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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-2695

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** February 8, 1994

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-2695. Public record. Not legal advice.