Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

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

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government

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

Carol M. Browner
Environmental Protection Agency
February 8, 1994


[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2695]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 8, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63




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

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4834-5]

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Category: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is today proposing standards which would limit 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) from existing and new 
bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. These proposed 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 
implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (1990 
amendments), which requires the Administrator to regulate emissions of 
the HAP's listed in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (Act). Several 
of these pollutants are emitted from all gasoline distribution 
facilities (pipeline pumping stations, pipeline breakout stations, bulk 
terminals, bulk plants, and service stations). The intent of the 
proposed standards is to protect the public health by requiring new and 
existing major sources to control HAP emissions to the level attainable 
by the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Pipeline breakout 
stations and bulk gasoline terminals are the only two subcategories 
within the gasoline distribution network that have been found to 
include major source facilities. Therefore, the proposed standards 
would apply only to major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk 
gasoline terminals.
    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested 
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or 
arguments concerning the proposed standards for gasoline distribution 
facilities.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 11, 1994.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak 
at a public hearing by March 1, 1994 , a public hearing will be held on 
March 10, 1994 beginning at 9 a.m. Persons wishing to present oral 
testimony must contact Ms. Lina Hanzely of EPA at (919) 541-5673 by 
March 1, 1994. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call 
Ms. Hanzely at the same number to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air Docket Section (6102), ATTN: Docket No. A-92-38, Room 
M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Background Information Document. The background information 
document (BID) may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``Gasoline 
Distribution (Stage I)--Background Information for Proposed 
Standards,''.
    Docket. Docket No. A-92-38, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, at the Agency's Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room 1500, 
1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical information 
concerning the proposed standards, contact Mr. Stephen Shedd at (919) 
541-5397, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division 
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711. For general information or information regarding 
the economic effects of the proposed standards, contact Mr. Scott 
Mathias at (919) 541-5310, Standards Development Branch, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), also at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Description of the Source Category and Subcategories
II. Background
III. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. Sources Covered
1. Applicability Determination
2. Emission Points Covered
B. Standards for Sources
C. Effective Date for Compliance
D. Compliance Extensions
E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
the Proposed Standards
A. Number and Type of Affected Sources or Facilities
B. Air Emission Reductions
C. Secondary Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
V. Decision Process for Setting the NESHAP
A. Authority for the Development of the NESHAP
B. Criteria for Development of the NESHAP
C. Regulatory Development Process for the NESHAP
D. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ``Floors''
VI. Selection Rationale
A. Selection of Source Category(s) Controlled
B. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered
C. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards for New and 
Existing Sources
1. Determination of Applicability
2. Determination of Floor Control Levels
3. Formulation of Regulatory Alternatives
4. Consideration of Environmental Impacts
5. Consideration of Cost
6. Consideration of Economic Impacts
7. Consideration of Secondary Impacts
8. Consideration of Energy Impacts
9. Selection of the Proposed Standards
D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
E. Equivalent Systems of Emission Reduction
F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements and Emission Test Methods
G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
H. Selection of Compliance Deadlines
I. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Clean Air Act Section 117
G. Regulatory Review

I. Description of the Source Category and Subcategories

    The 1990 amendments require, under Section 112, that the Agency 
evaluate and control emissions of HAP's. The control of HAP's is to be 
achieved through promulgation of emission standards under Sections 
112(d) and (f) for categories of sources that emit HAP's. Pursuant to 
Section 112(c) of the Act, the Agency published in the Federal Register 
the initial list of source categories that emit HAP's on July 16, 1992 
(57 FR 31576). This list includes major and area sources of HAP's that 
the Agency intends to regulate before November of the year 2000. The 
list reflects the Section 112(a) definition of major source as a source 
that emits 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25 
tpy or more of any combination of HAP's. Area sources are stationary 
sources that do not qualify as ``major.''
    The initial list of major source categories includes the gasoline 
distribution source category. For purposes of the proposed standards, 
the gasoline distribution network refers to the storage and transfer of 
gasoline as it is moved from the production refinery process units to 
the service station storage tank. The gasoline distribution facility 
category is made up of several distinct facility types. During the 
analysis of this category, it was determined that this category should 
be subcategorized by facility type. Therefore, the following gasoline 
distribution subcategories were analyzed in the context of this 
proposed rulemaking:

--Pipeline pumping stations
--Pipeline breakout stations
--Bulk gasoline terminals
--Bulk plants
--Service stations

    Gasoline is carried from production units at refineries to 
terminals by pipelines, which may span great distances, or be co-
located or adjacent to refineries. The pipeline is made of sections of 
steel pipe, welded together, and usually buried underground. At the 
refinery, a pump sends the refined gasoline toward its destination. 
Since the primary pump is incapable of ``pushing'' the gasoline the 
entire distance, pumping stations are located along the pipeline to 
keep the gasoline flowing. Occasionally, flow may be interrupted as a 
quantity of gasoline is pumped out of the pipeline into storage tanks. 
These ``breakout'' stations usually are coincident with pumping 
stations.
    Bulk gasoline terminals are facilities that receive gasoline from 
refineries via pipeline, ship, or barge and place it in storage tanks 
until it is distributed. Also, bulk terminals can be located onsite or 
adjacent to refineries. At these terminals, gasoline is loaded into 
railcars (which typically transport gasoline between terminals) or tank 
trucks. From the terminal, the tank trucks normally deliver gasoline to 
service stations or intermediate storage and handling facilities known 
as bulk plants.
    Bulk plants, using smaller delivery tank trucks, primarily supply 
service stations and small accounts such as farms because they are long 
distances from terminals or are unable to accommodate the large 
terminal delivery tank trucks. At service stations, gasoline is 
transferred to storage tanks and ultimately to motor vehicles. Vehicle 
refueling (known as Stage II) and ship and barge handling of gasoline 
are being addressed by the Agency under separate programs.

II. Background

    As noted above, section 112(b) of the 1990 amendments contains a 
list of HAP's to be regulated by Agency standards. Volatile organic 
compound (VOC) and HAP emission sources at gasoline distribution 
facilities have been studied and regulated by Federal, State, and local 
air pollution regulatory agencies for some time.
    Beginning in the mid 1970's, the Agency issued control techniques 
guideline documents (CTGs) for the control of VOC from sources at 
several gasoline production and distribution facilities. These CTGs 
recommended control techniques for gasoline vapor emissions from 
service stations (November 1975), tank truck loading terminals (October 
1977), bulk plants (December 1977), fixed-roof petroleum storage tanks 
(December 1977), external floating roof petroleum storage tanks 
(December 1978), and tank trucks (December 1978). The Agency also 
developed a general volatile organic liquid storage tank CTG (June 
1984), and is in the process of revising this document (July 1992 
draft). In addition, there is a CTG pertaining to the control of VOC 
from leaking equipment at petroleum refineries (issued in June 1978, 
and later superseded by a CTG issued in 1984). Most State and local 
agencies have implemented rules reflecting the CTG recommended control 
technologies in areas with ozone nonattainment problems.
    The VOC emissions from sources at gasoline distribution facilities 
have also been addressed in Federal new source performance standards 
(NSPS). On March 8, 1974, the Agency promulgated an NSPS (subpart K of 
40 CFR part 60) regulating VOC emissions from new petroleum liquid 
storage tanks. Subsequent updates (subparts Ka and Kb) require more 
stringent control levels for new storage tanks. Subpart Ka was 
promulgated on April 4, 1980, and subpart Kb on April 8, 1987 (52 FR 
11428). Tank truck loading racks at new bulk gasoline terminals are 
covered by subpart XX of 40 CFR part 60, which was adopted on August 
18, 1983 (48 FR 37578). On May 30, 1984, 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG 
(referencing subpart VV provisions) NSPS were promulgated covering 
equipment leaks of VOC at petroleum refineries. Additionally, national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart J (referencing subpart V provisions) were promulgated in June 
6, 1984 covering equipment leaks from equipment in benzene service.
    The regulatory emission limits applied in some areas are more 
stringent than either the CTG or NSPS level. For example, rules for the 
Bay Area and Sacramento Air Quality Management Districts in California 
have bulk gasoline terminal emission limits that are more stringent 
than the levels required under the NSPS.
    Methods for control of HAP emissions from gasoline distribution 
facilities have also been evaluated in past studies. In 1978, the 
Agency studied benzene emissions from gasoline distribution facilities 
(not including vehicle refueling) and presented its findings to the 
National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC). 
After this presentation, the Agency decided not to proceed with a 
benzene standard but rather to proceed with the NSPS development for 
bulk gasoline terminals. On August 8, 1984, the Agency published in the 
Federal Register (49 FR 31706) a notice of the availability of a 
document on regulatory strategies being considered for controlling air 
pollutants from bulk gasoline terminals, bulk plants, and service 
stations. After the public comment period on the regulatory strategies, 
a Federal regulation for controlling vehicle refueling (Stage II) 
emissions with on the vehicle controls (onboard) was proposed on August 
19, 1987, but no control requirements were included for bulk gasoline 
terminals, bulk plants, or other sources at service stations.
    On February 7, 1987, in response to a petition filed in 1984 by the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, et. al., the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Agency to publish either 
a notice of intent not to regulate or a notice of proposed regulation. 
This order covered several sources of benzene emissions, including bulk 
gasoline terminals, bulk plants, and gasoline service stations 
(including the filling of service station storage tanks by gasoline 
tank trucks, but not the refueling of motor vehicles). On September 14, 
1989 (54 FR 38083), the Agency proposed regulations for the gasoline 
distribution facilities noted above. However, on March 7, 1990 (55 FR 
8292), the Agency withdrew these proposed standards. The rationale for 
this withdrawal was that the baseline benzene emissions were found to 
be within a safe range with regard to health risk, and that additional 
controls were unnecessary to provide an ample margin of safety. This 
earlier decision not to regulate these three types of gasoline 
distribution facilities was based on the health effects from benzene 
alone and were under the provisions of the Act as amended in 1977.
    The HAP list presented in the Act section 112(b), as amended in 
1990, contains additional compounds normally contained in gasoline 
vapor, including, but not limited to benzene, toluene, hexane, 
ethylbenzene, naphthalene, cumene, xylenes, n-hexane, 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Additionally, new 
provisions on how to develop NESHAP were provided in the 1990 
amendments to the Act. Therefore, it became necessary to reevaluate 
emissions from gasoline distribution facilities to consider a 
combination of HAP's and the new provisions for setting NESHAPs.
    There are other requirements and regulatory programs that will 
affect the HAP emissions from gasoline distribution facilities. These 
include the major and area source determination provisions for pipeline 
facilities covered in section 112(n)(4)(A) of the 1990 amendments, fuel 
volatility restrictions, and reformulated and oxygenated fuel 
requirements.
    Section 112(n)(4)(A) stipulates that

``emissions from any pipeline compressor or pump station shall not be 
aggregated with emissions from other similar units, whether or not such 
units are in a contiguous area or under common control to determine 
whether such units or stations are major sources''.

Consequently, these facilities were evaluated separately for major 
source determination.
    The Agency has promulgated a program that requires the use of lower 
volatility blends of gasoline during the summer months, which will 
reduce HAP and VOC emissions from the gasoline distribution network.
    Reformulated and oxygenated fuel requirements in Title II of the 
Act will affect gasoline composition and the resulting HAP emissions. 
Reformulated fuel requirements specify a reduced benzene content, a 
minimum oxygen content, and a likely reduction in aromatic components 
of the blend. Reformulated gasoline is required throughout the year in 
the nine worst ozone nonattainment areas in the United States to reduce 
ozone forming VOC emissions during the summer months and air toxic 
emissions (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, POM) 
year-round from gasoline vehicles by 15 percent beginning in 1995 and 
25 percent in 2000. Other areas may choose to implement the prohibition 
provision [Section 211(k)(5) of the 1990 amendments] and thus enter the 
program as well. Oxygenated fuels program requires the use of 
oxygenates in gasoline during the winter months in all carbon monoxide 
(CO) nonattainment areas to reduce CO emissions. While significantly 
decreasing VOC, CO, and air toxics emissions, both the reformulated and 
oxygenated fuels programs could lead to an increase in HAP emissions 
due to the fact that MTBE is listed as a HAP in the Act section 112(b) 
of the Act and is expected to be used in a large portion of the market 
to meet the oxygenate requirements of these programs.
    This increase will come about because to meet minimum oxygen 
requirements under the reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuels 
programs, approximately 11 percent and 15 percent by volume of MTBE is 
needed in liquid gasoline, respectively. Since MTBE is much more 
volatile than the aromatic compounds that it will replace in the blend, 
a much higher concentration of HAP's in the vapor phase of this fuel 
will result. Therefore, it is expected that the inclusion of MTBE may 
increase the HAP/VOC ratio in gasoline vapor from approximately 5 
weight percent for normal gasoline to nearly 15 percent for oxygenated 
gasoline. The actual increase in HAPs at facilities distributing 
reformulated gasolines and oxygenated fuels will depend on the fraction 
of their fuel containing MTBE as opposed to other oxygenates such as 
ethanol or ETBE. Furthermore, while the weight percent of HAP's may 
increase due to the presence of MTBE, this will be offset to some 
extent under the reformulated gasoline program by reducing the toxic 
air pollutants required by the ACT and the deep volatility controls 
expected to result from the reformulated gasoline program during the 
summer months.
    The above mentioned programs, guidelines, and standards (fuels 
programs, CTGs, NSPS) were considered, and their impacts on the 
gasoline distribution network estimated, before the development of 
control alternatives for this proposed rulemaking began. As a 
consequence, all emission reductions, costs, and other impacts 
discussed in the forthcoming sections are incremental to existing 
control programs.

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources Covered

    Sources in the gasoline distribution category are a combination of 
major sources and area sources. Some pipeline breakout stations and 
bulk gasoline terminals have been determined to be major sources, since 
larger breakout stations and terminals may emit either 10 tpy or 
greater of individual HAP's (i.e. hexane, MTBE) or 25 tpy or greater of 
a combination of HAP's. For purposes of this rulemaking, the Agency is 
proposing that major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk 
gasoline terminals in the gasoline distribution source category be 
regulated under maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. 
The following is a summary of the methods used to determine 
applicability of the proposed rule.

1. Applicability Determination

    The proposed standard applies to all major source pipeline breakout 
stations and bulk gasoline terminals. Today's proposed standards 
provide two ways to determine if a facility is not a major source and 
not subject to the rule. They are: (1) The owner or operator provides 
documentation to the Administrator that the facility is not a major 
source as defined in section 112(a) by means of completion of an 
emissions audit at the facility, or (2) from the result of the 
following equations for estimating facility emissions.
    The Agency has determined the following equations properly estimate 
if the facility is a major source. A bulk gasoline terminal is not 
considered a major source if the result of the calculation in equation 
(1), ET, is less than 1.

(1) ET = 0.63(TF) + 0.19(TE) + 0.092(TES) + 
0.03(TI) + 0.0012(V) + 0.024(P) + KQ

where:

    ET = major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline 
terminals, ET  1 means bulk gasoline terminal is a 
major source,
    TF = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,
    TE = total number of external floating roof gasoline storage 
tanks with only primary seals,
    TES = total number of external floating roof storage tanks 
with primary and secondary seals,
    TI = total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an 
internal floating roof,
    V = number of valves in gasoline service,
    P = number of pumps in gasoline service,
    Q = gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),
    K = 3.18  x  10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with 
uncontrolled loading racks (no vapor collection and processing 
systems), OR
    K = (4.5  x  10-9)(EF + 70) for bulk gasoline terminals with 
controlled loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and 
processing systems installed on the emission stream), and
    EF = the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor 
processor (mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

    A pipeline breakout station is not considered a major source if the 
result of the calculation in equation (2), Ep, is less than 1.

    (2) EP = 2.4(TF) + 0.09(TE) + 0.043(TES) + 
0.027(TI) + 0.0009(V) + 0.009(P)
where:
    EP = major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout 
stations, EP  1 means pipeline breakout station is a 
major source, and
TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are the same as defined 
for bulk terminal equation (1).

    The above equations are not allowed to be used if the bulk gasoline 
terminals or pipeline facilities are located within the contiguous area 
of and under common control with a major source petroleum refinery. For 
those facilities, they would demonstrate they are not a major source by 
providing an emission audit of all emission sources in the facility, 
including, but not limited to the refinery process units, wastewater 
systems, etc.

2. Emission Points Covered

    Emission points affected at bulk gasoline terminals are storage 
tanks that contain or have the potential to contain gasoline, equipment 
leaks from the piping system that handles gasoline or gasoline vapors, 
loading racks that load gasoline into tank trucks or railcars, and 
gasoline vapor leakage from sealed tank trucks or railcars during 
loading. Emission points affected at pipeline breakout stations are 
individual storage tanks that contain or have the potential to contain 
gasoline, and equipment leaks from the entire breakout station piping 
system that handles gasoline.
    There are two types of storage tanks found at bulk gasoline 
terminals and pipeline breakout stations, fixed-roof and floating roof 
tanks. The greatest portion of emissions occurring from fixed-roof 
tanks are those emitted through the breather (pressure-vacuum) valve as 
a result of tank breathing and filling. Floating roof tanks may have 
either external or internal floating roofs. The sources of greatest 
emissions associated with an external floating roof tank occur as a 
result of an improper fit between the seals and the tank shell, leaks 
associated with roof fittings, and withdrawal losses from evaporation 
when a wet portion of the tank wall is exposed. Losses from internal 
floating roof tanks occur mainly through vents in the metal shell of 
the tank.
    Pumps and valves are used at pipeline breakout stations to move and 
route gasoline along the pipeline or to transfer gasoline to or from 
breakout station storage tanks. Pumps and valves at bulk gasoline 
terminals are used to transfer gasoline from storage tanks to tank 
trucks or railcars. In addition, other equipment at these facilities, 
such as compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection 
systems, flanges, or other connectors is in gasoline service.
    Loading rack emissions from tank truck or railcar loading 
operations at bulk gasoline terminals occur when gasoline being loaded 
displaces vapors from the cargo tank of the truck or railcar to the 
atmosphere.
    There is a potential for emissions due to vapor leakage even from 
controlled tank trucks or railcars during loading if their cargo tanks 
are not vapor-tight. Vapors may leak to the atmosphere from dome cover 
assemblies, pressure-vacuum (P-V) vents, and vapor collection piping 
and vents.

B. Standards for Sources

    The Agency is proposing an equipment standard for storage tanks at 
new and existing major source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline 
breakout stations. These proposed standards specify new and existing 
storage tanks comply with the equipment standards of the NSPS 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb, they would require: (1) External floating roof 
tanks to have specified types of primary and secondary seals, and (2) 
fixed-roof tanks to have internal floating roofs with specific types of 
primary seals or secondary seals.
    Additionally, the Agency is proposing an emission limit of 10 
milligrams (mg) of total organic compounds (TOC) per liter of gasoline 
loaded (10 mg TOC/l) for the process stream outlet of control devices 
and continuous compliance monitoring of certain operating parameters of 
control devices installed at the loading racks of new and existing 
major source bulk gasoline terminals. Operating the control device in a 
manner that exceeds or fails to maintain, as appropriate, the monitored 
operating parameter value established during the emission performance 
test would be an exceedence of the emission limit. New major source 
bulk gasoline terminals would also be required to install vacuum 
assisted vapor collection equipment on their loading racks where 
gasoline tank trucks or railcars are loaded. This system would prevent 
vapor leakage from tank trucks that can occur due to the pressures 
normally developed in fuel compartments during loading.
    The Agency is also proposing equipment and performance standards 
for all tank trucks and railcars loading at existing and new major 
source bulk gasoline terminals. Trucks and railcars loading at these 
facilities would be required to pass an annual vapor tightness test 
according to EPA Method 27. This requirement controls fugitive vapor 
losses at existing facilities and supplements the vacuum assist system 
at new facilities in providing the best control for vapor leakage 
during loading.
    Pumps, valves and other equipment at new major source bulk gasoline 
terminals and pipeline breakout stations would all be subject to the 
same work practice and equipment standards specified by the leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) program in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. LDAR 
requirements at bulk gasoline terminals include components of the vapor 
collection and processing systems. Existing major source bulk gasoline 
terminals and pipeline breakout stations would be required to perform 
LDAR for pumps and valves four times per year (quarterly LDAR). New 
major source facilities would be required to implement a monthly LDAR 
program for pumps and valves, and follow the other equipment standards 
for other equipment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. Provisions of 
these LDAR programs allow new and existing facilities with demonstrated 
low leak frequencies for valves to decrease the frequency of 
monitoring.
    When promulgated, these standards will be codified under part 63 of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Proposed General 
Provisions of part 63 (58 FR 42760, August 11, 1993) to be located in 
subpart A, will, when promulgated, codify procedures and criteria to 
implement emission standards for stationary sources that emit one or 
more HAP's, and will provide general information and requirements that 
apply under the section 112 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA amendments 
of 1990.

C. Effective Date for Compliance

    Section 112(i)(3)(A) of the Act requires compliance by existing 
sources within 3 years after rule promulgation, notwithstanding the 
provisions of sections 112(i)(1) and (2). Today's proposed regulation 
requires compliance by all affected sources within 3 years after 
promulgation of the rule. Finally, major source facilities in the bulk 
gasoline terminal and pipeline breakout station subcategories must 
implement LDAR programs within 180 days after promulgation of this 
rule. New major source facilities must comply with all provisions of 
the standards upon startup.

D. Compliance Extensions

    Section 112(i)(3)(B) allows the Administrator (or a State with a 
program approved under Title V) to grant existing sources an extension 
of compliance of up to 1 year, upon application by an owner or operator 
of an affected facility, if such time period is necessary for the 
installation of controls.
    Additionally, under the early reduction provisions of section 
112(i)(5), existing sources may be granted a 6-year extension of 
compliance with an otherwise applicable section 112(d) standard (MACT 
standard) upon demonstration by the owner or operator of the source 
that HAP emissions have been reduced by 90 percent or more prior to the 
date of this proposal, or the source makes an enforceable commitment to 
achieve such reduction prior to January 1, 1994. The general notice 
governing early reduction compliance extensions was published in the 
Federal Register on June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27338).

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

    The tests required under the proposed standards include initial 
performance testing of the bulk terminal vapor processing system, vapor 
leak monitoring and repair of the vapor collection system before each 
performance test, and annual vapor tightness testing of gasoline tank 
trucks and railcars. Storage tanks at terminals and pipeline stations 
would require periodic visual and seal gap measurement tests. 
Continuous monitoring of an operating parameter would be required for 
vapor processing systems to ensure continuous compliance with today's 
proposed 10 mg TOC/l emission limit. At new bulk gasoline terminals, 
the vacuum achieved in the tank truck or railcar during loading would 
have to be monitored continuously to verify continuous compliance with 
maintaining the vacuum during truck and railcar loading operations.
    The schedule for performance testing is provided in Sec. 63.7 of 
the proposed General Provisions. The initial performance test is 
required 120 days after the effective date of the standards or after 
initial startup for a new facility, or 120 days after the compliance 
date specified for an existing facility.
    Methods 2A, 2B, 25A, and 25B in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 are 
specified for measurement of total organic compound emissions from the 
vapor collection and processing system. Due to the inherent inability 
to measure mass emissions from elevated flares (elevated flare's flame 
is open to atmosphere and therefore the emissions cannot be routed 
through stacks), these test methods are not applicable. Therefore, the 
Agency has established performance requirements for flares. These 
performance requirements, including a limitation on visible emissions, 
are provided in Sec. 63.11 of the proposed General Provisions, which 
specifies Method 22 for determining visible emissions from this hard to 
test type of flare.
    Before each performance test, the owner or operator would be 
required to use Method 21 to monitor potential leak sources in the 
terminal's vapor collection system during the loading of a gasoline 
tank truck or railcar. Leaks from the vapor collection and processing 
system would have to be repaired before conducting the rest of the 
performance test.
    Each gasoline tank truck and railcar loading at an affected bulk 
terminal would have to pass an annual vapor tightness test using Method 
27. This will ensure that fugitive vapor leakage from loading cargo 
tanks is minimized.
    Today's proposed emission standard includes continuous monitoring 
of an operating parameter as a requirement for vapor processing systems 
to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed 10 mg TOC/l emission 
limit. The vapor processing system's operating parameter ``value'' 
would be established during the initial performance test of the vapor 
processor. Exceeding or failures to maintain, as appropriate, that 
operating parameter value would be a violation of the emission limit 
requiring maintenance and repair and documentation in a quarterly 
report to the Administrator. The parameters that may be monitored 
include organic compounds concentration for carbon adsorption and 
refrigeration condenser systems, and combustion or condenser 
temperature for thermal oxidation and refrigeration condenser systems. 
An owner or operator may substitute an alternative parameter or vapor 
processor type upon the approval of the Administrator.
    At new bulk gasoline terminals installing a vacuum assisted vapor 
collection system, the proposed standards require continuous monitoring 
of the pressure in the collection system, to ensure that a vacuum 
exists at all times during loading. No specific vacuum limits are being 
proposed. As with parameter monitoring of the vapor processing system, 
this vacuum monitoring will ensure that fugitive vapor leakage is 
effectively reduced through the continuous compliance for the proposed 
vacuum requirements for the vacuum assist system.
    The pumps, valves, and other specified equipment in the gasoline 
liquid and vapor transfer lines at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline 
breakout stations may be sources of fugitive HAP emissions. The 
proposed standards include a requirement for an LDAR program in which 
pumps and valves are manually monitored using a portable VOC detector 
on a periodic basis, and then repaired if a leak is found. Under the 
proposed standards, monitoring would initially be carried out monthly 
at new facilities and quarterly at existing facilities. Provisions are 
included to reduce monitoring frequencies for valves on the basis of 
demonstrated low leak rates. When a leak is detected (meter reading of 
10,000 ppm on a portable organic monitor), the owner or operator would 
have 5 calendar days in which to make an initial repair attempt, and 15 
calendar days in which to complete the repair. Other equipment in 
gasoline liquid or vapor service at new facilities are required to have 
specified equipment.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    The proposed standards require four types of reports: initial 
notification, notification of compliance status, periodic reports, and 
other reports. The initial notification report apprises the regulatory 
authority of applicability for existing sources or of construction for 
new sources. This report also includes a statement as to whether the 
facility can achieve compliance by the required compliance date. The 
notification of compliance status demonstrates that compliance has been 
achieved. This report contains the results of the initial performance 
test, which includes calculation of the monitored operating parameter 
value for the vapor processor, and a list of equipment subject to the 
standard. Periodic reports submitted quarterly would specify 
exceedences of the emission standards, such as when the monitored 
operating parameter of a vapor processor is outside the value 
established during the performance test. Other periodic reports, which 
are submitted semiannually, include LDAR program and annual storage 
vessel inspection results. Certain additional reporting is occasionally 
necessary because a short-term response may be needed from the 
reviewing authority. For example, the Administrator may request more 
frequent reports of monitored operating parameter or LDAR data if it is 
deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the standard.
    Records required under the proposed standards must be kept at the 
facility for 5 years. These include records of tank truck and railcar 
vapor tightness test certifications, as well as monitoring data from 
the vapor processor and from the vacuum assist system at new bulk 
gasoline terminals. Records from the LDAR program and storage vessel 
inspections, and records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of 
the vapor processor are required to ensure that the controls in place 
are continuing to be effective.

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

A. Number and Type of Affected Sources or Facilities

    In 1998, the base year of the analysis, it is estimated that there 
will be approximately 403,600 facilities in the entire gasoline 
distribution network. However, only two subcategories within the 
network (pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals), 
comprising a total of 1,300 facilities, are being addressed by this 
rulemaking. Of this total, it is estimated that about 20 pipeline 
breakout stations and about 280 bulk gasoline terminals qualify as 
major sources and therefore would be subject to today's proposed 
standards.
    For the purpose of the analysis conducted in connection with these 
standards, all facilities built or reconstructed between today's 
proposal and the 1998 base year are considered ``new'' facilities in 
the base year analysis (see proposed General Provisions, subpart A of 
40 CFR part 63). All other facilities prior to proposal were considered 
to be ``existing'' sources in this analysis. The estimated impacts of 
the levels of control specified by the proposed regulation within each 
subcategory are discussed below.
1. Existing Facilities
    The base year population of existing pipeline breakout stations is 
estimated to be about 245 facilities (18 major source sites, 227 area 
source sites). Sources of emissions at these facilities arise from 
gasoline storage and various equipment components in the process line 
piping. Under the proposed regulation, each existing major source 
pipeline breakout station would be required to implement a quarterly 
LDAR program for leaks from pumps and valves.
    Additionally, the 18 major source facilities would be required to 
retrofit external floating roof tanks with primary and secondary seals 
and install internal floating roofs with primary seals on fixed-roof 
tanks. It is estimated that 35 external floating roof storage tanks and 
11 fixed-roof storage tanks at these major source sites would need to 
be upgraded to meet these equipment standards.
    It is estimated that in 1998, there will be 737 bulk gasoline 
terminals that qualify as ``existing'' sources. It is further estimated 
that nearly 200, or 27 percent, will qualify as major sources. Under 
the proposed standards, existing major sources would be required to 
meet a 10 mg TOC/liter of gasoline loaded limit on their loading rack 
emissions. It is estimated that 33 percent of the loading racks at 
existing bulk gasoline terminals will already be meeting this level of 
control. Therefore, 134 of these facilities (the remaining 67 percent) 
would need to newly install, replace, or otherwise upgrade their 
control devices to meet this proposed standard.
    It is estimated that there are approximately 1,600 storage tanks at 
existing major source bulk gasoline terminals. Furthermore, it is 
estimated that 400 external floating roof tanks and 500 fixed-roof 
tanks already have controls that satisfy the proposed standards (i.e., 
primary and secondary seals on external floating roof tanks and 
internal floating roofs with primary seals installed in all fixed-roof 
tanks). Consequently, it is estimated that approximately 470 external 
floating roof tanks and 210 fixed-roof tanks would need to improve 
their control level to meet the proposed standards.
    There are an estimated 31,600 tank trucks and approximately 400 
railcars that load at existing bulk gasoline terminals. It is estimated 
that 22,400 tank trucks are already subject to annual vapor tightness 
testing and nearly all of the remaining 9,200 are not tested. The 
proposed regulation would require all tank trucks and railcars loading 
at major source facilities to be vapor tightness tested annually using 
Method 27.
    Essentially no terminals have been determined to routinely use an 
instrument to detect leaks from equipment (pumps and valves). Under the 
proposed standards, all existing major source bulk gasoline terminals 
would be required to implement the quarterly LDAR program for pumps and 
valves discussed previously for pipeline breakout stations.
    Additionally, the proposed standards requires monitoring of 
equipment, maintaining records, and providing reports to verify 
compliance with the control requirements discussed above.
2. New Facilities
    It is estimated that there will be 10 storage tanks classified as 
new at the 2 new major source pipeline breakout stations through base 
year 1998. Although these tanks would be subject to these standards, 
they are also subject to the existing NSPS standard as defined in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
    It is estimated that there will be nearly 80 major source bulk 
gasoline terminals subject to the new facility requirements of the 
proposed regulation (28 percent of the base year major source bulk 
gasoline terminals). The proposed standards would limit loading rack 
HAP emissions from these sources to 10 mg TOC/liter instead of 35 mg 
TOC/liter as under the NSPS standards.
    As with pipeline breakout stations, the projected 600 storage tanks 
at new major source bulk gasoline terminals would be subject to this 
regulation (as well as the NSPS for storage tanks) with the same levels 
of control outlined previously.
    All new major source bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout 
stations would also be required to implement a monthly LDAR program to 
control equipment leaks from pumps and valves, as well as implement 
other 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV standards for other equipment. Lastly, 
new major source bulk gasoline terminals would be required to install, 
operate, and maintain a vacuum assist vapor collection system on their 
loading racks that fill gasoline tank trucks or railcars.
    Additionally, the proposed standards require monitoring of 
equipment, maintaining records, and providing reports to verify 
compliance with the control requirements discussed above.

B. Air Emission Reductions

1. Existing Sources
    For the existing gasoline distribution network (approximately 
390,000 facilities in base year 1998), the nationwide baseline HAP 
emissions are estimated to be 46,000 Mg/yr. Of this total, 8 percent or 
4,200 Mg/yr can be attributed to major source pipeline breakout 
stations and bulk gasoline terminals. Implementation of the proposed 
regulation would reduce these emissions to approximately 43,400 Mg/yr.
2. New Sources
    For new sources through 1998, total nationwide HAP emissions from 
gasoline distribution facilities, approximately 13,000 total 
facilities, are estimated to be about 6,700 Mg/yr at baseline. The HAP 
emissions from pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals 
account for 46 percent of this total (major sources contribute 12 
percent of the total). The proposed regulation would reduce these 
emissions to a total of approximately 6,200 Mg/yr.

C. Secondary Environmental Impacts

    Since implementation of the proposed regulation would encompass no 
additional water discharges, there would be no negative impact on water 
quality. There is a potential for a positive benefit to water quality, 
however, due to decreased amounts of gasoline entering drains, sewers, 
and waste sumps because of improved leakage control.
    There is projected to be no significant solid waste or noise impact 
as a result of implementation of the proposed regulation. Neither 
flares, thermal oxidizers, nor refrigeration condenser systems generate 
any solid waste as a by-product of their operation. The only solid 
waste that may be generated is spent activated carbon if carbon 
adsorption is chosen by an owner or operator of a bulk gasoline 
terminal for loading rack emission control. It is estimated that, in 
this case, the total environmental impact would average about 680 
kilograms of carbon per year for each bulk terminal choosing this 
option. Therefore, the solid waste impact can be considered to be 
small. This impact would be minimized if the carbon were reactivated 
and reused. The Agency has also tested the noise level from vapor 
processors, and found these levels to be moderate (less than 70 db at 7 
meters).

D. Energy Impacts

    The use of vapor recovery systems on loading racks at bulk gasoline 
terminals, and pollution prevention measures such as equipment 
standards for storage tanks and implementation of LDAR programs for 
equipment components will all keep gasoline in the system that would 
have escaped as emissions to the atmosphere. Nationwide annual gasoline 
savings are estimated to total 2.34 million gallons at pipeline 
breakout stations and 12 million gallons at bulk gasoline terminals.

E. Cost Impacts

    Total capital and annualized control costs (third quarter 1990 
dollars), including recovery credits, have been estimated for both 
existing and new sources. The control costs of the proposed regulation 
at existing facilities is estimated to require a total capital 
investment of $93 million, with an annualized cost of $8.4 million per 
year. The implementation costs of the proposed regulation will be lower 
for new facilities than for existing facilities primarily due to the 
smaller estimated number of new facilities (26 percent of the total 
number, encompassing both subcategories) and because new storage tanks 
are regulated by an existing NSPS standard and require no additional 
retrofit under the proposed standards. As a consequence, the control 
costs of the proposed regulation at new facilities is estimated to 
result in a total capital investment of $32 million, with annualized 
costs of approximately $7.4 million per year. Additional implementation 
costs for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the 
proposed rule are estimated to be 4 million.

F. Economic Impacts

    The proposed standards were analyzed with regard to their impact on 
gasoline price and consumption, facility closures, and declines in 
employment. While the proposed standards require additional control 
only at bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations, 
facilities downstream from terminals and breakout stations might be 
affected by the regulation due to higher gasoline wholesale prices and 
reduced consumption. The national average base year increase in the 
price of retail motor gasoline as a result of the proposed standards is 
estimated at $0.001 per gallon. The national base year decline in 
gasoline consumption is estimated at less than 100 million gallons 
(0.08 percent). The base year facility closure estimate is nearly 650, 
more than 90 percent of which is projected for the service station 
sector. While the number of service station closures is estimated to be 
in the hundreds, it should be noted that a total of over 380,000 
stations is projected in the base year, so that the number of 
facilities that might close constitutes less than 0.2 percent. 
Furthermore, due to a consumption-spurred projection of modest industry 
growth from 1993 to 1998, some closures due to the regulation may be 
more accurately interpreted as reductions in new facility openings 
rather than closures of existing facilities. Employment reductions due 
to reduced consumption and facility closures are estimated at just over 
1,100 jobs, 70 percent of which are projected for the service station 
sector. However, this constitutes only around 0.05 percent of the base 
year service station sector employment. For the same reason given for 
facility closures, some employment reductions may be more accurately 
interpreted as reductions in industry job opportunities rather than 
losses of existing jobs.

V. Decision Process for Setting the NESHAP

A. Authority for Development of the NESHAP

    Title III of the 1990 amendments was enacted to help reduce the 
increasing amount of nationwide air toxics emissions. Under Title III, 
section 112 was amended to give the Agency the authority to establish 
national standards to reduce air toxic emissions from sources that emit 
one or more HAP's. Section 112(b) contains a list of HAP's, which are 
the specific air toxics to be regulated by the standards developed 
under section 112. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use this 
pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for 
which the NESHAP will be developed. The Agency must list all known 
categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' defined earlier as 
those sources that emit 10 tons/yr or greater of individual HAP's or 25 
tons/yr or greater of any combination of HAP's. Area source categories 
selected by the Agency for the NESHAP development will be based on the 
Administrator's judgment that the sources in a category, individually 
or in aggregate, pose a ``threat of adverse effects to health and the 
environment.'' The initial list of source categories was published on 
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

B. Criteria for Development of the NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act. The Act 
requires the standards to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP's achievable for new or existing sources. Each NESHAP 
must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and 
energy requirements. The emission reduction may be accomplished through 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques 
including, but not limited to, measures that:
    1. Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, HAP's through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
    2. Enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
    3. Collect, capture, or treat these pollutants when released from a 
process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
    4. Are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as 
provided in Section 112(h); or
    5. Are a combination of the above [Section 112(d)(2)].

C. Regulatory Development Process for the NESHAP

    During development of a NESHAP, the Agency collects information 
about the industry, including information on emission source 
characteristics, control technologies, data from HAP emission tests at 
well-controlled facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and 
other environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The Agency 
uses this information in the development of possible regulatory 
approaches.
    If the source category contains major sources, then a MACT standard 
is required. The level of control corresponding to the MACT ``floor'' 
needs to be determined as a boundary for developing the regulatory 
alternatives. (Procedures for determining MACT floors are discussed in 
part D of this section.)
    Once the floor has been determined for new and existing sources for 
a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards 
that are no less stringent than the floor level. Such standards must 
then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. However, 
in establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory 
[Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(1)]. Thus, for example, the Administrator 
could establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory 
based on size and establish a different emission standard for each 
class.
    In addition, the Act provides the Administrator further flexibility 
in regulating area sources. Section 112(d)(5) provides that, in lieu of 
establishing MACT standards under Section 112(d), the Administrator may 
promulgate standards that provide for the use of ``generally available 
control technologies or management practices'' (GACT standards). Area 
source standards promulgated under this authority are not subject to 
the MACT ``floors'' described in part D of this section.
    The next step in establishing a MACT or GACT standard is the 
development and analysis of regulatory alternatives. First, information 
about the industry is analyzed to develop model plant parameters and 
populations for the purpose of projecting national impacts, including 
HAP emission reduction levels, costs, and energy and secondary 
environmental impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels (which may 
be different levels of emission control, different applicability 
cutoffs, or both) are then evaluated to determine the most appropriate 
regulatory alternative to reflect the MACT or GACT level.
    In addition, although the NESHAP are normally structured in terms 
of numerical emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes 
necessary (e.g., source testing may be impossible or at least 
impractical due to technological and economic limitations). In these 
cases, work practice or equipment standards may be considered.
    In the Agency's decision-making process, the regulatory 
alternatives considered for new versus existing sources may be 
different and each alternative must be technically achievable. In 
selecting a regulatory alternative to represent MACT or GACT, the 
Agency considers the achievable reduction in HAP emissions; the cost of 
control; and economic, energy, and other environmental impacts.
    The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a 
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT or GACT 
decision typically includes Sections addressing applicability, 
standards, test methods and compliance demonstration, monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation, 
published in the Federal Register, provides an explanation of the 
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the 
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Following an 
evaluation of these comments, the Agency reaches a decision and 
promulgates the final standards.

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

    Once the Agency has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources and area sources that it intends to 
regulate under section 112, MACT standards are set at a level at least 
as stringent as the ``floor'', unless the decision has been made to 
regulate area sources under section 112(d)(5). Congress has provided 
certain very specific directives to guide the Agency in the process of 
determining the regulatory floor.
    Congress specified that the Agency must establish standards which 
require ``the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous 
air pollutants * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is 
achievable * * *''

[Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(2)]. In addition, Congress limited the 
Agency's discretion by defining the minimum baseline (floor) at which 
standards may be set, as follows:
    (1) For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory
``shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator.''
    (2) For existing sources, the standards ``may be less stringent 
than standards for new sources * * * but shall not be less stringent, 
and may be more stringent than: (A) The average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) * * * or (B) the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources * 
* * for categories or subcategories * * * with fewer than 30 sources''

[Section 112(d)(3)].

VI. Selection Rationale

A. Selection of Source Category(s) Controlled

    The gasoline distribution facility category is made up of several 
facility types, which taken together form the gasoline distribution 
network. The pollutants emitted at each of the facilities in the 
gasoline distribution network are essentially the same. These emissions 
consist of a mixture of organic compounds (essentially all of which 
qualify as VOC under the Agency's definition). Section 112(b) of the 
Act contains a list of HAP's for which the Agency has been directed to 
set national emission standards. A comparison of profiles of normal 
gasoline vapors to the HAP list reveals several compounds common to 
both. Benzene, toluene, hexane, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, cumene, all 
three chemical orientations of xylene (para, meta, and ortho), n-
hexane, and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (iso-octane) appear on both lists.
    Section 211 of the Act contains provisions that will affect 
gasoline composition in the 1998 base year and, therefore, the HAP 
emissions from gasoline distribution sources. This section of the Act 
requires that fuels purchased and sold in nonattainment areas contain 
higher levels of oxygenates (reformulated and oxygenated fuel 
programs). While the focus of these fuels programs is the reduction of 
both tailpipe (combustion) and evaporative emissions of CO and air 
toxics (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and POM) 
emissions from gasoline vehicles, the intent of today's proposed rule 
is to reduce major stationary source evaporative HAP emissions from 
gasoline distribution facilities. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) is 
projected to be a major source of oxygen that will be added to gasoline 
to meet the oxygenate content requirements for the reformulated 
gasoline and oxygenated fuels programs. MTBE is also listed in Section 
112(b) as a HAP.
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the Agency published an initial 
list of source categories that emit HAP's, in response to Section 
112(c) of the Act. In this listing, the gasoline distribution network 
was included as a major source but was not listed as a category whose 
area source facilities were to be considered for regulation.
    The Agency's subsequent analysis (summarized in the background 
information document (BID)) of HAP emissions from all subcategories of 
the gasoline distribution network concluded that only two of these 
subcategories, pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals, 
contained major sources and should therefore be considered for 
regulation under Section 112(d). All the other subcategories of the 
network (pipeline pumping stations, bulk plants, and service stations) 
encompass only area sources and as a consequence were not included in 
the proposed standards. These sources will be studied and may be 
considered for regulation at a future date pursuant to the urban area 
source provisions of Section 112(c)(3) of the Act. Public comments and 
data are specifically requested on today's proposal to exclude area 
sources in this rulemaking and on the analysis contained in the BID to 
estimate emissions for determining area and major source facilities. 
Also, the Agency is specifically requesting any data that would 
document that any service station, bulk plant, or pipeline pumping 
station could be considered a major source of HAP's.

B. Selection of Emission Points Covered

    The proposed standards would regulate all HAP emission points at 
major source pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals.
    As noted in Section III.A.2, there are two HAP emission source 
types at pipeline breakout stations. These sources are: (1) Equipment 
leaks from pumps, valves, and other components, and (2) losses from 
storage tanks. Both of these sources can be significant sources of 
emissions. Of the total of nearly 7,200 Mg/yr baseline HAP emissions 
from gasoline at pipeline breakout stations, it is estimated that 12 
percent can be attributed to equipment leaks and 88 percent is emitted 
from storage tanks. Emissions from pumps arise from liquid gasoline 
leaking from packed or mechanical seals in the pumps used to move the 
product through the pipeline. Leaks also occur from seals around stems 
of valves and other equipment components that control or isolate 
gasoline from the environment such as connections, drain lines, and 
pressure relief devices.
    Storage tanks at breakout stations may be of either fixed-roof, 
external floating roof, or fixed-roof with an internal floating roof 
construction. Emissions from fixed-roof tanks consist of breathing and 
working losses. Breathing loss is a vapor loss due to expansion or 
contraction of the vapor space in the tank above the liquid because of 
daily changes in temperature or barometric pressure. These emissions 
may occur in the absence of any liquid level change in the tank. 
Working losses consist of emptying and filling losses. Emptying losses 
occur during the expansion of air that is drawn into the tank during 
liquid removal. This air becomes saturated with hydrocarbon vapor and, 
when it expands due to changes in temperature or barometric pressure, 
exceeds the fixed capacity of the vapor space. Overflow then occurs 
through the pressure-vacuum valve. Filling losses occur when incoming 
gasoline displaces air and vapors through vents to the atmosphere.
    Standing-storage losses, which result from causes other than a 
change in the liquid level, constitute the major source of emissions 
from external floating roof tanks. The largest potential source of 
these losses is an improper fit between the floating roof seal and the 
tank shell (seal loss). Withdrawal loss is another source of emissions 
from floating roof tanks. When liquid is withdrawn from a tank, the 
floating roof is lowered and a wet portion of the tank wall is exposed. 
Withdrawal loss equals the amount of liquid vaporized from the wet tank 
wall.
    Standing-storage losses from internal floating roof tanks arise 
through a somewhat different mechanism due to the enclosed design of 
the tanks. As ambient air flows over the exterior of the tank, it flows 
into the enclosed space between the fixed and floating roofs through 
some of the shell vents and flows out of the enclosed space through 
others. Any vapors that have evaporated from the exposed liquid surface 
and that have not been contained by the floating deck are swept out of 
the enclosed space. The withdrawal loss from an internal floating roof 
tank is similar to that discussed for tanks with external floating 
roofs.
    There are four contributors to HAP emissions at bulk gasoline 
terminals, all of which contribute significantly to the overall totals: 
(1) From loading racks when gasoline is loaded into tank trucks or 
railcars (about 18 percent of the nationwide baseline total of 16,500 
Mg/yr HAP emissions from bulk gasoline terminals), (2) fugitive leakage 
of vapors from tank trucks or railcars during loading of gasoline (23 
percent of baseline total), (3) evaporation of gasoline from storage 
tanks (33 percent of the baseline total), and (4) equipment leaks from 
pumps, valves, and other components (26 percent of baseline values).
    Emissions occur at loading racks when gasoline that is loaded into 
cargo tanks of trucks or railcars displaces vapors inside these 
containers. These emissions may occur either uncontrolled (when 
facilities are not using vapor collection and processing equipment) 
from tank truck or railcar cargo compartments, or from the outlet vents 
of control systems used to process these displaced vapors.
    Even at controlled loading racks (ones equipped with vapor 
collection and processing systems), fugitive emissions from leaking 
truck transport tanks or railcars may occur through the dome covers, 
pressure-vacuum relief valves or vents, and several other potential 
sources. The dome or hatch cover designed to seal each cargo 
compartment during transport and during loading and unloading 
operations can develop leaks over time. Valves, which include the 
pressure-vacuum (P-V) vent under the dome plate assembly and the vent 
valve connected to the overturn rail on tank trucks, can leak if they 
become dirty or worn. Improperly installed or damaged hose couplings 
can also be sources of vapor emissions. The transport tank shell, if 
damaged, also can produce vapor emissions from cracks or failures in 
welds. This latter type of leak occurs less frequently than those at 
the dome cover and vents, but may be a large emission source for some 
transport tanks.
    Storage tank and equipment component (pumps and valves) leak 
emissions at bulk gasoline terminals are identical in the manner of 
their occurrence to those described earlier for pipeline breakout 
stations. However, HAP emission reductions are not the same due to 
differences in turnover rates and storage tank sizes as well as 
differences in the numbers of estimated equipment components in the 
process line piping between the two facility types.

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

    At the present time, a majority of sources within the gasoline 
distribution network are being controlled under State regulations and 
Federal new source performance standards (approximately one-third of 
the storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations; one-half of the 
storage tanks, nearly 70 percent of loading racks, and most of the tank 
trucks and railcars that load at bulk gasoline terminals). However, 
since the States are required to adopt regulations consistent with CTG 
recommendations only in areas not attaining the national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, many States have regulations that 
cover only those areas. Today's proposed standards will require more 
stringent emission control levels for major source facilities located 
in areas designated as ozone nonattainment, and will extend the same 
controls to major source facilities located in attainment areas.
1. Determination of Applicability
    To determine which pipeline breakout stations or bulk gasoline 
terminals are to be regulated (i.e., which ones are classified as major 
sources), owners and operators of these facilities either may provide 
documentation to the Administrator that the facility is not a major 
source as defined in section 112(a) by means of completion of an 
emissions audit or may employ one of the equations discussed later in 
this section that have been developed for estimating facility 
emissions. However, regardless of the applicability criteria equation 
that is chosen, bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations 
that are located within the contiguous area and under common control 
with a petroleum refinery are considered major sources if that 
petroleum refinery is a major source. This is because refinery process 
equipment in combination with bulk terminal and pipeline breakout 
station equipment is likely to emit more than the threshold levels for 
major source determination.
    Initially, the Agency considered a throughput cutoff determination 
for distinguishing major source from area source facilities in each 
subcategory. However, for pipeline breakout stations, HAP emissions are 
a function of the number of individual emission sources (storage tanks, 
pumps, and valves), while emissions from bulk gasoline terminals occur 
from these sources as well as from sources which depend upon gasoline 
throughput (loading racks and tank truck or railcar leakage).
    Since major source determinations are not based solely on 
throughput at each facility type, another approach was investigated for 
distinguishing between major and area sources. Equations were developed 
to estimate total HAP emissions from both bulk gasoline terminals and 
pipeline breakout stations. The equation approach allows a potential 
subject facility to input the type of equipment present at the facility 
and calculate emissions accordingly. These equations were developed to 
include all potential equipment; however, if a particular portion of 
the equation does not apply (e.g., no fixed-roof tanks), then that 
portion of the equation will equal zero and fall out of the 
calculation.
    At first, several equations were developed to attempt to cover many 
different equipment combinations, different HAP contents in gasoline 
emissions, and the two major source criteria, 10 tons of a single HAP 
or 25 tons of combination of HAPs. One equation was developed for each 
subcategory that would handle normal gasoline (estimated HAP content of 
4.8 percent), a second set of equations was developed for each facility 
handling reformulated or oxygenated fuels (estimated HAP emission 
content of 16 percent) and a third set of equations was developed for 
each facility handling the single-HAP (estimated to be gasoline vapor 
with MTBE with a HAP content of 12 percent).
    The initial equations were simplified to match the desired approach 
to provide a simple and reasonable set of equations to distinguish 
between area and major sources. The initial equations were simplified 
and narrowed through testing the equations against different model 
facility parameters and assumptions. Consequently, the original 
equations were reduced to a limited number of equipment parameter 
variables and reduced to one equation for bulk terminals and another 
for pipeline breakout stations. The resulting equations presented below 
are determined by the Agency to capture all major sources under the 
realistic mix of facility equipment and operating parameters.
    A bulk gasoline terminal is not considered a major source if the 
result of the calculation in equation (1), ET, is less than 1.

(1) 
ET=0.63(TF)+0.19(TE)+0.092(TES)+0.03(TI)+0.0012
(V)+0.024(P)+KQ

where:
    ET=major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline 
terminals, ET1 means bulk gasoline terminal is 
estimated to be a major source.,
    TF=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,
    TE=total number of external floating roof gasoline storage 
tanks with only primary seals,
    TES=total number of external floating roof storage tanks with 
primary and secondary seals,
    TI=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an 
internal floating roof,
    V=number of valves in gasoline service,
    P=number of pumps in gasoline service,
    Q=gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),
    K=3.18 x 10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with uncontrolled 
loading racks (no vapor collection and processing systems), OR
    K=(4.5 x 10-9)(EF+70) for bulk gasoline terminals with 
controlled loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and 
processing systems installed on the emission stream), and
    EF=the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor 
processor (mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

    A pipeline breakout station is not considered a major source if the 
result of the calculation in equation (2), EP, is less than 1.

(2) 
EP=2.4(TF)+0.09(TE)+0.043(TES)+0.027(TI)+0.0009
(V)+0.009(P)

where:
    EP=major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout 
stations, EP1 means pipeline breakout station is 
estimated to be a major source., and

TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are the same as defined 
for bulk terminal equation (1).

    The Agency provides the above equations to simplify and reduce the 
implementation burden to affected and non-affected facilities. The 
Agency requests public comments on the utility, accuracy, and need for 
these equations.
2. Determination of Floor Control Levels
    A boundary in the formulation of the regulatory alternatives is a 
determination of the MACT floor for new and existing sources. The 
statutory requirements for determining these floors was previously 
discussed in section V.D of this preamble. Selection of floor levels of 
control using the statutory criteria is described in the following 
subsections.
    a. Loading racks. In many of the areas where bulk terminal loading 
rack controls are mandated authorities have imposed control 
requirements more stringent than the limit of 80 mg TOC per liter of 
gasoline loaded recommended in the CTG for bulk gasoline terminals. A 
summary of State regulations pertaining to gasoline tank truck loading 
indicated that some terminals currently are operating under a 10 mg TOC 
per liter limitation in parts of California. In addition, the NSPS for 
tank truck loading at bulk gasoline terminals (subpart XX of 40 CFR 
part 60) limits emissions to 35 mg/liter. There are currently three 
types of vapor processor systems, refrigeration condensers, carbon 
adsorbers, and thermal oxidation systems, used to meet these three 
control requirement emission limits. Each type of control can be 
specifically designed to meet each limit.
    To establish the control requirements for new sources the Agency is 
required to select controls not less stringent (floor) than the control 
achieved in practice by the best similar source. The best performing 
control systems at similar sources, or systems achieving the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions, are those systems designed and 
operated to meet the 10 mg TOC per liter standard. Therefore, control 
systems achieving the 10 mg TOC per liter limit are considered the 
floor control level for new sources.
    To establish the limit for existing sources the Agency is required 
to select a limitation no less stringent (floor) than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 
sources. To support setting the floor for existing sources the Agency 
collected information on the number of facilities under each control 
requirement and the results of the measured emission rates achieved 
during performance tests of vapor processors at over 100 bulk gasoline 
terminals.
    It is estimated that 70 percent of the approximately 1,000 
terminals nationwide are required to meet one of the three levels of 
control requirements, 10, 35, and 80 mg TOC per liter of gasoline 
loaded. Performance test data were collected for terminals subject to 
each of those three levels. Performance test data collected from vapor 
processors at terminals regulated by the 10 mg standard all met the 10 
mg limit, but less than 3 percent of terminals are subject to a 10 mg 
emission limitation. The majority (about 70 percent) of performance 
test data collected from terminals under the 35 mg NSPS standard 
achieved less than 10 mg TOC per liter. This indicates that the 10 mg 
standard is achievable by processors designed to achieve the 35 mg 
standard. About 40 percent of the terminals are subject to the 35 mg 
standard. Therefore, the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources is a 10 mg standard, 
thus 10 mg limit is the floor control level for existing bulk gasoline 
terminals.
    b. Tank truck and railcar vapor leakage. The CTG detailing control 
of fugitive emissions from tank trucks recommends that cargo tanks be 
tested for vapor leakage on an annual basis, and repaired as necessary. 
Also, the bulk terminal tank truck loading NSPS (subpart XX of 40 CFR 
part 60) requires that tank trucks that load gasoline at bulk gasoline 
terminals be ``vapor-tight;'' that is, they must pass an annual vapor 
tightness test in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A. A second form of leak testing is carried out by the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), whose required annual leak tightness testing 
specifies pressurization of the cargo tank to 80 percent of its maximum 
allowable working pressure. The DOT considers Method 27 to be an 
acceptable alternative to its own pressure test. However, since the 
relief vents on each fuel compartment (which have been found to be the 
major sources of vapor leakage) are capped off during the DOT test, 
this test is considered less stringent than Method 27 pressure test. 
Also, the DOT test does not include a vacuum test as specified in 
Method 27. The Agency estimates that over 70 percent of existing tank 
trucks are required to pass the annual vapor tightness testing using 
Method 27. It has also been determined that the same test can be 
applied to railcars.
    Through contacts with one State control agency, the Agency 
discovered a system that provides additional control of vapor losses 
from cargo tanks. In this system, a negative pressure is created in the 
vapor collection system during loading, ensuring that vapors will not 
be forced out into the air through any leakage points. This ``vacuum 
assist'' system is in use at a few bulk gasoline terminals (in addition 
to Method 27 testing) in Texas, so it meets the Act requirement to 
consider the best controlled similar source in establishing the floor 
level of control for new terminals. Since less than 1 percent of 
terminals use this vacuum assist system it is not considered the floor 
for tank trucks at existing terminals. Annual vapor tightness testing 
using Method 27 is the next highest or best emission level and 
therefore represents the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of existing sources as specified in the Act. 
Therefore, annual vapor tightness testing using Method 27 is considered 
the floor for tank trucks loading at existing terminals.
    Industry sources have expressed concerns regarding the operational 
reliability of a vacuum assist system, especially under extreme cold 
weather conditions. These commenters also believe that the system could 
present a safety hazard if excess negative pressures were developed 
within a tank truck fuel compartment. To the Agency's knowledge, the 
systems in operation have not experienced any significant problems, and 
one of the systems has been operating for over 2 years. These systems 
contain safety pressure relief devices in combination with the 
pressure-vacuum vents already installed on each tank truck compartment. 
However, safety concerns are important to the Agency. The Agency 
specifically requests comment, including technical documentation and 
data where available, on the reliability, effectiveness, safety 
aspects, and any other issue concerning vacuum producing equipment for 
bulk terminal vapor collection systems.
    On the basis that this technology has been demonstrated, the Agency 
has selected the vacuum assist system for the loading of tank trucks 
and railcars at new bulk gasoline terminals (in combination with the 10 
mg TOC/liter emission limit and continuous monitoring of the vapor 
processing system) as the floor level of control for fugitive cargo 
tank leakage at new facilities.
    c. Equipment leaks. The control of emissions from equipment 
components leaking liquid or vapors at pipeline breakout stations and 
bulk gasoline terminals has never been specifically addressed by the 
Agency in a federal regulation or in a CTG. The Agency has determined, 
based on information obtained on site visits and from various industry 
contacts, that many facilities conduct periodic visual inspections to 
identify leaking components, and a few (less than one percent) perform 
leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs with a portable organic vapor 
analyzer. Therefore, the existing facility floor for the control of 
emissions from leaking equipment components at both pipeline breakout 
stations and bulk gasoline terminals was determined to be periodic 
visual inspections, or no formal (federally enforceable) inspection 
procedure.
    The control of emissions from leaking equipment components at other 
facilities with similarities to pipeline breakout stations and bulk 
gasoline terminals has been studied extensively. LDAR programs to 
conduct periodic monitoring of these components are in effect for many 
types of sources, including equipment in VOC service at petroleum 
refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and VV) and equipment operated 
in volatile hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service (40 CFR part 61, 
subparts J and V). These programs include monthly inspections of pumps 
and valves involving the use of a portable organic vapor analyzer to 
identify leaking components, a protocol for tagging leaking components, 
and a time limit for performing repairs.
    In determining the frequency of monitoring that would reflect best 
control of these emission sources, the Agency found that some bulk 
gasoline terminals are already carrying out equipment leak monitoring 
with a portable organic analyzer. Some of these programs involve 
quarterly monitoring, while others involve monthly monitoring. Bulk 
gasoline terminals co-located with or within the contiguous area of 
refineries are performing LDAR under 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and 
VV and 40 CFR part 61, subparts J and V. Since these similar source 
control requirements are achieved in practice the Agency has selected 
an LDAR program based on 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV as the floor level 
of control for equipment leaks at new bulk gasoline terminals and 
breakout stations. The proposed standards require monthly leak 
monitoring of pumps, no detectible emissions from pressure relief 
valves (after overpressure release to insure proper reseating of 
valve), barrier fluid systems for compressors, closed-purge or closed-
vent systems for sampling collection systems, and caps or plugs for 
open-ended valves or lines. Requirements for valves are that they be 
monitored monthly, with provisions allowing the monitoring frequency 
for valves that do not leak for 2 successive months to be relaxed from 
monthly to quarterly. Additionally, an alternative standard for valves 
allows for equal to or less than 2 percent of all valves to leak above 
the detection limit, and contains procedures that allow monitoring 
frequency to decrease from monthly to either quarterly or to annually.
    d. Storage tanks. NSPS standards have been promulgated (40 CFR part 
60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) that cover new, modified, and reconstructed 
petroleum and volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage tanks, and CTG 
recommendations have been implemented for existing storage tanks in 
ozone nonattainment areas. The requirements specify that external 
floating roof tanks be equipped with certain primary and secondary 
seals and that fixed-roof tanks be equipped with internal floating 
roofs with certain types of seals.
    Following an analysis of State regulations, the Agency estimated 
that approximately 76 percent of the storage tanks at pipeline breakout 
stations are of external floating roof design, while 24 percent are of 
fixed-roof construction. The corresponding numbers for storage tanks at 
bulk gasoline terminals are 53 and 47 percent, respectively. Further 
analysis showed that of the external floating roof tanks at pipeline 
breakout stations, 36 percent have the NSPS and CTG required primary 
and secondary seals, while 64 percent have only primary seals. At bulk 
gasoline terminals, the numbers are 43 and 57 percent for the 
respective seal types. Similarly, of the fixed-roof tanks at pipeline 
breakout stations, it was estimated that 38 percent have internal 
floating roofs (72 percent at bulk gasoline terminals) as required by 
NSPS and recommended by the CTG, while 62 percent are uncontrolled at 
pipeline breakout stations (28 percent at bulk gasoline terminals).
    Based on the above analysis, the most recent NSPS standard (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb) represents the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. Thus 
the floor level of control for storage tanks at both existing pipeline 
breakout stations and existing bulk gasoline terminals has been 
determined to be the control level defined in subpart Kb. Since it has 
not been demonstrated that, in practice, there are any better controls 
than this level for storage tanks, the level of control defined by 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Kb was also selected as the floor level of control 
for storage tanks at new pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline 
terminals.
    Degassing and cleaning of tank bottom sediments are necessary to 
safely retrofit the different or additional seals on existing tanks to 
meet the floor level of control (subpart Kb requirements). Degassing 
and cleaning of the bottom of the tank are routine maintenance 
practices that have been reported to occur at least every ten years. 
Degassing and cleaning also results in air emissions. As discussed 
earlier in this preamble, section 112(i)(3) in the Act allows for up to 
three years to comply with this standard and an additional one-year 
permit extension. Also there is the additional time between proposal 
and promulgation. During this three to five year period, it is logical 
to assume that many of the tanks requiring the retrofit of controls 
will be experiencing their routine maintenance cleaning and degassing; 
these tanks could be retrofitted during this time. Thus, for these 
tanks the retrofitting required by this proposal would not result in 
earlier degassing and cleaning emissions than would otherwise occur. 
For those tanks that would not be degassed or cleaned during that 
period, degassing and cleaning emissions would be required by this 
proposed rule to occur earlier than normal. This early emissions 
increase is estimated to be more than off-set by the emission 
reductions achieved from the required improved seals. Comments and data 
are requested on any situations where estimated emissions increase will 
not be off-set by the emission reduction achieved by the controls; for 
these situation, the data should include the number and description of 
tanks in this atypical situation, their existing equipment and 
maintenance history, determinations of the emissions and costs for tank 
degassing and cleaning, and the basis for any calculations.
    The floor level of control for existing storage tanks was discussed 
earlier and was determined to be the level of control achieved under 
the NSPS subpart Kb. Gasoline storage tanks meeting the control level 
in subpart Kb were determined to represent the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing 
sources. Comments and data are specifically requested on the number of 
gasoline storage tanks at these facilities with seal types meeting 
subpart Kb.
3. Formulation of Regulatory Alternatives
    After establishing the MACT floor control levels, the Agency 
developed regulatory alternatives for the affected subcategories. The 
first alternative developed was one that specified control levels at 
the floor for all new and existing major sources. This alternative was 
designated Alternative IV. Next, various combinations of control 
options were examined, ranging in stringency from the floor level 
controls specified in Alternative IV to the most stringent controls for 
each subcategory. A cost-effectiveness analysis was then performed to 
eliminate the alternatives with higher costs for the same or lesser 
emission reductions. A final set of three regulatory alternatives 
(Alternatives IV, IV-Q, and IV-M) was then evaluated as the potential 
basis for the proposed standards. Alternatives IV-Q and IV-M are 
similar to Alternative IV except, they contain increasingly stringent 
levels of equipment leak control at existing facilities. The following 
paragraphs and Table 1 describe these alternatives.

     Table 1.--Major Source Regulatory Alternatives IV, IV-Q, IV-M      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Bulk terminals       Pipeline   
                                       -----------------     breakout   
Emission source and controls for major                      stations    
               sources                   New   Existing ----------------
                                                          New   Existing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV                                        
                                                                        
 Storage Tanks:                                                         
  --External Floating Roof Tanks        X      X         X      X       
   Install Primary and Secondary Seals.                                 
  --Fixed Roof Tanks Install Internal   X      X         X      X       
   Floating Roofs with Primary Seals.                                   
Tank Truck Loading:                                                     
  Collect and Process Vapors to 10      X      X                        
   milligrams TOC per liter of                                          
   Gasoline Loaded.                                                     
Tank Truck Leaks:                                                       
  --Vacuum Assist Loading.............  X                               
  -- Annual Vapor Tightness Testing...  X      X         .....  ........
 Equipment Leaks:                                                       
  --Leak Detection and Repair Program:  X                X              
                                                                        
      REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV-Q                                       
  (ALTERNATIVE IV PLUS THE FOLLOWING)                                   
                                                                        
Equipment Leaks:                                                        
  Quarterly LDAR for pumps and valves.         X                X       
                                                                        
      REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE IV-M                                       
  (ALTERNATIVE IV PLUS THE FOLLOWING)                                   
                                                                        
Equipment Leaks:                                                        
  --Monthly LDAR for pumps and valves.         X                X       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At pipeline breakout stations, Alternative IV requires that 
secondary seals be installed on both new and existing external floating 
roof storage tanks and that fixed-roof tanks be retrofitted with 
internal floating roofs with primary seals. The control level for 
storage tanks is the same as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. It also 
requires that an LDAR program equivalent to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV 
be implemented for equipment leaks at new facilities.
    At new and existing bulk gasoline terminals, Alternative IV 
specifies a 10 mg TOC/liter emission limit for vapor processors at 
loading racks, and requires the same storage tank requirements 
discussed above for pipeline breakout stations. Also, new facilities 
must use vacuum assist vapor collection for loading of gasoline tank 
trucks and railcars, and an LDAR (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) program. 
Also, at existing bulk gasoline terminals, Alternative IV requires tank 
trucks and railcars to undergo an annual vapor tightness test. Under 
this alternative, no LDAR program is required for equipment leaks at 
existing bulk gasoline terminals.
    Alternatives IV-Q and IV-M specify controls identical to those of 
Alternative IV, with the addition of a pollution prevention LDAR 
program for both pumps and valves at existing bulk gasoline terminals 
and pipeline breakout stations. Alternative IV-Q adds a quarterly LDAR 
program for pumps and valves at existing facilities, and Alternative 
IV-M adds a monthly LDAR program for pumps and valves at these same 
sources. LDAR programs at existing sources achieve emission reduction 
at little additional annual cost to each facility, and are in use at 
facilities with similar equipment.
    During the development of today's proposal, EPA considered 
including an emissions averaging approach but did not identify any 
viable alternatives. EPA would be interested in pursuing the 
development of an averaging alternative if such an alternative would be 
protective of the environment and, as expected, lower the cost of 
achieving any particular emission reduction. A possible benefit of an 
averaging approach is that it may provide sources greater flexibility 
in achieving emissions reductions that may also translate into cost 
savings for the source. EPA is interested and requests data and 
comments that could be used to develop an emissions averaging 
alternative in the final rule.
4. Consideration of Environmental Impacts
    For the entire gasoline distribution network, total nationwide HAP 
emissions are estimated to be 52,440 Mg/yr at baseline. Of these 
emissions, approximately 23,750 Mg/yr (45 percent of the total) can be 
attributed to the two subcategories of the network subject to today's 
proposed regulation; nearly 7,250 Mg/yr of HAP's are emitted by 
pipeline breakout stations, while about 16,500 Mg/yr are associated 
with bulk gasoline terminals.
    All individual sources of emissions at facilities in these two 
subcategories are significant contributors to total facility emissions, 
with equipment leaks at pipeline breakout stations being the smallest 
(12 percent of the baseline subcategory total, due to the relatively 
small number of equipment components in the process piping at these 
facilities). Storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations contribute the 
remaining 88 percent of the total for this subcategory. At bulk 
gasoline terminals, HAP emissions are more evenly distributed: loading 
racks account for 18 percent of the baseline subcategory total, storage 
tanks contribute 33 percent, fugitive leaks from cargo tanks of trucks 
or railcars account for 23 percent of the subcategory total, and it is 
estimated that leaking pumps and valves in the process line piping 
account for the remaining 26 percent.
    It is estimated that implementation of Alternative IV would reduce 
these HAP emissions from pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline 
terminals by 11 percent, implementation of Alternative IV-Q would 
reduce them by a little less than 13 percent, and Alternative IV-M by 
slightly more than 14 percent. All of these are significant amounts in 
view of the fact that these reductions are incremental to existing 
programs, and that only an estimated 23 percent of the total 
subcategory facilities are major sources. (The analysis estimates that 
7.4 percent of pipeline breakout stations and 27 percent of bulk 
gasoline terminals qualify as major sources.) If only major source 
pipeline breakout stations and bulk gasoline terminals are considered 
at baseline, implementation of Alternative IV reduces these emissions 
by 48 percent, Alternative IV-Q by 55 percent, and Alternative IV-M by 
59 percent.
    Data directly from bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline facilities 
was not available to analyze the equipment leak potential emissions and 
reductions. The Agency used the emissions data that had been previously 
collected at petroleum refineries, including the Agency's published AP-
42 emission factors. Subsequent to the Agency's analysis, new data 
specific to leaking components at bulk gasoline terminals was released 
in a published report. This data appeared to indicate lower emissions 
than those derived from the refinery data, and industry commenters 
urged the Agency to reconsider leak detection and repair standards for 
this subcategory. These commenters also stated that equipment 
components in use at gasoline production and distribution facilities 
are quite different, so the assumption that the leakage characteristics 
of components at these two types of facilities are similar may not be 
valid. To address this latter comment first, the Agency believes that 
the magnitude and frequency of leaks from components at these 
facilities are similar. This conclusion is based on several years of 
gathering and analyzing data on all configurations and uses of 
equipment at refineries and chemical production facilities. The Agency, 
in these data gathering efforts, found no correlation between 
temperature, pressure, or component size and the magnitude or frequency 
of leaks.
    The Agency performed a thorough review of the new data collected at 
bulk gasoline terminals. It was determined that, while acceptable test 
protocols were used, the quantity of data (which were for only a few 
terminals) were insufficient to warrant a change in the emission 
calculations for these components. Therefore, the Agency's conclusion 
that a periodic equipment monitoring program would be a cost-effective 
means of ensuring maximum HAP emission reductions is unchanged. The 
data discussed above indicates potentially lower equipment leak 
emissions rates than those found in testing refineries. It should be 
noted that any facilities where this may be the case, could qualify for 
the less frequent monitoring requirements in today's proposed 
standards, as provided for in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV.
    The Agency is open to receiving additional data that could be used 
to quantify emissions and control levels of leaking equipment at bulk 
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations. This includes leak 
frequency data, leak correlation data, and information on programs that 
may be in place to reduce equipment leaks. Such data should include 
specifics on test procedures, applicable rules, control methods, etc. 
The Agency will review all data received in developing and assessing 
the final control requirements. The full range of control options 
presented here will be included in the consideration.
5. Consideration of Cost
    Implementation of Alternative IV, IV-Q, or IV-M is estimated to 
result in identical capital costs, approximately $125 million. This 
cost is primarily associated with retrofit or installation of vapor 
collection piping and vapor processors for loading racks at bulk 
gasoline terminals. However, there is a difference in annualized cost 
among these three alternatives due to annual costs and recovery credits 
associated with implementing LDAR programs at existing sources. 
Recovery credits are calculated based on the value and the amount of 
gasoline not allowed to evaporate or collected under each control 
alternative. Alternative IV-Q requires the smallest annualized cost, 
$15.8 million/yr, due to having the largest recovery credit per dollar 
spent on implementation of the program. Alternative IV-M is slightly 
more costly at $16.3 million/yr (recovery credits per dollar spent are 
not quite as large as IV-Q). Alternative IV has similar annualized cost 
as Alternative IV-M.
6. Consideration of Economic Impacts
    The implementation of either Regulatory Alternative IV, IV-Q, or 
IV-M is projected to result in gasoline price and consumption impacts, 
facility closures, and declines in employment. The national average 
base year increase in the retail price of motor gasoline as a result of 
these alternatives is estimated at $0.001 per gallon. The national base 
year decline in gasoline consumption is estimated at less than 100 
million gallons (0.08 percent). There are a limited number of facility 
closures estimated to result from the regulatory alternatives. The base 
year facility closure estimate is nearly 650, of which more than 90 
percent are projected for the service station sector. While the 
estimated number of service station closures is estimated to be in the 
hundreds, it should be noted that a total of over 380,000 stations are 
projected being in operation during the base year, so that the number 
of facilities closing would constitute less than two-tenths of one 
percent. Furthermore, due to a consumption-spurred projection of modest 
industry growth from 1993 to 1998, some closures due to the regulation 
may be more accurately interpreted as reductions in new facility 
openings rather than closures of existing facilities. Employment 
reductions due to reduced consumption and facility closure are 
estimated at just over 1,100 jobs, of which 70 percent are projected 
for the service station sector. However, this job loss constitutes only 
about 0.05 percent of the total employment attributed to the service 
station sector in the base year. For the same reason given for facility 
closures, some employment reductions may be more accurately interpreted 
as reductions in industry job opportunities rather than losses of 
existing jobs.
7. Consideration of Secondary Impacts
    As discussed earlier, there is projected to be no adverse secondary 
air pollution or water pollution impacts associated with standards 
based on implementation of any of the alternatives. In fact, there is 
likely to be some benefits. For example, implementation of any of the 
alternatives would be based in major part on an LDAR program. LDAR 
programs at most facilities should actually reduce the water pollution 
impact through detection and repair of faulty equipment in a shorter 
timeframe than in the past. Additional benefits may be realized through 
decreased intrusion of rainwater into storage tanks at both facility 
types.
    The small amount of water condensed from the air-vapor stream by 
refrigeration condenser systems installed at loading racks should pose 
no threat to the environment because the gasoline is recovered 
(typically in an oil-water separator) and the gasoline-water portion is 
collected and stored for processing off-site.
    The only potential secondary impact involves solid waste disposal, 
which may result in cases where carbon adsorbers are used to comply 
with the emission standards at bulk terminal loading racks. Spent 
activated carbon from these units is normally reclaimed for reuse 
during the carbon's useful life, and then discarded when it is no 
longer effective (usually 10 years) or reactivated in a furnace. If the 
average annual solid waste impact of this disposal (assuming no 
reactivation) is spread over the estimated life of the carbon, an 
overall environmental impact of about 230 megagrams per year (0.7 
megagrams per terminal) results. Consequently, the magnitude of the 
adverse solid waste disposal impact occurring from the implementation 
of any of these alternatives is considered small.
8. Consideration of Energy Impacts
    There is a beneficial nationwide energy impact associated with 
implementation of each of the alternatives. Implementation of LDAR 
programs and installation of secondary seals on storage tanks both 
result in energy savings, since additional gasoline is kept in the 
tanks and lines, and remains available for sale rather than being 
allowed to escape to the atmosphere. Only a small amount of electrical 
energy would be required for most flares that may be installed at bulk 
terminal loading racks for emission control; however, assist gas may be 
necessary for some systems. Where thermal oxidation, refrigeration 
condenser, or carbon adsorption systems are installed to achieve 
compliance for loading racks, however, a moderate amount of electrical 
energy will be required.
    As mentioned earlier, vapor recovery (noncombustion) systems would 
recover gasoline from vapors collected at bulk terminal loading racks; 
LDAR programs, storage tank monitoring, and vacuum assist vapor 
collection all operate to reduce evaporation and improve leak 
prevention, so they result in gasoline savings. Assuming that 25 
percent of the emission reduction at bulk terminal loading racks would 
be accomplished using recovery devices (the remainder would be the 
result of combustion devices) and subtracting the energy used by the 
recovery devices from the energy in the recovered product, the savings 
resulting from implementation of each of the alternatives are as 
follows: Alternative IV results in recovery of approximately 16 million 
gallons of gasoline per year, Alternative IV-Q saves almost 18 million 
gallons per year, and Alternative IV-M recovers slightly more than 19 
million gallons per year.
9. Selection of the Proposed Standards
    In accordance with Clean Air Act section 112(d), the Administrator 
is required to set emission standards for new and existing sources of 
HAP's from source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c) [see the 
source category list proposal of July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576)]. In doing 
so, the Administrator must require the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP's that is achievable, taking into consideration the 
cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Having given full 
consideration to these directives, the Administrator has selected 
Alternative IV-Q as the basis for the proposed standards for gasoline 
distribution major sources.
    All three alternatives discussed earlier (IV, IV-Q, and IV-M) 
satisfy the Act's criteria. Alternative IV achieves the least HAP 
emission reduction and is the least stringent possible alternative 
allowed by the Act statutory language. However, the Act provides for 
setting standards above the floor. As a result, Alternatives IV-M and 
IV-Q contain control levels more stringent than the floor for existing 
sources (monthly and quarterly leak detection and repair of pumps and 
valves, respectively). Results of emission reduction calculations show 
that Alternative IV-M achieves greater HAP emission reductions than IV-
Q or the floor Alternative IV. Additionally, analysis shows that 
Alternative IV-Q and IV-M would have minor economic and nonair quality 
environmental impacts, and beneficial energy impacts.
    Although Alternative IV-M would achieve the maximum reduction in 
HAP emissions, there is uncertainty in the calculation of emission 
reductions for leak detection and repair (as discussed in section 4). 
Due to this uncertainty in emissions and the increased cost of 
Alternative IV-M, Alternative IV-Q was chosen over the more stringent 
Alternative IV-M.

D. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards

    Section 112(h) of the Act requires that standards be promulgated in 
terms of a numerical emission standard except when it is not feasible 
for the pollutants to be emitted through a conveyance or it is not 
practicable to apply measurement methodology due to technological or 
economic limitations. In these cases, the Administrator may promulgate 
a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard that is 
consistent with the intent of section 112.
    As discussed under Section B above, there are four distinct 
categories of emission sources at bulk gasoline terminals: (1) 
Displacement losses when gasoline tank trucks or railcars are loaded at 
loading racks, (2) fugitive vapor losses from leaking tank trucks or 
railcars during controlled loading operations, (3) losses from storage 
tanks, and (4) vapor leaks from equipment components. The latter two 
emission sources also occur at pipeline breakout stations.
    To set a numerical emission limit for tank truck loading 
operations, the total HAP emissions would have to be measurable, so 
that a comparison with this emission limit could be made. Since the 
small portion of the displaced vapors which may leak from the tank 
trucks cannot be quantitatively measured, accurate measurements of 
total HAP emissions from tank truck loading are not possible. However, 
the major portion of the displaced vapors can be measured after the 
vapors are collected at the loading rack. Vapor collection systems 
typically include the equipment at the loading rack used to contain and 
route emissions, and generally consist of hoses or arms, manifolding, 
piping, and check valves. This type of system is consistent with the 
current state-of-the-art collection systems in use at many existing 
bulk gasoline terminals. Because of its demonstrated control 
effectiveness, and because it is not possible to set a standard of 
performance for the total emissions from the loading operation, an 
equipment standard requiring a vapor collection system at each loading 
rack was selected by the Administrator as the format for controlling 
HAP emissions at the loading racks.
    Since emissions from the vapor collection system can be measured, 
standards of performance in the form of a numerical emission limit can 
be applied to emissions from the vapor collection system. Several 
formats for these standards of performance are possible. Three formats 
considered for limiting emissions from the vapor collection system 
include a concentration standard, a control efficiency standard, and a 
mass emissions standard. A vapor processing system would be necessary 
under any of these formats to achieve the required emission limit.
    A format expressed in terms of concentration would limit the HAP 
concentration in the exhaust from the vapor processing system. However, 
test data from these systems indicate a variation in exhaust gas flow 
rates and concentrations among the various types of systems. Separate 
concentration limits might be required for each type of control system 
at each affected terminal if a concentration format were selected.
    Information from the manufacturers and test results indicate that 
the control efficiencies of the processing systems are dependent on the 
inlet concentration to the processor. The data further indicate that 
concentrations at the inlet of the processor vary considerably from 
terminal to terminal. It would be difficult to adjust the calculations 
to account for these variations. Also, control efficiency testing would 
require two separate measurements of pollutant concentration instead of 
just one measurement as required in the concentration or mass 
approaches.
    A mass standard based upon the vapor processor outlet emissions 
would involve a simpler, less expensive, and more straightforward test 
procedure. This testing would require measurement of mass emissions at 
the processor outlet only. In addition, the affected industry has over 
15 years experience in conducting this type of testing at bulk gasoline 
terminals and, in fact, this is the type of test data analyzed to 
determine the MACT control levels for the facilities to be regulated in 
this source category. Due to these considerations, a mass emission 
format, based on measurements at the outlet of the vapor processor 
only, was selected for the standard to be applied to bulk terminal tank 
truck and railcar loading emissions. This mass emission format is the 
same type analyzed to determine the MACT control levels for vapor 
processors.
    The test methods that have proved to be acceptable for measuring 
pollutant emissions from bulk terminal control systems measure the 
total organic compounds content of the exhaust stream. To analyze the 
stream specifically for HAP content, more complex testing would have to 
be carried out. The emission reduction processes utilized in vapor 
processing systems have been found to reduce HAP's in proportion to the 
reduction of total organics. Therefore, the emission limit for loading 
rack vapor collection systems is expressed in terms of mass 
(milligrams) of total organic compounds emitted per volume (liter) of 
gasoline loaded into tank trucks and railcars.
    Even at loading racks controlled through installation of vapor 
collection and processing systems, gasoline vapor emissions may occur 
from the loading operation due to vapor leakage from closed gasoline 
tank trucks or railcars during loading. These leakage emissions 
originate from pressure-vacuum vents and defective hatch covers and 
seals. Due to the fugitive nature of these emissions, it is not 
feasible to collect the escaping vapors and route them through a 
conveyance. Since cargo tank leakage measurements at the loading racks 
do not provide a quantitative measurement of total organic 
concentration, flow rate, or mass emissions, an enclosure around a 
loading tank truck or railcar would be necessary in to trap emissions 
for measurement. An enclosure or conveyance to accomplish this is not 
technologically or economically practicable. Due to these 
considerations, the Administrator determined that a standard of 
performance, in the form of a numerical emission limit, could not be 
set, and that a work practice standard would be appropriate for 
controlling cargo tank vapor leakage emissions.
    One method for monitoring fugitive tank truck or railcar emissions 
would involve the use of a portable hydrocarbon analyzer to detect 
emissions during loadings. However, such a requirement is considered to 
represent an excessive burden, especially at unmanned terminals where 
entry is gained through a cardlock system. Another method for 
exercising control over leaking tank trucks would consist of a work 
practice standard. The work practice standard format would consist of a 
requirement that the owner or operator of the terminal restrict 
loadings of gasoline tank trucks to those for which documentation was 
on file that the tank had passed an appropriate vapor tightness test 
within the last year. This type of requirement is in effect in many 
areas of the country under current State rules and is the basis for 
setting the MACT control level. Since it is the most practical and 
effective means of controlling tank truck or railcar fugitive emissions 
at loading racks with vapor control systems, this work practice 
standard was selected by the Administrator as the requirement for 
fugitive tank truck leakage control.
    Emissions from gasoline storage tanks at bulk gasoline terminals 
and pipeline breakout stations consist of a combination of standing and 
working losses. These emissions consist of vapors that escape through 
rim seals on the circumference of the tank (internal and external 
floating roof tanks), and for fixed-roof tanks, through several vents 
and other openings necessary to relieve built up internal tank 
pressures. The large number of emission points makes testing these 
sources excessively expensive and burdensome. Based on the best 
industry practice in use for controlling these emissions, an equipment 
and work practice standard is being proposed for the control of these 
storage tanks, which is identical to the national standards in practice 
for new storage tanks, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. For fixed-roof 
tanks, an internal floating roof would be added, and for existing 
external floating roof tanks, a secondary seal would have to be added 
for those tanks with only a primary seal on the floating roof. Periodic 
visual inspections and seal gap measurements would be necessary to 
ensure that the seals are continuing to maintain the required control.
    Both bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations utilize 
pumps, valves, and other liquid and vapor transfer equipment components 
that may develop leaks over time. Due to the large number of sources, 
testing each to quantify emissions would be expensive. Thus, an 
equipment leak LDAR program and specific equipment standards similar to 
those currently being practiced at petroleum refineries, chemical 
manufacturing facilities, and a few terminals could be used to identify 
leaking components so that timely repair could be carried out. It is 
proposed that monthly monitoring of components and specific equipment 
standards at new facilities and quarterly monitoring of pumps seals and 
valves only at existing facilities, with the described provisions to 
modify these frequencies on the basis of monitoring results, be carried 
out.

E. Equivalent Systems of Emission Reduction

    The Administrator does not preclude selection of alternative means 
of compliance to those described above in part D of this section, 
provided that the owner or operator provides proof of compliance as 
specified under section 112(h)(3) of the Act. If, after notice and 
opportunity for comment, the owner or operator of any source 
establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an 
alternative means of emission limitation will reduce emissions of any 
air pollutant at least as much as would be achieved under the design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination 
thereof, the Administrator shall permit the use of the alternative 
means.

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Continuous Monitoring 
Requirements

    The proposed standards require several types of performance tests, 
as well as both periodic and continuous monitoring to ensure that the 
intent of the standards to achieve maximum emission reductions is 
realized. The tests include performance testing of the bulk terminal 
control system, vapor leak monitoring and repair of the vapor 
collection system before each performance test, and annual vapor 
tightness testing of tank trucks and railcars that will load at the 
affected terminals. All of these procedures have been used with 
acceptable results and are consistent with Sec. 63.7 of the proposed 
General Provisions for performance testing. Storage tanks at terminals 
and pipeline stations would require periodic visual and seal gap 
measurement tests (consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb). 
Equipment components would have to be monitored and repaired as 
necessary in accordance with the applicable LDAR program (requirements 
are detailed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV).
    Continuous monitoring of an operating parameter would be required 
for vapor processing systems. At new bulk gasoline terminals, the 
vacuum achieved in the tank truck or railcar during vacuum assist 
loading would have to be monitored continuously. These monitoring 
requirements are required to verify that the control systems continue 
to provide the control level required by the proposed standards.
1. Emission Test Methods
    Performance tests ensure that a vapor control system at a bulk 
gasoline terminal is in initial compliance with the required control 
level, and they also establish operating conditions under which the 
system should continue to meet the required standard. An initial 
performance test would be required, in accordance with the schedule in 
Sec. 63.7 of the proposed General Provisions. This initial test is 
required 120 days after the effective date of the standards or after 
initial startup for a new facility, or 120 days after the compliance 
date specified for an existing facility. In accordance with 
Sec. 63.7(a)(2) of the proposed General Provisions, the Administrator 
may require a performance test at any other time it is authorized by 
section 114 of the Act.
    The proposed standards require the use of approved test methods to 
ensure consistent and verifiable results for the initial performance 
test and for demonstration of continuous compliance. Methods 2A, 2B, 
25A, and 25B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are specified for 
measurement of total organic compound emissions from the vapor 
collection and processing system. These methods have been used 
routinely for many years at bulk gasoline terminals. Due to the 
difficulties involved in measuring mass emissions from flares without 
an outlet stack (which can be used to control loading rack emissions), 
the above test methods will not be applicable. In these cases, flares 
must comply with Sec. 63.11 of the proposed General Provisions which 
includes a compliance determination according to Method 22 of 40 CFR 
Part 60, Appendix A, and design specifications for exit velocity and 
heat content.
    Before each performance test, the owner or operator would be 
required to monitor potential leak sources in the terminal's vapor 
collection and processing system during the loading of a gasoline tank 
truck or railcar. Leaks (defined as a meter reading of 500 ppm or 
greater calibrated with methane) would have to be repaired before 
conducting the performance test. This leak definition is consistent 
with the definition in other equipment leak monitoring regulations; 
i.e., 40 CFR part 60, subparts VV and GGG.
    The proposed standards would require each gasoline tank truck and 
railcar loaded at an affected bulk terminal to be certified as vapor-
tight through an annual vapor tightness test according to Method 27 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. This test verifies that the tank 
compartments will not emit fugitive vapors or admit fresh air into the 
tank truck during loading. The pressure-vacuum test of Method 27 is 
presently required annually for gasoline tank trucks operating at 
terminals subject to the bulk gasoline terminals NSPS.
2. Continuous Monitoring Requirements
    In addition to the initial performance test required for bulk 
terminal vapor processing systems, continuous monitoring of the 
operation of these systems is also part of the proposed standards. 
Selection of the format for this monitoring and the rationale for the 
selection are discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Continuous monitoring systems that monitor vapor processor exhaust 
organic emissions in the units of the proposed standard (mg/liter) 
would require measuring not only total organics concentration in the 
system exhaust, but also exhaust gas flow rate, volume of product 
dispensed, temperature, and pressure. Such systems are not currently in 
use at bulk gasoline terminals. However, monitoring equipment is 
available and in use for monitoring the operational variables 
associated with the operation of the processing systems.
    Today's proposed standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart R) require 
continuous monitoring of operating parameters of vapor processing 
systems, and reports of periods when the monitored value exceeds or 
there is a failure to maintain, as appropriate, the parameter value 
established by monitoring data recorded during the performance test. 
The Agency is requiring each source to establish a site-specific 
monitoring parameter value and if exceeded or not maintained, as 
appropriate, it would be an enforceable violation of the emission 
limit. System-specific values for monitored parameters would account 
for deviations in the design, installation, and operational 
characteristics of individual control systems.
    Under the NSPS and the earlier NESHAP programs, parameter 
monitoring has traditionally been used as a tool in determining whether 
control devices are being maintained and operated properly. However, 
section 114(a)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.6(c) of the operating permit 
rule (57 FR 32251, July 21, 1992) require the submission of 
``compliance certifications'' from sources subject to the operating 
permit program. Sources must certify whether compliance was continuous 
or intermittent, as well as their compliance status at the end of the 
reporting period. In light of these requirements, the Agency has 
considered how sources subject to this rule would demonstrate 
compliance. The Agency has found that operating parameter monitoring is 
already being used successfully at some bulk gasoline terminals and can 
be applied for this purpose. The Agency considers that each exceedence 
or failure to maintain, as appropriate, of a operating parameter value 
would constitute a violation of the emission limit.
    Organic compounds concentration at the processor outlet is the best 
indication of system operation and corresponding emission reduction. A 
monitor to measure this parameter would be appropriate for carbon 
adsorption and possibly refrigeration condenser systems. To achieve 
representative organic concentration measurements at the processor 
outlet, the concentration monitoring device should be installed in the 
exhaust vent of the vapor processor: (1) At least two equivalent 
diameters downstream from the nearest control device, the point of 
pollutant generation, or other point at which a change in the pollutant 
concentration or emission rate may occur and (2) at least a half 
equivalent diameter upstream from the effluent exhaust.
    For some vapor processing systems, monitoring of the exhaust 
organics concentration may be impracticable and monitoring a process 
parameter may be an equally accurate measure of system performance. For 
example, temperature monitoring of the combustion section of a thermal 
oxidation system or the temperature of the air-vapor mixture on the 
outlet side of a refrigeration condenser system establish performance 
of the system. If a flare is used to control loading rack emissions, a 
heat-sensing device such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or a 
thermocouple to indicate the presence of a flame during the loading 
operation is required.
    The Agency is requesting comment, including data and other 
supporting technical information, on whether the proposed approach on 
continuous monitoring and types of monitoring parameters ensure 
continuous compliance of vapor control systems that would be installed 
at affected bulk gasoline terminals to meet today's proposed emission 
standard. Additionally, comments and data are requested on how 
representative the control equipment parameters are of actual 
performance of the control equipment and in determining compliance. 
Also, comments and data are requested on alternative methods to those 
proposed today that can be used to ensure continuous compliance with 
the emission standard. The proposed regulation also allows for 
substituting an alternative vapor processing system for those mentioned 
above or the monitoring of some other parameter if it can be 
demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that the processing 
system achieves the emission limit, and the value of the alternative 
monitoring parameter ensures continuous compliance with the emission 
standard.
    The operating parameter value would be established during the 
initial performance test. During the test, the operating parameter 
would be continuously recorded during all the times a gasoline tank 
truck or railcar was being loaded. Only monitoring data from 
performance tests in which the system shows compliance with the 10 mg 
TOC/liter emission limit are valid for the determination of the 
monitored operating parameter value. The operating parameter value 
would be the average of the values recorded during which loadings of 
gasoline tank trucks occur over the six-hour performance test. Today's 
proposal requires facilities to monitor this operating parameter value 
continuously, calculate and record a rolling six-hour average valve, 
and report exceedences or failures to maintain, as appropriate, the 
average value.
    New bulk gasoline terminals must install a vacuum assist vapor 
collection system to ensure that loading tank trucks and railcars do 
not emit fugitive HAP vapors. The vapor collection system must be 
continuously monitored to verify that a vacuum always exists in the 
system while loading is taking place. The monitoring location must be 
within 0.3 meter (1 foot) of the tank truck/vapor return line 
interface. The Agency is not proposing any specific vacuum levels that 
must be maintained (although the vacuum must never exceed the level at 
which the system's or transport tank's safety vents automatically begin 
to open). Therefore, the monitoring device need not be highly precise. 
However, a continuous record indicating that a vacuum is being 
maintained for the duration of all loadings must be created and 
maintained at the facility.
    Comments on the proposed approaches to monitoring the vacuum assist 
system, or vapor collection and processing systems, and any other 
suggested approaches are requested. In particular, the Agency requests 
that commenters submit data on parameters or values of parameters that 
might be used to better establish performance of these devices and 
continuous compliance with the emission standards.

G. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed standards would require an owner or operator to submit 
the following four types of reports:
    1. Initial Notification,
    2. Notification of Compliance Status,
    3. Periodic Reports, and
    4. Other reports.

The purpose and contents of each of these reports are described in this 
section. The proposed rule requires all reports to be submitted to the 
``Administrator.'' The term Administrator refers either to the 
Administrator of the Agency, an Agency regional office, a State agency, 
or other entity that has been delegated the authority to implement this 
rule. In most cases, reports will be sent to State agencies. Addresses 
are provided in the proposed General Provisions (subpart A) of 40 CFR 
part 63.
    Records of reported information and other information necessary to 
document compliance with the regulation are generally required to be 
kept for 5 years. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the 
control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the 
equipment.
1. Initial Notification
    The proposed standards would require owners or operators who are 
subject to today's proposed standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart R 
to submit an Initial Notification. This report notifies the agency of 
applicability for existing facilities or of construction for new 
facilities as outlined in Sec. 63.5 of the proposed General Provisions, 
whichever is applicable. A respondent must also report any facility 
modifications as defined in Sec. 63.5 of the proposed General 
Provisions. This report will establish an early dialogue between the 
source and the regulatory agency, allowing both to plan for compliance 
activities. The notice is due within 45 days after the date of 
promulgation for existing sources. For new sources, it is due 180 days 
before commencement of construction or reconstruction, or 45 days after 
promulgation of today's proposed rules, whichever is later.
    The Initial Notification must include a statement as to whether the 
source can achieve compliance by the specified compliance date. If an 
existing source anticipates a delay that is beyond its control, it is 
important for the owner or operator to discuss the problem with the 
regulatory authority as early as possible. This report will also 
include a description of the parameter monitoring system intended to be 
used in conjunction with the vapor processing system. Pursuant to 
section 112(d) of the Act, the proposed standards contain provisions 
for a 1-year compliance extension to be granted by the Administrator on 
a case-by-case basis. Further discussion of compliance issues is 
included in section VI.H of this notice.
2. Notification of Compliance Status
    The Notification of Compliance Status (NCS) would be submitted no 
later than 30 days after the facility's initial performance test. It 
contains the information necessary to demonstrate that compliance has 
been achieved, such as the results of the initial performance test on 
the vapor processing system and results of the LDAR monitoring program. 
The submission of the performance test report will allow the regulatory 
authority to verify that the source has followed the correct sampling 
and analytical procedures, and has performed all calculations 
correctly.
    Included in the performance test report submitted with the NCS 
would be the calculation of the operating parameter value for the 
selected operating parameter to be monitored in the vapor processing 
system. The notification must include the data and rationale to support 
this parameter value as ensuring continuous compliance with the 
emission limit.
3. Periodic Reports
    Periodic Reports are required to ensure that the standards continue 
to be met and that vapor control systems are operated and maintained 
properly. Generally, periodic reports would be submitted semiannually 
or quarterly. However, if monitoring results show that the parameter 
values for the vapor processing system exceed or fail to maintain, as 
appropriate, the operating parameter value for more than 1 percent of 
the operating time in a quarterly reporting period, or the monitor is 
out of service for more than 5 percent of the time, the Administrator 
may request that the owner or operator submit more frequent reports. 
After 1 year, the facility may return to quarterly reporting if 
approved by the regulatory authority.
    The Agency has established this reporting system to provide an 
incentive (less frequent reporting) for good performance. Due to 
uncertainty about the periods of time over which sources are likely to 
experience exceedences or failures to maintain, as appropriate, the 
operating parameter value or monitoring system failures, the Agency is 
seeking comment on the 1 percent and 5 percent criteria triggering the 
potential for more frequent reporting. In particular, data are 
requested on both the frequency of exceedences and monitoring system 
downtime. As discussed in section VI.F.2, records must be kept of the 
parameter value.
    Owners and operators are also required to keep records of monthly 
or quarterly leak detection and repair, and to furnish reports on 
program results, as specified in Sec. 63.428(f). These reports can be 
made a part of the Periodic Report, unless the frequency of the reports 
exceeds that of the Periodic Report. Facilities must also retain 
records and submit reports of annual inspections of storage vessels, in 
accordance with Sec. 63.428(e). These reports may also be included in 
the appropriate Periodic Report.
4. Other Reports
    There are also a limited number of other reports required under the 
proposed standards. Where possible, subpart R is structured to allow 
information to be reported in the semiannual (or quarterly) Periodic 
Report. However, in a few cases, it is necessary for the facility to 
provide information to the regulatory authority shortly before or after 
a specific event. For example, notification before a performance test 
or a storage vessel inspection is required to allow the regulatory 
authority the opportunity to have an observer present (as specified in 
the proposed General Provisions). This type of reporting must be done 
separately from the Periodic Reports because some situations require a 
shorter term response from the reviewing authority.
    Reports of start of construction, anticipated and actual startup 
dates, and modifications, as required under Sec. 63.5 and Sec. 63.9 of 
the proposed General Provisions, are entered into the Agency's 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) and are used to 
determine whether emission limits are being met.
    Records required under the proposed standards are generally 
required to be kept for 5 years. General recordkeeping requirements are 
contained in the proposed General Provisions under Sec. 63.10(b). These 
requirements include records of malfunctions and maintenance performed 
on the vapor processing system and the parameter monitoring system. At 
bulk gasoline terminals, vapor tightness (annual test) documentation 
for each gasoline tank truck and railcar using the terminal is 
required. Continuous monitoring data from the parameter monitor on the 
vapor processor and the pressure monitor on the vacuum assist vapor 
collection system will provide a record of continuous compliance with 
the emission standards. Records of storage vessel inspections, 
operating plans, and other details of controlled storage vessels at 
terminals and pipeline stations are to be kept as specified under 
Sec. 60.115b. Records documenting the LDAR program at subject 
facilities must be kept in accordance with Sec. 60.486 (b) through (j).

H. Selection of Compliance Deadlines

    The Agency proposes to allow affected sources the following time 
periods after promulgation for compliance, as provided for in Clean Air 
Act section 112(i). All sources, whether uncontrolled or having in 
place control systems or measures requiring upgrading to meet the new 
standards, would be required to reach full compliance within 3 years 
after promulgation of the standards. All sources must implement an LDAR 
program as soon as practical, but not later than 180 days after 
promulgation of this rule. These compliance deadlines allow a 
reasonable time for replacement of operating equipment at existing 
sources, for construction and installation of vapor control devices and 
piping, and for retrofit of storage tanks.

I. Solicitation of Comments

    The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any 
aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble 
or the referenced supporting documents.
    The proposed standards were developed on the basis of information 
available. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual 
information that may support either the approach taken in the proposed 
standards or an alternate approach. To receive proper consideration, 
documentation or data should be provided.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the Act. 
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the proposed standards 
for gasoline distribution should contact the Agency at the address 
given in the Addresses section of this preamble. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a 
written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. 
Written statements should be addressed to the Air Docket section 
address given in the Addresses section of this preamble, and should 
refer to Docket No. A-92-38.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements 
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal 
working hours at the Agency's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see 
Addresses section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to or otherwise considered by the Agency in the development 
of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: 
(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in 
the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of 
judicial review (except for interagency review materials) [Section 
307(d)(7)(A) of the Act].

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined to treat this action as a ``significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the Executive Order. As such, this action was 
submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket listed 
at the beginning of today's notice under ADDRESSES. The docket is 
available for public inspection at the Agency's Air Docket Section, 
which is listed in the Addresses section of this preamble.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document has been prepared by the Agency (ICR No. 1659.01) and a copy 
may be obtained from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., (2136), Washington, DC 
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 400 hours per respondent for the first year after 
the date of promulgation of the rule, including time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. The cost for this additional burden per 
respondent is estimated to be about 14,000 dollars during the first 
year.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, (2136), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 10460; and to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.'' The final rule will respond to 
the OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA 
to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business 
``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared. However, regulatory alternatives that would alleviate the 
potential impact of the proposed standards on directly affected 
companies were not selected because the CAA requires all facilities 
that are members of a category or subcategory of major sources to meet, 
at a minimum, the requirements of the MACT floor.
    For the affected industry sectors, the Small Business 
Administration's definition of small business is independently owned 
companies with less than 100 employees. The proposed standards directly 
impact small companies owning gasoline bulk terminals and pipeline 
breakout stations. Due to downstream wholesale gasoline price 
increases, the proposed standards would indirectly impact small 
companies owning gasoline bulk plants and gasoline service stations.
    A definitive estimate of the number of small businesses that would 
be directly and indirectly affected by the proposed standards could not 
be feasibly obtained because of the lack of data related to the extent 
of vertical integration in the gasoline distribution chain. However, 
the EPA believes that a maximum of 56 percent of all gasoline bulk 
terminals are owned by small companies. Potentially, up to 99 percent 
of the indirectly affected gasoline bulk plants and service stations 
are owned by small companies. The percentage of actual small companies 
in these sectors, especially the gasoline bulk terminal sector, is 
projected to be much smaller due to vertical integration with petroleum 
refiners. No estimate has been made of the percentage of pipeline 
breakout stations owned by small companies, but since they are 
typically affiliated with petroleum refiners, the percentage is 
projected to be small.
    A preliminary assessment indicates that the proposed regulations 
would not result in financial impacts that would significantly or 
differentially stress affected small companies. The compliance costs 
for all but the smallest throughput facilities in directly affected 
industry segments are a minute fraction of production costs and 
revenues. Even so, the per unit compliance cost differential between 
large throughput and small throughput facilities are minor. Small 
facilities are likely to be serving small or specialized markets, which 
makes it unlikely that the differential in unit control costs between 
large throughput and small throughput facilities will seriously affect 
the competitive position of small companies, even assuming that small 
companies own small facilities.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
impact on small companies, even though a substantial number of small 
companies may be affected.

F. Clean Air Act Section 117

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
The Administrator welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposed 
regulation, including health, economic, technological, or other 
aspects.

G. Regulatory Review

    In accordance with Clean Air Act sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2), 
this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other 
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.

    Dated: January 31, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart R, 
consisting of Secs. 63.420-63.429, to read as follows:
Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution 
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)
Sec.
63.420  Applicability.
63.421  Definitions.
63.422  Standards: Loading racks.
63.423  Standards: Storage vessels.
63.424  Standards: Equipment leaks.
63.425  Test methods and procedures.
63.426  Alternative means of emission limitation.
63.427  Continuous monitoring.
63.428  Reporting and recordkeeping.
63.429  Delegation of authority.

Subpart R--National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution 
Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)


Sec. 63.420  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each bulk gasoline 
terminal, except those facilities:
    (1) For which the result, ET, of the following equation is 
less than 1:

ET=0.63(TF)+0.19(TE)+0.092(TES)+0.03(TI)+0.0012
(V)+0.024(P)+KQ
where:

ET=major source applicability factor for bulk gasoline terminals, 
ET1 means bulk gasoline terminal is a major source,
TF=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks,
TE=total number of external floating roof gasoline storage tanks 
with only primary seals,
TES=total number of external floating roof storage tanks with 
primary and secondary seals,
TI=total number of fixed-roof gasoline storage tanks with an 
internal floating roof,
V=number of valves in gasoline service,
P=number of pumps in gasoline service,
Q=gasoline throughput rate (liters/day),
K=3.18x10-6 for bulk gasoline terminals with uncontrolled loading 
racks (no vapor collection and processing systems), OR
K=(4.5 x 10-9) (EF+70) for bulk gasoline terminals with controlled 
loading racks (loading racks that have vapor collection and processing 
systems installed on the emission stream), and
EF=the federally enforceable emission standard for the vapor processor 
(mg of total organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded).

or
    (2) For which the owner or operator has documented to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major source as 
defined in section 112(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each pipeline breakout 
station, except those facilities:
    (1) For which the result, EP, of the following equation is 
less than 1:

EP=2.4(TF)+0.09(TE)+0.043(TES)+0.027(TI)+0.0009
(V)+0.009(P)

where:

EP=major source applicability factor for pipeline breakout 
stations, EP1 means pipeline breakout station is a 
major source, and

the definitions for TF, TE, TES, TI, V, and P are 
the same as provided in paragraph (a) of this section; or
    (2) For which the owner or operator has documented to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the facility is not a major source as 
defined in section 112(a)(1) of the Act.
    (c) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2) 
of this section, do not apply to bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline 
breakout stations located within a contiguous area and under common 
control of a petroleum refinery if the petroleum refinery is a major 
source under section 112(a)(1) of the Act.
    (d) The owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline 
breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart that is also 
subject to applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, Kb, 
VV, XX, and GGG of this chapter, or 40 CFR part 61, subparts J and V of 
this chapter, shall comply only with the provisions in each subpart 
that contain the most stringent control requirements for that facility.


Sec. 63.421  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have 
the meaning given them in the Act; in subparts A, K, Ka, Kb, VV, XX, 
and GGG of part 60 of this chapter; in subparts A, J, and V of part 61 
of this chapter; or in subpart A of this part. All terms defined in 
both subpart A of part 60 of this chapter and subpart A of this part 
shall have the meaning given in subpart A of this part. For purposes of 
this subpart, definitions in this section supersede definitions in 
other parts or subparts.
    Controlled loading rack means a loading rack equipped with vapor 
collection and processing systems that reduce displaced vapor emissions 
to no more than 80 milligrams of total organic compounds per liter of 
gasoline loaded, as measured using the test methods and procedures in 
Sec. 60.503 (a) through (c) of this chapter.
    Equipment means each valve, pump, pressure relief device, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, and flange or other 
connector in the gasoline liquid transfer and vapor collection systems. 
This definition also includes the entire vapor processing system except 
the exhaust port(s) or stack(s).
    Gasoline tank truck means a delivery tank truck or railcar used at 
bulk gasoline terminals which is loading gasoline or which has loaded 
gasoline on the immediately previous load.
    In gasoline service means that a piece of equipment is used in a 
system that transfers gasoline or gasoline vapors.
    In VHAP service or In VOC service means, for the purposes of this 
subpart, in gasoline service.
    Operating parameter value means an established value for control 
equipment or operating condition, which, if achieved by itself or 
combination with one or more other operating parameter values, 
determines that and owner or operator has complied with an applicable 
emission limit or standard.
    Pipeline breakout station means a facility along a pipeline 
containing storage vessels used to temporarily store gasoline from the 
pipeline.
    Uncontrolled loading rack means a loading rack used to load 
gasoline tank trucks that is not a controlled loading rack.
    Vapor-tight gasoline tank truck means a gasoline tank truck which 
has demonstrated within the 12 preceding months that its product 
delivery tank will sustain a pressure change of not more than 750 
pascals (75 mm of water) within 5 minutes after it is pressurized to 
4,500 pascals (450 mm of water) or evacuated to 1,500 pascals (150 mm 
of water). This capability is to be demonstrated using the pressure and 
vacuum test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 60 of this chapter, 
appendix A, Reference Method 27.
    Volatile organic liquid (VOL) means, for the purposes of this 
subpart, gasoline.


Sec. 63.422  Standards: Loading racks.

    (a) Each owner or operator of loading racks at a bulk gasoline 
terminal subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply with 
the requirements in Sec. 60.502 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, of this 
chapter except for paragraphs (b) and (c) of that section. For purposes 
of this section, the term ``affected facility'' used in Sec. 60.502 of 
this chapter means the loading racks that load gasoline tank trucks at 
the bulk gasoline terminals subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (b) Emissions to the atmosphere from the loading racks and the 
vapor collection and processing system due to the loading of gasoline 
tank trucks shall not exceed 10 milligrams of total organic compounds 
per liter of gasoline loaded. Each owner or operator shall comply as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than February 8, 1997 at 
existing facilities and upon startup for new facilities.
    (c) Owners or operators of new bulk gasoline terminals shall 
install a system at the loading racks used to load gasoline tank trucks 
that will maintain a vacuum in each gasoline tank truck during loading. 
The system shall satisfy the following requirements:
    (1) During loading, a continuous vacuum shall be maintained in the 
vapor collection system as measured no more than 0.3 meter from the 
interface between the vapor collection system coupler and the gasoline 
tank truck vapor collection adapter; and
    (2) An interlock system shall prevent loading from beginning until 
a vacuum has been achieved, and shall shut down the loading process if 
the vacuum is lost.


Sec. 63.423  Standards: Storage vessels.

    The owner or operator of each storage vessel greater than or equal 
to 75 cubic meters used to store gasoline shall equip each storage 
vessel according to the requirements in Sec. 60.112b(a)(1) through (4) 
of this chapter. At new bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout 
stations, compliance shall be achieved upon startup. Existing bulk 
gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations shall be in 
compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than February 
8, 1997


Sec. 63.424  Standards: Equipment leaks.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a new bulk gasoline terminal or new 
pipeline breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 60.482-1 to 60.482-10 of 
this chapter, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. At 
new bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations, initial 
compliance shall be achieved upon startup.
    (b) Each owner or operator of an existing bulk gasoline terminal or 
pipeline breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall:
    (1) monitor pump seals in accordance with Sec. 60.482-2 of this 
chapter, except the frequency of monitoring specified in Sec. 60.482-
2(a)(1) of this chapter shall be on a quarterly basis; and
    (2) monitor valves in accordance with Sec. 60.482-7 of this 
chapter, except the frequency of initial monitoring specified in 
Sec. 60.482-7(a) of this chapter shall be on a quarterly basis. The 
provisions of Sec. 60.482-7(c) of this chapter do not apply. At 
existing bulk gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout stations, initial 
compliance shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than August 8, 1994.
    (c) An owner or operator may elect to comply with the alternative 
standards for valves in Sec. 60.483-1 and Sec. 60.483-2 of this 
chapter.
    (d) Owners or operators of bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline 
breakout stations subject to the provisions of this subpart shall not 
cause or allow gasoline to be spilled, discarded in sewers, stored in 
open containers, or handled in any other manner that would result in 
vapor release to the atmosphere.


Sec. 63.425  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the emission standard for 
loading racks in Sec. 63.422(b) shall conduct a performance test on the 
vapor processing system according to the test methods and procedures in 
Sec. 60.503 of this chapter, except a reading of 500 ppm shall be used 
to determine the level of leaks under Sec. 60.503(b) of this chapter to 
be repaired. If a flare is used to control loading rack emissions, and 
emissions from this device cannot be measured using these methods and 
procedures, the provisions of Sec. 63.11(b) shall apply.
    (b) For each performance test conducted under paragraph (a) of this 
section, a monitored operating parameter value for the vapor processing 
system shall be determined using the following procedure:
    (1) During the performance test, continuously record the 
appropriate operating parameter as determined under Sec. 63.427(a);
    (2) The monitored operating parameter value is the average of 
values recorded during loadings of gasoline tank trucks that occur 
during performance test period in which the source has demonstrated 
compliance with the emission standard.
    (c) For performance tests performed after the initial test, the 
owner or operator shall document the reasons for any change in the 
value for the operating parameter since the previous performance test.
    (d) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline 
breakout station subject to the equipment leak provisions of 
Sec. 63.424 (a), (b), or (c) shall comply with the test methods and 
procedures in Sec. 60.485 (b) through (g) of this chapter.
    (e) The owner or operator of each storage vessel subject to the 
provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with the testing requirements in 
Sec. 60.113b of this chapter, and with the requirements in paragraph 
(b) of this section when electing to comply with Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of 
this chapter.


Sec. 63.426  Alternative means of emission limitation.

    (a) For determining the acceptability of alternative means of 
emission limitation for storage vessels under Sec. 63.423, the 
provisions of Sec. 60.114b of this chapter apply.
    (b) For determining the acceptability of alternative means of 
emission limitation for equipment leaks under Sec. 63.424, the 
provisions of Sec. 60.484 of this chapter apply.


Sec. 63.427  Continuous monitoring.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, certify, 
operate, and maintain, according to the manufacturer's specifications, 
the monitoring equipment specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), 
or (a)(4) of this section, as appropriate. All monitoring equipment 
shall be equipped with a continuous recorder for continuously recording 
and calculating 6 hour average values of the information required in 
this paragraph.
    (1) Where a carbon adsorption system is used, an organic 
concentration monitoring device shall be installed in the exhaust air 
stream.
    (2) Where a refrigeration condenser system is used, a temperature 
monitoring device shall be installed immediately downstream from the 
outlet to the condenser section. Alternatively, an organic 
concentration monitoring device may be installed in the exhaust air 
stream.
    (3) Where a thermal oxidation system is used, a temperature 
monitoring device shall be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork 
immediately downstream from the firebox in a position before any 
substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (4) Where a flare is used, a heat-sensing device, such as an 
ultraviolet beam sensor or a thermocouple, shall be installed in 
proximity to the pilot light to indicate the presence of a flame.
    (5) Monitoring an alternative operating parameter other than those 
listed this paragraph shall be allowed upon demonstrating to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the alternative parameter provides 
continuous compliance with Sec. 63.422(b).
    (b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall operate the vapor processor in a 
manner not to exceed the operating parameter value at Sec. 63.427(a) 
(1) and (2), or below the operating parameter value at 
Sec. 63.427(a)(3), and established using the procedure in 
Sec. 63.425(b). In cases where an alternative pursuant to 
Sec. 63.427(a)(5) is approved, each owner or operator shall operate the 
vapor processor in a manner not to exceed or not to maintain, as 
appropriate, the alternative operating parameter value. Operation of 
the vapor processor in a manner exceeding or below the appropriate 
operating parameter value, as specified above, shall constitute 
violation of the emission limit in Sec. 63.422(b).
    (c) Owners and operators subject to the provisions of 
Sec. 63.422(c) shall continuously monitor the pressure achieved in each 
gasoline tank truck during loading to ensure no exceedences in 
maintaining a negative pressure.
    (d) Owners and operators of storage vessels subject to the 
provisions of Sec. 63.423 shall comply with the monitoring requirements 
in Sec. 60.116b of this chapter, and in paragraph (a) of this section 
when electing to comply with Sec. 60.112b(a)(3) of this chapter.


Sec. 63.428  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline 
breakout station subject to the provisions of this subpart shall comply 
with the general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 
Sec. 63.10.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall keep records and furnish reports 
as specified in Sec. 60.505 (a) and (b) of this chapter.
    (c) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall:
    (1) Keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of the continuous 
monitoring data values and the calculated 6 hour rolling average values 
required under Sec. 63.427(a);
    (2) Include the performance test data specified in Sec. 63.425(b) 
in the Notification of Compliance Status report required under 
Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions; and
    (3) Record and report the following information when using a flare 
to comply with Sec. 63.422(b):
    (i) Flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-
assisted); and
    (ii) All visible emissions readings, heat content determinations, 
flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during 
the compliance determination required under Sec. 63.425(a).
    (d) If an owner or operator requests approval to use a vapor 
processing system or monitor a parameter other than those specified in 
Sec. 63.427(a), the owner or operator shall submit a description of 
planned reporting and recordkeeping procedures. The Administrator will 
specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of 
the review of the permit application.
    (e) Each owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall submit to the Administrator a 
quarterly report of exceedences or failures to maintain, as 
appropriate, the monitored operating parameter value required under 
Sec. 63.427 (a) and (b). Owners and operators of new bulk gasoline 
terminals subject to provisions of this subpart shall submit to the 
Administrator a quarterly report of all instances in which a vacuum are 
not maintained in a gasoline tank truck during loading. These quarterly 
reports shall contain the monitored operating parameter value readings 
for the days on which exceedences or failures to maintain have 
occurred, and a description and timing of the steps taken to repair or 
perform maintenance on the vapor collection system or parameter 
monitoring system. A report is not required for those quarters where 
there were no exceedences or failures to maintain, as appropriate, the 
operating parameter and no instances in which a vacuum was not 
maintained.
    (f) Owners and operators complying with Sec. 63.427(a) shall 
maintain a record of the monitored operating parameter data at the 
facility for 5 years. This record shall indicate the time intervals 
during which loadings of gasoline tank trucks have occurred or, 
alternatively, shall record the operating parameter only during such 
loadings. The date and time of day shall also be indicated on this 
record.
    (g) Owners and operators complying with Sec. 63.427(c) shall 
maintain a record of the gasoline tank truck pressure data at the 
facility for 5 years.
    (h) Each owner or operator of storage vessels subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall keep records for 5 years and furnish 
reports as specified in Sec. 60.115b of this chapter.
    (i) Each owner or operator of equipment subject to the provisions 
of this subpart shall keep records as specified in Sec. 60.486 (b) 
through (j) of this chapter, and shall furnish reports as specified in 
Sec. 60.487 of this chapter.
    (j) The reports required under all paragraphs of this section shall 
be consolidated into a Periodic Report and submitted to the 
Administrator on a semiannual basis. The additional Periodic Reports 
required under paragraph (e) of this section that fall between the 
semiannual reports shall be submitted separately. Each owner or 
operator shall certify in the Periodic Report that no excess emissions 
occurred during the quarters in which no excess report was filed under 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (k) The Administrator may request more frequent reporting of 
monitored operating parameter data if:
    (1) Monitored parameter values demonstrating the source is out of 
compliance more than 1 percent of the operating days in the previous 
reporting period, or
    (2) The monitoring system is out of service more than 5 percent of 
the operating time in the previous reporting period.

After 1 year of more frequent reporting, the owner or operator may 
request a return to quarterly reporting.


Sec. 63.429  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authority contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) The authority conferred in Sec. 63.426, and Sec. 63.427(a)(5) 
will not be delegated to any State.

[FR Doc. 94-2695 Filed 2-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P









[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X94-20304]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 4, 1994]


                                                    VOL. 59, NO. 43

                                              Friday, March 4, 1994

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4834-5]

 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Category: Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)

Correction

    In proposed rule document 94-2695 beginning on page 5868 in the 
issue of Tuesday, February 8, 1994 make the following corrections:


Sec. Sec. 63.422 and 63.423  [Corrected]

    1. On page 5889, in the first column, in Sec. 63.422(b), in the 
third line, and in Sec. 63.423 in the last line, ``February 8, 1997.'' 
should read (3 years after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register)''.


Sec. 63.424  [Corrected]

    2. On the same page, in the second column, in Sec. 623.424(b)(2), 
in the last line, ``August 8, 1994.'' should read ``(180 days after 
date of publishing of final rule in the Federal Register.)''

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute