (b) through (g) of this chapter.

(e) The owner or operator of each storage vessel subject to the

provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with the testing requirements in

Sec. 60.113b of this chapter, and with the requirements in paragraph

(b) of this section when electing to comply with Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of

this chapter.

Sec. 63.426 Alternative means of emission limitation.

(a) For determining the acceptability of alternative means of

emission limitation for storage vessels under Sec. 63.423, the

provisions of Sec. 60.114b of this chapter apply.

(b) For determining the acceptability of alternative means of

emission limitation for equipment leaks under Sec. 63.424, the

provisions of Sec. 60.484 of this chapter apply.

Sec. 63.427 Continuous monitoring.

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, certify,

operate, and maintain, according to the manufacturer's specifications,

the monitoring equipment specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),

or (a)(4) of this section, as appropriate. All monitoring equipment

shall be equipped with a continuous recorder for continuously recording

and calculating 6 hour average values of the information required in

this paragraph.

(1) Where a carbon adsorption system is used, an organic

concentration monitoring device shall be installed in the exhaust air

stream.

(2) Where a refrigeration condenser system is used, a temperature

monitoring device shall be installed immediately downstream from the

outlet to the condenser section. Alternatively, an organic

concentration monitoring device may be installed in the exhaust air

stream.

(3) Where a thermal oxidation system is used, a temperature

monitoring device shall be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork

immediately downstream from the firebox in a position before any

substantial heat exchange occurs.

(4) Where a flare is used, a heat-sensing device, such as an

ultraviolet beam sensor or a thermocouple, shall be installed in

proximity to the pilot light to indicate the presence of a flame.

(5) Monitoring an alternative operating parameter other than those

listed this paragraph shall be allowed upon demonstrating to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the alternative parameter provides

continuous compliance with Sec. 63.422(b).

(b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall operate the vapor processor in a

manner not to exceed the operating parameter value at Sec. 63.427(a)

(1) and (2), or below the operating parameter value at

Sec. 63.427(a)(3), and established using the procedure in

Sec. 63.425(b). In cases where an alternative pursuant to

Sec. 63.427(a)(5) is approved, each owner or operator shall operate the

vapor processor in a manner not to exceed or not to maintain, as

appropriate, the alternative operating parameter value. Operation of

the vapor processor in a manner exceeding or below the appropriate

operating parameter value, as specified above, shall constitute

violation of the emission limit in Sec. 63.422(b).

(c) Owners and operators subject to the provisions of

Sec. 63.422(c) shall continuously monitor the pressure achieved in each

gasoline tank truck during loading to ensure no exceedences in

maintaining a negative pressure.

(d) Owners and operators of storage vessels subject to the

provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with the monitoring requirements

in Sec. 60.116b of this chapter, and in paragraph (a) of this section

when electing to comply with Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of this chapter.

Sec. 63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.

(a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline

breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply

with the general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of

Sec. 63.10.

(b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall keep records and furnish reports

as specified in Sec. 60.505 (a) and (b) of this chapter.

(c) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall:

(1) Keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the continuous

monitoring data values and the calculated 6 hour rolling average values

required under Sec. 63.427(a);

(2) Include the performance test data specified in Sec. 63.425(b)

in the Notification of Compliance Status report required under

Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions; and

(3) Record and report the following information when using a flare

to comply with Sec. 63.422(b):

(i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-

assisted); and

(ii) All visible emissions readings, heat content determinations,

flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during

the compliance determination required under Sec. 63.425(a).

(d) If an owner or operator requests approval to use a va

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.