# FROM: David Randall, Carrie Richardson Fry, and Karen Schaffner, RTI International

TO: Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS

FOR: EPA Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0871

DATE: January 2 0 , 201 2

SUBJECT: Survey of Control Technology for Transfer Operations and Analysis of Im pacts

for Transfer Operation Control Options

1. Purpose

This memorandum documents the results of the survey of control technologies for transfer

operations. One objective of this survey was to identify any new or improved technology,

monitoring technique or work practice that has not been identified and implemented in an

existing regulation for the control of emissions from transfer operations. Another objective was

to estimate the costs and environmental impacts for both existing control alternatives and any

new alternatives that are identified. The burden and costs of monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting activities for the alternatives were also estimated.

2. Legislative Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to review promulgated standards periodically to ensure

that ne w source performance standards (NSPS) and national emissions standards for hazardous

air pollutants (NESHAP) reflect advances in emissions reduction technology. Specifically,

Section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that “[t]he Administrator sha ll review, and

revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control

technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8

years.” Similarly, Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA to re view NSPS for a given source

category every 8 years, and, if appropriate, revise such standards. To facilitate these required

reviews, EPA is evaluating key emission sources that exist across several source categories to

provide a consistent framework when evaluating the emissions from these key sources for a

particular source category. This memorandum documents the technology review for transfer

operations.

3. Introduction

Transfer operations consist of loading and unloading of liquids at transfer racks. O nly loading

operations were considered in this analysis. (Unloading consists of transfers typically to storage

vessels; unloading emissions occur at the storage vessel, and emissions due to displacement of

vapors from the storage vessel are addressed in a separate technology review.) It is important to

note that the transfer rack, storage vessel, and connecting piping are typically part of the process

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

2 unit or affected source in existing regulations. Also, the emissions that occur from the connecting

piping system are part of equipment leak emissions, are subject to equipment leak standards in

these rules, and control alternatives for the equipment leak emissions are addressed in a separate

technology review.

Transfer operations are used to transfer material s from the facility, typically from storage

vessels, to transport vehicles and containers for transport to another site or location. Transport

vehicles include both tank cars (i.e., railcars) and cargo tanks (e.g., tank trucks). Containers are

portable car go units such as drums, portable tanks, or totes. (Transfers to barges or other marine

vessels are not considered in this analysis. In addition, containers do not include transport

vehicles or barges.) The transfer rack is the equipment that is used to tra nsfer materials, typically

liquid products, into transport vehicles and containers. A transfer rack consists of loading (and

unloading) arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves and other piping and equipment

that are needed to transfer liquid com modities or products. In general, when the equipment and

operations are physically separate (i.e., do not share common piping, valves, and other

equipment), the transfer racks are considered separate transfer racks.

4. Description of Emission Releases

Duri ng transfer operations, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile hazardous air

pollutants (VHAP) are emitted as transferred liquid displaces the vapor in the transport vehicle or

container. For uncontrolled operations, transfer operation emissions typ ically occur at the

loading hatch or opening of the transport vehicle or container. Emissions can also occur from

leaks in the transport vehicle or container. The rate at which these VOC and VHAP are emitted

varies depending on which type of transport vehi cle or container is being loaded (tanker truck,

railcar, drum, tote, etc.), whether the transport vehicle or container was empty before filling or

refilled while still containing a heel and vapors, the physical and chemical characteristics of the

liquid be ing loaded, and the type of loading method used.

Loading methods may include either splash loading or one of the two types of submerged

loading. In splash loading, the fill pipe dispensing the liquid enters through the top opening of

the transport vehicle or container, is lowered only part way into the tank, and dispenses the

commodity or liquid above liquid level in the transport vehicle or container. Splash loading

causes turbulence, vapor/liquid contact, and misting to occur. Use of splash loading, or t op

loading, results in significant vapor generation and loss, and in some cases, can entrain liquid

droplets in the vented vapors. (Submerged loading and bottom loading are other methods for

loading, are considered control techniques for loading, and so ar e discussed below in section 5. It

is assumed that bottom loading would not be conducted for container loading.)

Transfer operation emissions depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the liquid

being loaded. These characteristics include the volatility (or vapor pressure) and molecular

weight of the liquid being transferred, the temperature and pressure conditions of the transfer

operation, and the volume of material transferred.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

3 Loading emissions occur as the VOC and VHAP vapors present in the transport vehicle or

container are displaced by the liquid being loaded. The vapors in the transport vehicle or

container include either vapors generated as the liquid is being loaded, and/or vapors remaining

from residual commodity or liquid from the previous load (if present).

Whether any residual vapors are present depends on the previous transfer operation that occurred

in the transport vehicle or container and whether the transfer vehicle or container was cleaned. If

the previous liquid in the ta nk was nonvolatile, or if the tank has been cleaned, then the tank

space likely contains vapor

- free air. If the previous liquid in the tank was volatile and has not

been cleaned or vented, then the air in the tank space will contain VOC or VHAP vapors, whi ch

will be displaced and expelled during the loading operation along with the new vapors generated

during loading. If the transport vehicle or container is in dedicated service, then the same liquid

is loaded, and emissions will be fairly consistent (depen ding on the loading method and the

loading condition temperature and pressure). If the transport vehicle or container is in switch

service, the emissions will vary significantly due to the volatility of the previous liquid loaded.

Typically, for small cont ainer loading, the container is likely empty and clean prior to loading.

5. Identification of Control Options for Transfer Operations

Transfer to Transport Vehicles

No new technologies for transfer operations to transport vehicles have been identified in the

technology review. Existing technologies include submerged loading and bottom loading. More

effective technologies include conveying displaced emissions through a closed vent system to a

control device, vapor balancing, and routing displaced emissions to a fuel gas system. The

submerged/bottom loading techniques may be implemented alone or in combination with any of

the more effective techniques. An additional technique that may be implemented with any of

these control techniques is to load regulated ma terial only into transport vehicles that have been

demonstrated to be vapor tight.

Submerged loading is a loading technique in which the fill pipe enters through the top opening of

the transport vehicle, extends into the vertical depth of the tank, and di scharges the commodity

near the bottom of the tank. The discharge point for submerged loading is typically between 6

and 12 inches above the bottom of the tank. In bottom loading, t here is a permanent fill pipe

installed at the bottom of the tank , and comm odity is loaded through this tank opening or fitting

at the tank bottom. Both submerged loading and bottom loading reduce emissions generated

from loading of transport vehicles by reducing turbulence and misting.

The technology for the closed vent system to a control device consists of piping that captures

displaced VOC and VHAP vapors from the vapor space of the transport vehicle and routes them

to a control device. Alternatively, the closed vent system to control device option could be

replaced by vapor balancing to the storage vessel from which the liquid being loaded originated.

Under vapor balancing, displaced vapors from the vapor space are captured and routed through

piping back to the storage vessel (rather than to a control device). If emissions ar e routed to a

fuel gas system, the pollutants are burned, just as in a combustion based control system. The

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

4 performance of each of these systems is considered to be similar. Furthermore, vapor balancing

may not be feasible if

, to prevent venting during tra nsfer, set points on pressure relief devices in

the system have to be set at levels above the operating design pressure of atmospheric storage

vessels. In addition, fuel gas systems may be impractical unless the transfer emissions can be

combined with othe r, more significant emissions. Therefore, we determined impacts only for the

closed vent system to control device approach in this analysis.

Management p ractices to ensure that the transport vehicle is vapor

- tight and leak

- free include

vapor

- tightness tes ting using EPA Method 27. Current rules require such testing annually. In

addition to vapor

- tightness testing for the transport vehicle, facilities also monitor the

pressure/vacuum during loading operations, to ensure the loading does not occur outside of the

P/V settings.

Thus, alternatives for which impacts were evaluated are:

1. Submerged loading or bottom loading with Method 27 monitoring of transport vehicles

(Control Option TR1)

2. Control Option TR1 plus venting to control through a closed vent sy stem (Control Option

TR2)

Transfer to Containers

No new technologies for transfer operations to containers have been identified in the technology

review. Existing technologies include management practices such as ensuring covers and other

closure devices are secured in the closed position except when access is needed and testing to

ensure that containers are vapor tight. The testing could include either vapor tightness testing in

accordance with EPA Method 27 or monitoring for leaks in accordance with Met hod 21. Other

technologies include submerged fill and using containers with a fitted opening through which the

regulated material is filled (with subsequent purging of the transfer line before removing it from

the container opening). More effective techniq ues include conveying displaced emissions

through a closed vent system to a control device, vapor balancing, and conducting transfer in an

enclosure that is vented to a control device. The management practice and submerged loading

techniques can be impleme nted separately or in combination with any of the other options.

Submerged loading is a loading technique in which the fill pipe enters the top opening of the

container, extends to the bottom of the container, and discharges the commodity near the bottom

. Submerged loading reduces emissions generated from loading of containers by reducing

turbulence and misting.

The technology for the closed vent system to a control device consists of piping that captures

displaced vapors from the vapor space of the cont ainer and routes them to a control device. A

vapor balancing system is similar, except that piping routes the displaced vapors back to the

storage vessel that supplied the liquid that is transferred to the container. In another control

scenario for venting to a control device, transfer operations to a container is conducted inside an

enclosure, and the enclosure or room air is vented to a control device. All of these techniques

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

5 have similar performance. Therefore, we evaluated impacts only for a closed vent system to

control in this analysis.

In summary, the control options for which impacts were evaluated in this analysis are:

1

. Combination of submerged fill, management practices, and testing for leaks or vapor

tightness (Control Option TR3)

2

. Control Option TR3 plus venting to a control device through a closed vent system

(Control Option TR4)

6. Impacts Analysis

Model Facilities

Transfer Racks to Load Trans port Vehicles . To evaluate the control alternatives we used model

facilities. Parameters that varied among the models included the number of loading arms, the

total annual throughput through all arms, and the annual average partial pressure of the regulated

material over all transferred liquids. We assumed that the number of separate transfer racks at a

f

acility does not affect the impacts, so that a model facility with multiple loading arms could

represent actual facilities with either one or multiple transfer racks. The values for the throughput

and number of arms were approximated from the ranges of par ameters in the Background

Information Document for the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) (Volume 1C), and ranged

from 0.5 million gallons/year to 45 million gallons per year and 1

- 12 arms, respectively (U.S.

EPA, 1992). Vapor pressure values of 0.08, 0.4, 1, 3, and 6 psia were selected to encompass the

range of vapor pressures for common petroleum liquids and organic chemicals. A total of 41

model facilities were developed based on various combinations of these parameters, and impacts

for both Control Option T R1 and Control Option TR2 were estimated for each model. However,

because the impacts for many of the models were very similar, we selected only subsets of the

models for discussion in this memorandum. The selected models represent ranges of throughputs

an d vapor pressures over which any regulatory applicability decisions are likely to be made.

Table 1 lists the characteristics for the models used to illustrate impacts for both of the control

options (TR1 and TR2) . Attachment A summarizes the characteristic s and impacts for all 41 of

the models.

Transfer Racks to Load Containers . Model transfer racks for container loading were developed

based on the range of throughputs reported by facilities that responded to a survey for the

Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (Smith, 2002a). We also varied annual average

Reid vapor pressures from 1.5 to 8 psia. All model facilities have a single filling station.

We developed a total of 28 model facilities based on various combinations of these parameters.

However , we selected only six models for discussion because these models cover the range of

impacts as well as the range of throughputs and vapor pressures. Table 2 lists the characteristics

of these models. Attachment B presents the characteristics and impacts f or all 28 of the models.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

6 Table 1. Model facilities for transfer to transport vehicles

Control Option TR1 Control Option TR2

Model Throughput

(million

gal/yr) Average

vapor

pressure

(psia) Number of

arms Model Throughput

(million

gal/yr) Average

vapor

pr essure

(psia) Number of

arms

A 2 0.08 0 1 J 15 1 .0 6

B 2 1 .0 2 K 15 3 .0 2

C 2 3 .0 2 L 15 6 .0 6

D 21 0.08 0 4 M 25 1 .0 10

E 21 1 .0 4 N 25 3 .0 8

F 21 3 .0 4 O 25 6 .0 8

G 45 0.08 0 12 P 45 1 .0 6

H 45 1 .0 6 Q 45 3 .0 6

I 45 3 .0 6 R 45 6 .0 12



# Table 2. Mo del facilities for transfer to containers

Model Throughput (thousand gal/yr) Reid Vapor Pressure (psia)

S 100 1.5

T 5,000 1.5

U 100 3. 4

V 5,000 3. 4

W 100 8 .0

X 5,000 8 .0



# Emission Estimates

For loading transport vehicles :

1

. Uncontrolled

Uncontrolle d VOC emissions were estimated using equation 1 in AP

- 42 chapter 5.2

- 4 (U.S.

EPA, 1995). For this analysis, we assumed an average operating temperature of 60°F and an

average vapor molecular weight of 80. 1 

# Other inputs in the equation are the total annual

throughput and the average annual vapor pressure of the transferred liquids, both of which vary

by model as noted in Table 1. We also used the saturation factor for splash loading (i.e., 1.45).

1 

# The average molecular weight is approximately the same as for benzene. It is also slightly higher than the vapor

molecular weight for gasol ine while being slightly lower than the molecular weights for common chemicals such as

toluene and hexane. It is also about the midpoint of the range for most organic HAP.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

7 2

. Control Option TR1: Submerged loading performance

According to AP

- 42 chapter 5.2, the saturation factor for submerged loading is estimated to be

0.6 (U.S. EPA, 1995). Reducing the saturation factor also reduces the concentration of organic

compounds in the gases that are displaced by liquid when loading the transp ort vehicle. Thus, the

use of submerged loading reduces emissions by about 60 percent compared to the uncontrolled

emissions.

3

. Control Option TR2: Submerged loading plus closed vent system to control performance

We assumed that the closed vent system and flare reduce emissions by 98 percent. Using this

control in addition to submerged loading results in an estimated reduction of more than 99

percent relative to uncontrolled splash loading. Vapor tightness testing of the transport vehicles

helps ensure tha t these are the only emissions associated with transfers.

4

. Summary

The uncontrolled emissions and controlled emissions for Control Options TR1 and TR2 are

shown in Table 3 for each model facility that loads transport vehicles.

Table 3. Emissions by contro l option for model transfer racks that load transport vehicles

Control Option TR1 Control Option TR2

Model Uncontrolled VOC

emissions (tpy) Controlled

emissions (tpy) Model Uncontrolled VOC

emissions (tpy) Controlled

emissions (tpy)

A 0.22 0. 0 92 J 2 1 0. 1 7

B 2.8 1.2 K 62.5 0.5 2

C 8.3 3. 5 L 1 30 1.0

D 2.3 0.9 7 M 3 5 0.2 9

E 29 12 N 10 0 0. 86

F 88 3 6 O 2 10 1.7

G 5.0 2.1 P 62.5 0. 5 2

H 63 26 Q 1 90 1.6

I 190 78 R 380 3.1



# For loading containers :

1. Uncontrolled

Uncontrolled emissions from container loadi ng were estimated using the vehicle refueling

equation and the transfer loss equation in Chapter 5 of AP

- 42 (i.e.

, equation 6 in section 5.2.2.3

and equation 1 in section 5.2.2.1.1, respectively) (AP

- 42, 1995) . Th e vehicle refueling equation

previously was selected for estimat ing baseline emissions from container loading in the analysis

for the OLD NESHAP because the analysts noted that surveyed OLD facilities were using

service station type nozzles to dispense liquids into containers, and the y determined t he results

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

8 using the transfer loss equation to be extremely high (Smith, 2002b). However, a problem with

the vehicle refueling equation is that it is not reliable at low vapor pressures. Specifically, as the

vapor pressure approaches zero, the emissions ar e estimated to be negative. Therefore, for this

analysis we estimated the emissions using both equations, but we modified the splash loading

saturation factor for the transfer lo ss equation . If we were to use the splash loading saturation

factor (i.e., 1.4 5) in the transfer rack loss equation, the emissions would be much higher than the

results from the vehicle refueling equation. However, this factor may not be realistic for

container loading given the much lower filling rate for containers. Thus, we selec ted a saturation

factor (i.e., 0.88) that resulted in the same emissions as the vehicle refueling equation when the

Reid vapor pressure is 3. 4 psia as in the OLD analysis. We also assumed the true vapor pressure

at the assumed operating temperature of 60°F is about 40 percent of the Reid vapor pressure (this

value is a little high for pure compounds and a little low for gasoline). For higher Reid vapor

pressures, the transfer loss equation estimates lower emissions than the vehicle refueling

equation, and v ice versa for lower Reid vapor pressures. As in the analysis for transfer racks that

load transport vehicles, we assumed the average vapor molecular weight is 80. The specific

results used in the impacts analysis are described in the Cost Effectiveness dis cussion of this

memorandum (see Tables 9 and 10)

.

2. Control Option TR3 performance

As in the analysis for loading transport vehicles, we assumed that the saturation factor for

submerged loading of containers is 0.6. Thus, the estimated reduction achieve d by submerged

loading is 32 percent ([0.88

- 0.6]/0.88 = 0.32). Management practices such as ensuring that

closure devices are secured in the closed position and conducting vapor tightness tests for

containers are expected to reduce emissions as well, but w e lack information to quantify such

reductions.

3. Control Option TR4 performance

As in the analysis for transfer racks that are used to load transport vehicles, we assumed the flare

in Control Option TR4 reduces emissions by 98 percent. Using the flare in addition to submerged

fill reduces emissions by almost 99 percent.

4. Summary

Table 4 shows the uncontrolled and controlled emissions for Control Options TR3 and TR4 for

model facilities that load containers.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

9 Table 4. Emissions by control option f or model transfer racks that load containers

Uncontrolled VOC emissions

(tpy) Controlled emissions (tpy)

Model Control Option TR3 Control Option TR4

TL VR TL VR TL VR

S 1 

# 0.051 0.014 0.035 0.009 2 0.000 69 0.000 18

T 1 

# 2.5 0.67 1.7 0.46 0.035 0.009 2

U 0 .11 0.078 0.0016

V 5. 7 3. 9 0.078

W 2 

# 0.27 0.36 0.18 0.25 0.00 37 0.00 49

X 2 

# 13 18 9.2 12 0.18 0.25

1 

# For models that transfer materials with a low average vapor pressure, t he larger uncontrolled emissions

estimate is obtained when using the transfer loss ( TL) equation in AP

- 42 section 5.2.2.1.1

. 2 

# F or models that transfer materials with a high average vapor pressure, t he larger uncontrolled emissions

estimate is obtained when using the vehicle re fuel ing (VR) equation in AP

- 42 section 5.2.2.3

.



# Capital Costs

Submerged loading for transport vehicles (Control Option TR1) : The total capital investment to

convert a loading rack from splash loading to submerged loading was estimated based on an

estimate in the docket for the Gasoline Distribution Area Source NESHA P (Weaver, 2007). This

estimate was $25,000 in 2006 dollars for a transfer rack with 6 arms. To estimate costs for the

model facilities in this analysis, we assumed that the cost per arm would be the same regardless

of the number arms being converted (i.e. , no economies of scale). We then scaled the costs from

2006 dollars to 2010 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Indexes for 2006 and

2010. For example, we estimated the cost for submerged loading for transport vehicles to be

$28,000 for 6 lo ading arms (i.e., $25,000 * 550.8 / 499.6 ).

Submerged fill for loading containers (Control Option TR3) : The total capital investment was

estimated using the same procedure as for Control Option TR1, except that the average size of

the drop tube was assume d to be half that of the average for Control Option TR1, and the

equipment costs were scaled using the six

- tenths factor rule

. According to the six

- tenths factor

rule, if the cost of a piece of equipment at one capacity is known, then the cost of a similar piece

of equipment with X times the capacity of the first is X 0.6 

# times the cost of the first piece of

equipment (Peters et al, 2003) . In this analysis, we used the drop tube size as the capacity scaling

parameter ( i.e., X=0.5 ). We also assumed 10 hours o f planning time by an engineer to determine

needed changes and decide on an approach; labor rates were the same as the r ates used in other

recent analyses (Randall, 2012). Thus , w e estimated the total capital investment for submerged

fill for one container loading station to be $ 4,000 ( ( $2 5 ,000 * 550.8/499.6 * 1 arm / 6 arms ) *

( 0.5 ) 0.6 

# + 10 hr * $92.72/hr )

Closed vent to control (Control Options TR2 and TR4) : The impacts for the closed vent system

to control options in this analysis were developed from th e analysis for the OLD NESHAP. The

impacts analysis for the OLD NESHAP used enclosed ground flares as the control device

(Smith, 2002c). These flares were determined to be a commonly used control for transfer racks,

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

10 and they were also determined to be the lowest cost option. Flare system equipment costs (in

1997 dollars) were estimated for small, medium, and large flares in the OLD analysis. The

corresponding flare gas flow rates for these models were 130 acfm, 200 acfm, and 260 acfm. We

plotted the equipme nt costs versus the flow rates for those models and developed an equation for

the curve through the three points. We used this equation to estimate the flare equipment costs

for each model transfer rack in this analysis. As in the OLD analysis, the purchas ed equipment

costs, including the flare, instrumentation, taxes, and freight, were estimated to be equal to 1.18

times the flare equipment costs alone. Direct and indirect installation costs were estimated to be

equivalent to 92 percent of the purchased eq uipment costs. We then scaled the total capital

investment to 2010 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Costs Indexes for 1997 and

2010.

Annual Costs

Submerged loading (Control Options TR1 and TR3)

. The total annual costs for submerged

loading i nclude costs for capital recovery; operation and maintenance; and property taxes,

insurance, and administration. We also estimated product recovery credits for the submerged

loading control option. The factors used to estimate these costs are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Factors used to estimate annual costs for submerged loading

Costing element Factor Comments

Capital recovery 0.1098 Calculated using standard equation assuming

equipment life of 15 years and an interest rate of

7% ( U.S. EPA, 2002)

Ope ration and maintenance 0.03 x TCI From analysis for Gasoline Distribution Area

Source NESHAP ( U.S. EPA, 1984; Hester, 2006)

Property taxes, insurance, and

administration 0.04 x TCI Standard factor in OAQPS cost estimates ( U.S.

EPA, 2002)

Product recovery credit $900/ton Representative cost for various bulk chemicals

(Parrish, 2007)



# Closed vent system to control device (Control Options TR2 and TR4)

. The total annual costs for

Control Options TR2 and TR4 include direct annual costs for operating labor, m aterials, steam,

pilot gas, and purge gas related to flare operation . The total annual costs also include indirect

annual costs for capital recovery, overhead, property taxes, insurance, and administration. The

factors used to estimate these costs for the model transfer racks are listed in Table 6.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

11 Table 6. Factors used to estimate annual costs for closed vent systems and flares

Costing element Factor Comments

Direct annual costs

Labor charges $22,800 x 1.45 Assumed labor rates increased by 45%

betwe en 1997 and 2010 (comparable to

the equipment cost increase)

Material $10,360 Assumed same value as in the OLD

analysis (Smith, 2002c)

Purge gas $400 Assumed average of the values used in the

OLD analysis (Smith, 2002c)

Pilot gas $2,045 Assumed sa me value as in the OLD

analysis (Smith, 2002c)

Steam $55.1/acfm Same unit cost as in OLD analysis (Smith,

2002c)

Indirect annual costs

Overhead 0.6 x (labor and material) Standard factor in OAQPS analyses (U.S.

EPA, 2002)

Property taxes, insura nce,

and administration 0.04 x TCI Standard factor in OAQPS analyses (U.S.

EPA, 2002)

Capital recovery 0.1424 x TCI 

# Calculated using standard equation

assuming equipment life of 10 years

and an interest rate of 7% ( U.S. EPA,

2002)

Vapor tightness

. Co sts to conduct EPA Method 27 testing with minimal, if any, maintenance

was estimated to cost about $350 in 1992 and $300 to $400 in 2006 (U.S. EPA, 199 4 ; Hester,

2006; Cavalier, 2003). DOT testing was estimated to cost about $200 in 1992 (U.S. EPA, 199 4 ).

Given the similarity of costs in 1992 and 2006, we assumed Method 27 testing costs in 2010

were also about $350, and DOT testing costs are still about $200. We do not know how many

transport vehicles are not already tested in accordance with Method 27. Thu s, we conducted a

sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of 10, 50 and 100 additional transport vehicles being

subject to Method 27 testing if a model transfer rack becomes subject to the Uniform Standards.

We also assumed all transport vehicles are already subject to at least the DOT requirements so

that the additional cost of a Method 27 testing requirement would consist of only the incremental

cost between DOT testing and Method 27 testing.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

12 Cost Effectiveness

Table 7 shows the cost and emission impacts of Control Option TR1 with no additional Method

27 testing and with 100 transport vehicles being subject to Method 27 testing for the first time.

Figures 1 and 2 show the results graphically for the same model facilities as well as several

others that are documented in Attachment A . T he results show the cost impacts of submerged

loading alone are low for nearly the entire range of potential facilities, and in many cases

switching to submerged loading would result in cost savings due to the substant ial product

recovery credit. However, cost effectiveness impacts are significantly hi gher if a substantial

number of additional vehicles would be subject to Method 27 testing , but it still results in a

savings when the throughputs and vapor pressure s of th e transferred material are relatively high

.

Table 7. Impacts for Control Option TR1 (submerged loading) for loading transport

vehicles

Model Emission

reduction

for

submerged

loading

(tpy) Total

Capital

Cost ($) Product

Recovery

Credit

($/yr) Total annual cost ($/yr)

, accounting for product

recovery Cost effectiveness

($/ton)

No

Method 27

testing With 100

Method 27

tests per

year No

Method 27

testing With 100

Method 27

tests per

year

A 0.13 4,600 (120) 710 1 6

, 0 00 5,400 12 0 ,000

B 1.6 9,200 (1, 500 ) 46 0 15, 0 00 110 9,300

C 4.9 9,200 (4,400) (2,7 0 0) 12, 0 00 (560) 2,500

D 1.4 18, 0 00 (1,2 00 ) 2,100 17, 0 00 1,500 12, 0 00

E 17 18, 0 00 (15, 0 00) (12, 0 00) 2,900 (710) 170

F 51 18, 0 00 (46, 0 00) (4 3

, 0 00) (2 8

, 0 00) (840) (540)

G 2.9 55, 0 00 (2,6 0 0) 7,300 22, 0 00 2,500 7 ,600

H 37 2 8

, 0 00 (33,000) (28,000) (13,000) (770) (360)

I 110 2 8

, 0 00 (99,000) (94,000) (79,000) (860) (720)

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

13 Figure 1. Cost effectiveness of Control Option TR1 (without Method 27 vapor tightness

testing) for model facilities transferring material wit h annual average vapor pressures

between 0.08 psia and 3 psia.

Figure 2. Cost effectiveness of Control Option TR1 (with Method 27 vapor tightness testing

of 100 transport vehicles) for model facilities transferring material with annual vapor

pressures b etween 0.08 psia and 3 psia.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

14 Table 8 shows the impacts of Control Option TR2. For a given model, t he incremental cost

effectiveness values for Control Option TR2 are higher (worse) than the cost effectiveness values

for Control Option TR1 (see Attachment A) . Note , however, that the values in Table 8 are not

much higher than those in Table 7 ; this is because the model facilities represented in Table 8

have higher throughputs and material vapor pressures than those in Table 7. In Table 8, a lso note

that the total capital and annual costs are the same for models with the same number of loading

arms because the flows are assumed to be the same for such models.

Table 8. Impacts for Control Option TR2 (submerged loading plus closed vent system to

flare) for load ing transport vehicles

Model Emissions

reduction for

submerged

loading with

CVS/flare (tpy) Total Capital

Cost ($) Total Annual

Cost ($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness Vs

Uncontrolled

, no

Method 27

testing ($/ton) Incremental

Cost

Effectiveness Vs

Control Option

TR 1 , no Method

27 testing

($/ton)

J 2 1 110,000 94,000 4,300 11,000

K 62 60,000 79, 0 00 780 3,100

L 12 0 110,000 94,000 270 1,900

M 34 200,000 120 ,000 3,100 8,200

N 10 0 150,000 10 0 ,000 540 2,500

O 2 10 150,000 10 0 ,000 1.8 1,200

P 62 110,000 94,000 1,100 3 ,700

Q 1 90 110,000 94,000 0 .19 1,200

R 37 0 270,000 13 0 ,000 (150) 860



# Table 9 shows the impacts of Control Option TR3 with no Method 27 vapor tightness testing.

For models with a throughput of 5 million gal/yr, the product recovery credit is large enoug h that

the control results in a cost savings. The impacts for models when vapor tightness testing is

required are not shown in Table 9 because the impacts are extremely high (see Attachment B for

estimates for model facilities with 100 containers to test). Method 27 testing of containers also

would be impractical because a very large number of tests would be requ i red, unless the testing

is limited to large containers and/or containers storing very volatile material. Furthermore, unlike

transport vehicles, t he testing would most likely have to be done onsite because it would be

difficult to take the containers to a facility that provides a testing service. We do not have

information on whether testing companies have the capability to conduct testing at a cust omer’s

site.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

15 Table 9. Impacts for Control Option TR3 (submerged loading) for loading containers

Model Emissions reduction for

submerged loading (tpy) 1 

# Total Capital

Cost ($) Total Annual

Cost ($/yr) Cost Effectiveness

($/ton)

S 0.016 4,000 700 43, 0 00

T 0.81 4,000 (13) (16)

U 0.036 4,000 680 1 9

, 0 00

V 1.8 4,000 (920) (510)

W 0.086 4,000 630 5,500

X 4.3 4,000 (3,200) (550)

1 

# Based on the higher estimate of uncontrolled emissions from Table 4.

Table 10 shows the impacts of Control Option TR4. Both the overall cost effectiveness and the

incremental cost effectiveness relative to Control Option TR3 are significantly higher than for

Control Option TR3. Note that models T, V, and X , those with the best cost effectiveness,

represent facilities with the high est throughput for container loading reported by OLD facilities

(Smith, 2002a). If a chemical manufacturing facility has higher container loading throughputs

that the OLD facilities, then the cost impacts would be lower than those estimated for the models

in Table 10.

In addition, the models represent transfer racks that are dedicated to container loading. If a

facility loads both transport vehicles and containers at the same rack(s) and can route emissions

from all arms to the same control device, then th e impacts in Table 8 would apply. Note that the

costs are the same for all models because the fill rate is assumed to be the same for all models so

the displaced gas flow rate is also the same for all models.

Table 10. Impacts for Control Option TR4 (subm erged loading plus closed vent system to

flare) for loading containers

Model Emissions

reduction for

submerged

loading and

CVS/flare (tpy) 1 

# Total

Capital

Cost ($) Total

Annual Cost

($/yr) Cost

Effectiveness

($/ton) Incremental Cost

Effectiveness Vs

Control Option TR3

($/ton)

S 0.050 45,000 80, 0 00 1,600,000 2,400,000

T 2.5 45,000 80, 0 00 32,000 47,000

U 0.11 45,000 80, 0 00 720,000 1,100,000

V 5.6 45,000 80, 0 00 14,000 21,000

W 0.36 45,000 80, 0 00 230,000 330,000

X 18 45,000 80, 0 00 4,300 6,600

1 

# Based on th e higher estimate of uncontrolled emissions from Table 4.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

16 7

. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

Table 11 lists potential initial monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities for each control

option and the associated labor burden and costs p er facility . Table 12 provides similar

information for recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities. Labor rates were

assumed to be $92.72/hr of engineering labor (or $80.62/hr of total labor including management

and administrative labor)

, as in other recent analyses (Randall, 2012). The labor hours in Tables

11 and 12 are total labor

.

Table 11. Initial monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden and costs for Control

Options TR1, TR2, TR3, and TR4

Control

Option Initial Activities Bur den (hr) Initial

Costs ($) Comments

TR1 Create and post signs at the

transfer rack(s) to remind

employees to load only

transport vehicles that are

vapor tight 2 .3 1 9 0

TR2 Create and post signs as for

Control Option TR1 2 .3 1 9 0

Identify any potential sources

of vapor leakage in closed

vent system to monitor 2 .3 1 9 0

TR3 None

TR4 Identify any potential sources

of vapor leakage in closed

vent system to monitor 2 .3 1 9 0

Purchase differential pressure

gas flow meter and

temperature indicator 84 19,0 00 Burden and costs were

developed in a separate analysis

(Gibson et al, 2012)

Conduct Method 22 test of

flare 3 .5 28 0 Assumed engineering labor of 2

hours for the test plus 1 hour for

preparation and documentation

of results.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

17 Table 12. Recurring moni toring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden and costs for

Control Options TR1, TR2, TR3, and TR4

Control

Option Recurring Activities Burden

(hr /yr ) Total

Annual

Costs

($ /yr ) Comments

TR1 Annualized initial costs N/A 20 Annualized over estimated transfer r ack life

of 15 years, assuming a 7% interest rate

Keep records of vapor

tightness testing 3 5 2,8 0 0 Assumed 5 min/d or 2.5 hr/mo to track

paperwork or electr o nic forms

TR2 Annualized initial costs N/A 20 Annualized over estimated transfer rack life

of 1 5 years, assuming a 7% interest rate

Keep records of transport

vehicle vapor tightness

testing 3 5 2,8 0 0 Assumed 5 min/d or 2.5 hr/mo to track

paperwork or electronic forms

Conduct LDAR for closed

vent system N/A 100 Assumed monitoring is conducted by a

contractor, and a ssumed cost is in range of

estimated costs for closed vent systems that

convey emissions from storage vessels

(Randall, 201 2 )

Conduct monitoring of

flare 210 17,000 Burden and costs are for a differential

pressure gas flow meter and a temperature

indicator (Gibson et al, 2012). Burden and

costs include recordkeeping and reporting.

TR3 Keep records of Method

21 or 27 monitoring of

subject containers 2.3 190 Cost will vary depending on number of

subject containers, test method used, and

number of leakers. Assumed engineering

labor average of 1 hr/yr for recordkeeping

and 1 hr per year for reporting leaks

. TR4 Annualized initial costs

for Method 22 test and

identifying potential

sources of vapor leakage

from the closed vent

system N/A 52 Annualized initial costs over estimated

transfer rack life of 15 years, and assumed a

7% interest rate. Annualized capital costs for

the flow meter and temperature indicator are

included below in the annual costs for flare

monitoring.

Keep records of Me thod

21 or 27 monitoring of

subject containers 2.3 190 Same as for Control Option TR3

Conduct LDAR for closed

vent system N/A 100 Assumed monitoring is conducted by a

contractor, and assumed cost is in range of

estimated costs for closed vent systems tha t

convey emissions from storage vessels

(Randall, 2012)

Conduct monitoring of

flare 210 17,000 Same as for Contorl Option TR2.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

18 10. References

Cavalier, J. (2003, November). Summary of telephone conversation between J. Cavalier,

MACTEC Federal Programs a nd R. Schaffer, Weld

- It. Information on the cost of the

California tank truck vapor tightness standards. November 11, 1993. Docket Item No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0406

- 0018.

Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical Engineering.

Published by Access Intelligence. April 2011.

Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical Engineering.

Published by Access Intelligence. April 2004.

Gibson, G., J. Renzaglia, M. Thomas, and P. Crawford. 2012. Memorandum fr om G. Gibson, J.

Renzaglia, M. Thomas, and P. Crawford, ERG, to A. Bouchard and B. Shine, EPA/OAQPS.

Development of Monitoring Cost Estimates for the Proposed Part 65 Uniform Standards for

Control Devices

— Subpart M . January 20, 2012. Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0868.

Hester, C. (2006, October). Memorandum from C. Hester and T. Stephenson, MACTEC Federal

Programs, Inc. to S Shedd, EPA/SPPD. Gasoline Distribution Area Source Control Cost

Estimates . October 3, 2006. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0406

- 0063.

Pa rrish, K. (2007, October). Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, RTI International, to

K. Rackley, EPA/SPPD. Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory Options for Equipment Leaks

of VOC in the SOCMI . October 30, 2007. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0699

- 0090.

Peters, M., K. Timmerhaus, and R. West. 2003. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical

Engineers . Fifth Edition. McGraw

- Hill, New York, NY. pp. 242

- 243.

Randall, D. (201 2 ). Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI International to N. Parsons, EPA/SPPD.

Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts of Storage Vessel

Control Options

. January 20 , 201 2 . Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0871.

Smith, M. (2002a, April). Memorandum from M.Smith, EPA/SPPD. Memo No. 2: Model Plants

for the OLD Source Category in TSD Update

— Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD)

NESHAP. April 2002. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0138

- 0053.

Smith, M. (2002b, April). Memorandum from M.Smith, EPA/SPPD. Memo No. 3: Baseline

Emissions for the OLD Source Category in TSD Update

— Organic Liquids Distribution

(OLD) NESHAP. April 2002. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0138

- 0053.

Smith, M. (2002c, April). Memorandum from M.Smith, EPA/SPPD. Memo No. 6:

Environmental and Cost Impacts of the Proposed OLD NESHAP in TSD Update

— Organic

Liqui ds Distribution (OLD) NESHAP. April 2002. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

-

0138

- 0053.

# Technical Memorandum

– Technology Review for Transfer Operations

Januar y 20, 2012

19 U.S. EPA. (1984, July). Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline

Marketing Industry . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Mobil e

Sources. EPA

- 450/3

- 84

- 012a.

U.S. EPA. (1992, November). Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

— Background Information for Proposed

Standards. Volume 1C: Model Emissions Sources . Offic e of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. EPA

- 453/D

- 92

- 016c.

U.S. EPA. (1994 , January). Gasoline Distribution Industry (Stage I)

– Background Information

for Proposed Standards . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA

- 453/R

- 94

- 002a.

U.S. EPA. (199 5, January). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

, Volume 1:

Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP

- 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

U.S. EPA. (2002, January). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual Section 1 Chapter 2. Sixth

Edition . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA

- 452/B

- 02

- 001.

Weaver, P. (2007, January). Letter from P. Weaver, Independent Liquid Terminals Association,

to S. Shedd, EPA/SPPD. ILTA Responses to EP A Questions Following November 13

Conference Call . January 5, 2007. Docket Item No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0406

- 0099.

# ATTACHMENT A: IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS TR1 AND TR2Table A-1. Estimated Impacts of Control Options TR1 and TR2 for Model Transfer Racks That Load Transport VehiclesRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRackNumberofarms112484 12 6Totalannualthroughputperrack,milliongal/yr0.521521252545 45Averagethroughputperarm,milliongal/yr0.527.55.253.1256.25 3.75 7.5VOCvaporpressure,psia0.080.080.080.080.080.08 0.08 0.08EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions,lb/yr1114453,3354,6705,5595,55910,00610,006Uncontrolledemissions,tpy0.0560.221.672.332.782.785.005.00SubmergedloadingVOCemissions,lb/yr461841,3801,9322,3002,3004,1414,141Emissionsreductionforsubmergedloading,lbVOC/yr652611,9552,7373,2593,2595,8665,866Emissionreductionforsubmergedloading,tpy0.0330.130.981.371.631.632.932.93EmissionsreductionforCVS/flare,tpy10.0230.0900.6760.9471.1271.1272.0292.029EmissionstreamVOCflowperarm,lbmole/min0.000220.00022 0.000220.000220.000220.00022 0.00022 0.00022Totalgasflowperarm,lbmole/min0.0670.0670.0670.0670.0670.067 0.067 0.067VOCconcentration,ppmv3,2673,2673,2673,2673,2673,267 3,267 3,267Alternativecalcofconcentration,ppmv3,2653,2653,2653,2653,2653,265 3,265 3,265Displacedgasflowrateperarm,acfm25.4025.4025.4025.4025.4025.40 25.40 25.40Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack25.4025.4050.80101.60203.21101.60 304.81 152.41whenallarmsareinuse,acfmVOCconcentration,ppmv3,2673,2673,2673,2673,2673,267 3,267 3,267Streamheatingvalue,BTU/scf10.3210.32 10.3210.3210.3210.3210.3210.32Minimumrackoperatingtimehr/yr2Minimumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr44175658461274548329658Costsforsubmergedloading(OptionTR1)Totalcapitalinvestment,$4,5944,594 9,18718,37536,74918,37555,12427,562Capitalrecovery5045041,0092,0174,0352,0176,0523,026Propertytaxes,Insurance,Admin(0.04*TCI)1841843677351,4707352,2051,102OperationandMaintenance(0.03*TCI)1381382765511,1025511,654827ProductRecoveryCredit(29)(117)(880)(1,232)(1,466)(1,466) (2,640) (2,640)TotalAnnualCost$/yr7977097722,0725,1411,8377,2712,316Costeffectivenesswithoutproductrecovery,$/ton25,3446,336 1,6902,4144,0552,0283,3791,690Costeffectivenesswithproductrecovery,$/ton24,4445,4367901,5143,1551,1282,479790Method27testing3(sensitivityanalysis)10vehicles1,5001,500 1,5001,5001,5001,500 1,500 1,50050vehicles7,5007,500 7,5007,5007,5007,500 7,500 7,500100vehicles15,00015,000 15,00015,00015,00015,000 15,000 15,000Costeffectivenesswith100Method27testsperyear484,741120,51016,13312,47312,36110,3337,5945,904A‐1Table A-1 ContinuedCostsforCVS/flare(OptionTR2)Equipmentcostofsystem,1997$415,91015,910 18,48324,94245,42424,94282,72333,660Purchasedequipmentcost,1997$(PEC=1.18xEC)18,77418,774 21,81029,43253,60029,43297,61339,718Totalcapitalinvestment,2010$551,57051,570 59,90880,845147,23180,845268,129109,101Directannualcosts,2010$/yr647,26447,264 48,66351,46157,05751,461 62,653 54,259Indirectannualcosts,2010$/yr29,24229,242 30,76334,58246,69134,582 68,743 39,736Totalannualcost,$/yr$76,506$76,506 $79,426 $86,043$103,748$86,043 $131,396 $93,995CosteffectivenessofOption2(noMethod27testing)1,402,176350,14548,49038,05539,50231,88127,94719,411Incrementalcosteffectiveness,$/ton3,393,795848,449 117,44490,87792,04476,337 64,763 46,329IncrementalCEwith100Method27testsperyear4,059,1891,014,797139,624 106,720105,35289,64572,15653,722InputsTemperature,F60Molecularweight80Uncontrolled(splashloading)saturationfactor1.45Controlled(submergedloading)saturationfactor0.6Priceofrecoveredmaterial,$/ton900Capitalrecoveryfactor0.1098assuming7%interestand15yearsaveragetransferrateperarm190 gal/min(fromHONBidvol1Cfortransfertorailcars;slightlyloweraverageflowtotanktrucks)11,400 gal/hrAssumedTypicalHeatingValueofCompound15BTU/lb,000CEPlantIndex2006to2010dollars1.1025Submergedloadingcostin2010dollars27,562for6arms (Quoteof$25,000forconverting6armstosubmergedloadingprovidedbyILTAin2006.1Assumes98percentcontrolefficiencyfortheflare.2Minimumoperatingtimeassumesallarmsoperatesimultaneouslywhentherackisoperated.Actualoperatingtimeforrackswithmorethanonearmwillbegreaterthanthisvalue.3Assuming$350/test,butthatallvehiclesaresubjecttoDOTtestingatacostof$200sothattheincrementalcosttoconductMethod27testingis$150.4CVS/flarecostsarebasedonextrapolationofflarecostsinorganicliquiddistributionanalysis.Capitalcostofequipmentin1997dollarsestimatedusingTCI=13696e^(0.0059xflow).5Installationestimatedas92%ofPEC.CEPCIfor1997and2010are385and581,respectively.6AnnualcostsestimatedasinOLDanalysis,withlaborescalatedby45percent.A‐2Table A-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRackNumberofarms122694 10 6Totalannualthroughputperrack,milliongal/yr0.5215151521 25 45Averagethroughputperarm,milliongal/yr0.517.52.51.66675.25 2.5 7.5VOCvaporpressure,psia0.40.40.40.40.40.4 0.4 0.4EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions,lb/yr5562,22416,677 16,67716,67723,34827,79550,032Uncontrolledemissions,tpy0.281.118.348.348.3411.6713.9025.02SubmergedloadingVOCemissions,lb/yr2309206,901 6,9016,9019,66111,50220,703Emissionsreductionforsubmergedloading,lbVOC/yr3261,3049,7769,7769,77613,68716,29429,329Emissionreductionforsubmergedloading,tpy0.160.654.894.894.896.848.1514.66EmissionsreductionforCVS/flare,tpy10.1130.4513.3813.3813.3814.7345.63610.144EmissionstreamVOCflowperarm,lbmole/min0.001090.001090.00109 0.00109 0.001090.00109 0.00109 0.00109Totalgasflowperarm,lbmole/min0.0670.0670.067 0.0670.0670.067 0.067 0.067VOCconcentration,ppmv16,33316,33316,333 16,33316,33316,333 16,333 16,333Alternativecalcofconcentration,ppmv16,32716,32716,327 16,32716,32716,327 16,327 16,327Displacedgasflowrateperarm,acfm25.4025.4025.40 25.4025.4025.40 25.40 25.40Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack25.4050.8050.80 152.41228.61101.60 254.01 152.41whenallarmsareinuse,acfmVOCconcentration,ppmv16,33316,33316,333 16,33316,33316,333 16,333 16,333Streamheatingvalue,BTU/scf51.6251.6251.62 51.6251.6251.6251.6251.62Minimumrackoperatingtimehr/yr2Minimumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr4386.8772.657.8921930.14620.460219657.53.30.89Costsforsubmergedloading(OptionTR1)Totalcapitalinvestment,$4,5949,1879,18727,56241,34318,37545,93727,562Capitalrecovery5041,0091,009 3,0264,5392,0175,0443,026Propertytaxes,Insurance,Admin(0.04*TCI)1843673671,1021,6547351,8371,102OperationandMaintenance(0.03*TCI)1382762768271,2405511,378827ProductRecoveryCredit(147)(587)(4,399) (4,399) (4,399)(6,159) (7,332) (13,198)TotalAnnualCost$/yr6791,065(2,748)5563,034(2,855)927(8,243)Costeffectivenesswithoutproductrecovery,$/ton5,0692,5343381,0141,5214831,014338Costeffectivenesswithproductrecovery,$/ton4,1691,634(562)114621(417)114(562)Method27testing3(sensitivityanalysis)10vehicles1,5001,5001,500 1,5001,5001,500 1,500 1,50050vehicles7,5007,5007,500 7,5007,5007,500 7,500 7,500100vehicles15,00015,00015,000 15,00015,00015,000 15,000 15,000Costeffectivenesswith100Method27testsperyear96,22824,6492,507 3,1823,6891,7751,955461A‐3.Table A-1 ContinuedCostsforCVS/flare(OptionTR2)Equipmentcostofsystem,1997$415,91018,48318,483 33,66052,76824,94261,29933,660Purchasedequipmentcost,1997$(PEC=1.18xEC)18,77421,81021,810 39,71862,26629,43272,33339,718Totalcapitalinvestment,2010$551,57059,90859,908109,101 171,03580,845198,688109,101Directannualcosts,2010$/yr647,26448,66348,663 54,25958,45651,461 59,855 54,259Indirectannualcosts,2010$/yr29,24230,76330,763 39,73651,03334,582 56,077 39,736Totalannualcost,$/yr$76,506$79,426$79,426 $93,995 $109,489$86,043 $115,932 $93,995CosteffectivenessofOption2(noMethod27testing)280,01073,0019,27211,43413,6077,1858,4793,457Incrementalcosteffectiveness,$/ton678,759176,16623,489 27,79732,37918,175 20,571 9,266IncrementalCEwith100Method27testsperyear811,838209,43627,925 32,23336,81521,34423,23210,744)A‐4Table A-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRackNumberofarms122694 10 12 6Totalannualthroughputperrack,milliongal/yr0.5215151521 25 40 45Averagethroughputperarm,milliongal/yr0.517.52.51.66675.25 2.5 3.3333 7.5VOCvaporpressure,psia111111111EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions,lb/yr1,3905,55941,69341,69341,69358,37069,488111,182125,079Uncontrolledemissions,tpy0.692.7820.8520.8520.8529.1934.7455.5962.54SubmergedloadingVOCemissions,lb/yr5752,30017,25217,25217,25224,15328,75446,00651,757Emissionsreductionforsubmergedloading,lbVOC/yr8153,25924,44124,44124,44134,21740,73565,17573,322Emissionreductionforsubmergedloading,tpy0.411.6312.212.212.217.120.432.636.7EmissionsreductionforCVS/flare,tpy10.2821.1278.4548.4548.45411.83514.08922.54325.361EmissionstreamVOCflowperarm,lbmole/min0.002730.00273 0.002730.002730.002730.00273 0.00273 0.00273 0.00273Totalgasflowperarm,lbmole/min0.0670.0670.0670.0670.0670.067 0.067 0.067 0.067VOCconcentration,ppmv40,83340,833 40,83340,83340,83340,833 40,833 40,833 40,833Alternativecalcofconcentration,ppmv40,81640,816 40,81640,81640,81640,816 40,816 40,816 40,816Displacedgasflowrateperarm,acfm25.4025.4025.4025.4025.4025.40 25.40 25.40 25.40Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack25.4050.8050.80152.41228.61101.60 254.01 304.81 152.41whenallarmsareinuse,acfmVOCconcentration,ppmv40,83340,833 40,83340,83340,83340,833 40,833 40,833 40,833Streamheatingvalue,BTU/scf129.05129.05 129.05129.05129.05129.05129.05129.05129.05Minimumrackoperatingtimehr/yr2Minimumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr4386.8772657.89.21930.14620.46053.219292657.30.40.89Costsforsubmergedloading(OptionTR1)Totalcapitalinvestment,$4,5949,1879,18727,56241,34318,37545,93755,12427,562Capitalrecovery5041,0091,0093,0264,5392,0175,0446,0523,026Propertytaxes,Insurance,Admin(0.04*TCI)1843673671,1021,6547351,8372,2051,102OperationandMaintenance(0.03*TCI)1382762768271,2405511,3781,654827ProductRecoveryCredit(367) (1,466) (10,998)(10,998)(10,998)(15,398) (18,331) (29,329) (32,995)TotalAnnualCost$/yr459185(9,347)(6,043)(3,565)(12,094) (10,071)(19,418)(28,040)Costeffectivenesswithoutproductrecovery,$/ton2,0281,014135406608193406304135Costeffectivenesswithproductrecovery,$/ton1,128114(765)(494)(292)(707) (494)(596)(765)Method27testing3(sensitivityanalysis)10vehicles1,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,500 1,500 1,50050vehicles7,5007,5007,5007,5007,5007,5007,500 7,500 7,500100vehicles15,00015,000 15,00015,00015,00015,00015,000 15,000 15,000Costeffectivenesswith100Method27testsperyear37,9519,320463733936170242(136)(356)A‐5Table A-1 ContinuedCostsforCVS/flare(OptionTR2)Equipmentcostofsystem,1997$415,91018,483 18,48333,66052,76824,94261,29982,72333,660Purchasedequipmentcost,1997$(PEC=1.18xEC)18,77421,810 21,81039,71862,26629,43272,33397,61339,718Totalcapitalinvestment,2010$551,57059,908 59,908109,101171,03580,845198,688268,129109,101Directannualcosts,2010$/yr647,26448,663 48,66354,25958,45651,46159,855 62,653 54,259Indirectannualcosts,2010$/yr29,24230,763 30,76339,73651,03334,58256,077 68,743 39,736Totalannualcost,$/yr$76,506$79,426 $79,426$93,995$109,489$86,043$115,932 $131,396 $93,995CosteffectivenessofOption2(noMethod27testing)111,68528,8813,3904,2545,1242,5553,0722,0311,063Incrementalcosteffectiveness,$/ton271,50470,4669,39611,11912,9527,270 8,228 5,829 3,706IncrementalCEwith100Method27testsperyear324,73583,774 11,17012,89314,7268,5389,2936,4944,298A‐6Table A-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRackNumberofarms12248 12 6Totalannualthroughputperrack,milliongal/yr0.52152125 40 45Averagethroughputperarm,milliongal/yr0.517.55.253.125 3.333 7.5VOCvaporpressure,psia3333333EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions,lb/yr4,16916,677125,079175,111208,465 333,545375,238Uncontrolledemissions,tpy2.088.3462.5487.56104.23166.77187.62SubmergedloadingVOCemissions,lb/yr1,7256,90151,75772,46086,262138,018155,271Emissionsreductionforsubmergedloading,lbVOC/yr2,4449,77673,322102,651122,204195,526219,967Emissionreductionforsubmergedloading,tpy1.224.8936.751.361.197.8110.0EmissionsreductionforCVS/flare,tpy10.8453.38125.36135.50542.26867.62976.083EmissionstreamVOCflowperarm,lbmole/min0.008190.008190.008190.008190.00819 0.00819 0.00819Totalgasflowperarm,lbmole/min0.0670.0670.0670.0670.067 0.067 0.067VOCconcentration,ppmv122,499122,499122,499122,499122,499 122,499 122,499Alternativecalcofconcentration,ppmv122,449122,449122,449122,449122,449 122,449 122,449Displacedgasflowrateperarm,acfm25.4025.4025.4025.4025.40 25.40 25.40Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack25.4050.8050.80101.60203.21 304.81 152.41whenallarmsareinuse,acfmVOCconcentration,ppmv122,499122,499122,499122,499122,499 122,499 122,499Streamheatingvalue,BTU/scf387.14387.14387.14387.14387.14 387.14387.14Minimumrackoperatingtimehr/yr2Minimumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr4386.8772.65789.46053.274.12292657.40.89Costsforsubmergedloading(OptionTR1)Totalcapitalinvestment,$4,5949,1879,18718,37536,749 55,12427,562Capitalrecovery5041,0091,0092,0174,035 6,0523,026Propertytaxes,Insurance,Admin(0.04*TCI)1843673677351,470 2,2051,102OperationandMaintenance(0.03*TCI)1382762765511,102 1,654827ProductRecoveryCredit(1,100)(4,399)(32,995)(46,193) (54,992) (87,987) (98,985)TotalAnnualCost$/yr(274)(2,748)(31,343)(42,889) (48,384) (78,076)(94,030)Costeffectivenesswithoutproductrecovery,$/ton6763384564108 10145Costeffectivenesswithproductrecovery,$/ton(224)(562)(855)(836) (792) (799)(855)Method27testing3(sensitivityanalysis)10vehicles1,5001,5001,5001,5001,500 1,500 1,50050vehicles7,5007,5007,5007,5007,500 7,500 7,500100vehicles15,00015,00015,00015,00015,000 15,000 15,000Costeffectivenesswith100Method27testsperyear12,0502,507(446)(543) (546) (645)(719)A‐7Table A-1 ContinuedCostsforCVS/flare(OptionTR2)Equipmentcostofsystem,1997$415,91018,48318,48324,94245,424 82,72333,660Purchasedequipmentcost,1997$(PEC=1.18xEC)18,77421,81021,81029,43253,600 97,61339,718Totalcapitalinvestment,2010$551,57059,90859,90880,845147,231 268,129109,101Directannualcosts,2010$/yr647,26448,66348,66351,46157,057 62,653 54,259Indirectannualcosts,2010$/yr29,24230,76330,76334,58246,691 68,743 39,736Totalannualcost,$/yr$76,506$79,426$79,426$86,043$103,748 $131,396 $93,995CosteffectivenessofOption2(noMethod27testing)36,8749,272775497536 322(0)Incrementalcosteffectiveness,$/ton90,50123,4893,1322,4232,455 1,943 1,235IncrementalCEwith100Method27testsperyear108,24527,9253,7232,8462,809 2,1651,433A‐8Table A-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRackNumberofarms124269 8 612Totalannualthroughputperrack,milliongal/yr0.5214.25151515 25 45 45Averagethroughputperarm,milliongal/yr0.513.5637.52.51.667 3.125 7.5 3.75VOCvaporpressure,psia666666666EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions,lb/yr8,33933,354237,651250,158250,158250,158416,931750,475750,475Uncontrolledemissions,tpy4.1716.68118.83125.08125.08125.08208.47375.24375.24SubmergedloadingVOCemissions,lb/yr3,45013,802 98,338103,514103,514103,514172,523310,542310,542Emissionsreductionforsubmergedloading,lbVOC/yr4,88819,553139,312146,645146,645146,645244,408439,934439,934Emissionreductionforsubmergedloading,tpy2.449.7869.773.373.373.3122220220EmissionsreductionforCVS/flare,tpy11.6916.76348.18650.72250.72250.72284.536152.165152.165EmissionstreamVOCflowperarm,lbmole/min0.016390.01639 0.016390.016390.016390.01639 0.01639 0.01639 0.01639Totalgasflowperarm,lbmole/min0.0670.0670.0670.0670.0670.067 0.067 0.067 0.067VOCconcentration,ppmv244,999244,999 244,999244,999244,999244,999 244,999 244,999 244,999Alternativecalcofconcentration,ppmv244,898244,898 244,898244,898244,898244,898 244,898 244,898 244,898Displacedgasflowrateperarm,acfm25.4025.4025.4025.4025.4025.40 25.40 25.40 25.40Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack25.4050.80 101.6050.80152.41228.61 203.21 152.41 304.81whenallarmsareinuse,acfmVOCconcentration,ppmv244,999244,999 244,999244,999244,999244,999 244,999 244,999 244,999Streamheatingvalue,BTU/scf774.28774.28 774.28774.28774.28774.28774.28774.28774.28Minimumrackoperatingtimehr/yr2Minimumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr4386.8772312.50.65789.21930.14620.274657328.12.89.95Costsforsubmergedloading(OptionTR1)Totalcapitalinvestment,$4,5949,18718,3759,18727,56241,34336,74927,56255,124Capitalrecovery5041,0092,0171,0093,0264,5394,0353,0266,052Propertytaxes,Insurance,Admin(0.04*TCI)1843677353671,1021,6541,4701,1022,205OperationandMaintenance(0.03*TCI)1382765512768271,2401,1028271,654ProductRecoveryCredit(2,200) (8,799) (62,691)(65,990)(65,990)(65,990) (109,983) (197,970) (197,970)TotalAnnualCost$/yr(1,374) (7,147)(59,387)(64,338)(61,035)(58,557)(103,376)(193,015)(188,059)Costeffectivenesswithoutproductrecovery,$/ton338169472368101542345Costeffectivenesswithproductrecovery,$/ton(562) (731)(853)(877)(832)(799) (846)(877)(855)Method27testing3(sensitivityanalysis)10vehicles1,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,500 1,500 1,50050vehicles7,5007,5007,5007,5007,5007,5007,500 7,500 7,500100vehicles15,00015,000 15,00015,00015,00015,00015,000 15,000 15,000Costeffectivenesswith100Method27testsperyear5,575803(637)(673)(628)(594) (723)(809)(787)A‐9Table A-1 ContinuedCostsforCVS/flare(OptionTR2)Equipmentcostofsystem,1997$415,91018,483 24,94218,48333,66052,76845,42433,66082,723Purchasedequipmentcost,1997$(PEC=1.18xEC)18,77421,810 29,43221,81039,71862,26653,60039,71897,613Totalcapitalinvestment,2010$551,57059,908 80,84559,908109,101171,035147,231109,101268,129Directannualcosts,2010$/yr647,26448,663 51,46148,66354,25958,45657,057 54,259 62,653Indirectannualcosts,2010$/yr29,24230,763 34,58230,76339,73651,03346,691 39,736 68,743Totalannualcost,$/yr$76,506$79,426 $86,043$79,426$93,995$109,489$103,748 $93,995 $131,396CosteffectivenessofOption2(noMethod27testing)18,1714,3702261222664112(266)(152)Incrementalcosteffectiveness,$/ton45,25111,7441,7861,5661,8532,159 1,227 618 864IncrementalCEwith100Method27testsperyear54,12313,9622,0971,8622,1492,4541,405716962A‐10

# ATTACHMENT B: IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS TR3 AND TR4Table B-1. Estimated Impacts of Control Options TR3 and TR4 for Model Transfer Racks That Load ContainersRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRack#offillingstations1111111Totalannualthroughputperrack,103gal/yr1210100 1,0002,250 3,500 5,000Total55gallondrums/yr371821819 1818240910 63637 90910Total550gallondrums/yr419182 18194091 6364 9091ReidVaporPressure1.51.51.51.51.51.51.5EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),lb/yr20.542.7026.99 269.85 607.17 944.49 1,349UncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),tpy20.0002700.0013490.01349 0.1349 0.30359 0.47224 0.67464Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr0.371.8418.40 183.99 413.98 643.97 919.96Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0001840.0009200.00920 0.0920 0.2070 0.3220 0.4600Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.0070.0370.368 3.6808.280 12.879 18.399Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000003680.000018400.00018399 0.0018399 0.0041398 0.006440 0.009200Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr0.170.868.59 85.86 193.19 300.52 429.31Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr0.361.8018.03 180.31 405.70 631.09 901.56Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr0.532.6626.62 266.17 598.89 931.61 1330.87Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000090.000430.00429 0.04293 0.09660 0.15026 0.21466Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.000180.000900.00902 0.09016 0.20285 0.31555 0.45078Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.000270.001330.01331 0.13309 0.29945 0.46581 0.66544UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),lb/yr32.0210.12101.2 1,0122,277 3,542 5,061UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),tpy30.0010120.0050610.05061 0.5061 1.1387 1.7712 2.5303Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr1.386.9069.01 690.09 1552.71 2415.32 3450.46Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0006900.0034500.03450 0.3450 0.7764 1.2077 1.7252Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.030.141.38 13.8031.05 48.31 69.01Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000013800.000069010.00069009 0.0069009 0.015527 0.024153 0.034505Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr0.643.2232.20 322.04 724.60 1,127.15 1,610.22Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr1.356.7667.63 676.29 1,521.652,367.023,381.45Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr2.009.9899.83 998.33 2,246.25 3,494.174,991.67Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000320.001610.01610 0.16102 0.362300.563580.80511Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.000680.003380.03381 0.33815 0.760831.183511.69073Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.001000.004990.04992 0.49917 1.123131.747082.49583EmissionstreamDisplacedgasflowrateperfillingstation1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34whenallfillingstationsareinuse,acfmMaximumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr4317167 1,6673,750 5,833 8,333B‐11997recoverycreditofNESHAP.vehiclescenario.LikelyTable B-1 ContinuedCapitalcostsandothercostsTotalinstalledcostandplanning(submergedfill),$53,9583,9583,9583,9583,958 3,9583,958Totalcapitalinvestmentforflaresystem,$644,74544,74544,74544,745 44,745 44,74544,745Annualcosts,$/yrsubmergedfill7711710697567386204(13)flare8$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897 $79,897 $79,897 $79,897Method27testing(100containers)9$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500 $17,500 $17,500 $17,500Costeffectiveness,$/tonSubmergedfill2,208,834441,04743,2953,5191,064363(16)SumergedfillandM27testing212,098,31642,416,9634,238,658420,828 185,159 117,82581,465Flareincremental‐‐EmissionsMethod1443,106,38088,621,2768,862,128886,213 393,872 253,204 177,243Flareincremental‐‐emissionsMethod2118,140,47523,628,0952,362,809 236,281 105,014 67,509 47,256Overall(Submergedfillandflare)80,743,17116,148,4021,614,579 161,197 71,482 45,849 32,007Emissionsratio(Method1/Method2)0.270.270.270.270.270.270.27InputsTemperature,F60Molecularweight80Saturationfactorforsplashfill0.88Saturationfactorforsubmergedfill0.6FlareControlEfficiency(%)98Averagecontainerfillrate106001RangeofthroughputsisfromfacilityresponsestoICRfortheOrganicLiquidsDistributionNESHAPandsummarizedinthemodelplantsmemointheTSD.Lowestthroughputsmaybeforracksthatfillsmallcontainersaswellaslargecontainers.2CalculatedusingequationforestimatingemissionsfromvehiclerefuelingasdescribedinbaselineemissionsmemorandumfortheOrganicLiquidDistribution3Calculatedassumingdisplacedvaporis88percentsaturated(ThisresultsinequivalentemissionsforthetwooptionswhenRVPis3.37psia,asinOLDanalysis).Alsoassumedtruevaporpressureat60Fis40%ofRVP(highforpurecomponents;lowforgasoline).4Timewouldbelowerifsomeracksactuallyhavemorethanonefillingstation(maximumflowtotheflarealsowouldbehigher).5Assumedcostfordroptubecanbescaledfromthecostforthetransportvehiclescenariobasedonthesix‐tenthsrulewiththetotalmassofmaterialinthedroptubeasthescalingparameter.Assumedonestationperrack,andassumethetotalmassforthecontainerloadingscenarioishalfthemassforthetransportoverstated.Assumedcontainersarealreadyequipmentwiththenecessartclosuredevicessothatthisdesignrequirementwouldaddnocosts.6CalculatedbyextrapolatingequipmentcostsforflaresystemusedinOLDcostanalysis,withsameinstrumentationandinstallationfactprs,andscalingupfromto2010dollarsusingtheCEPCI.7Includescapitalrecovery(15yearlife,7%interest);operationandmaintenance(3%ofTCI);propertytax,insurance,andadministration(4%ofTCI),andproduct($900/ton).Assumed10hoursengineeringlaborforplanning($92.72/hr,loadedwithmanagementandclericallabor).8AnnualcostsestimatedasinOLDanalysis;laborcostsescalatedby45percent(similartotheequipmentcostincrease).9Noinformationavailableonthefeetoconducttestingofcontainers.Therefore,costwasassumedtobe$175,orhalfofthefeefortransportvehiclesbecausethesmallersize.10gal/hr(assumingcontainersfilledusingnozzleslikevehiclerefuelingpumpsandwithsimilarflowrate)B‐2Table B-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRack#offillingstations1111111Totalannualthroughputperrack,103gal/yr12101001,0002,250 3,500 5,000Total55gallondrums/yr3718218191818240910 63637 90910Total550gallondrums/yr41918218194091 6364 9091ReidVaporPressure2222222EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),lb/yr21.618.0480.45804.471,810.062,815.644,022.35UncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),tpy20.0008040.0040220.040220.40220.9050 1.4078 2.0112Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr1.105.4954.85548.501,234.131,919.762,742.51Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0005490.0027430.027430.27430.6171 0.9599 1.3713Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.0220.1101.09710.97024.683 38.395 54.850Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.00001097 0.000054850.000548500.005485020.01234130 0.01919757 0.02742511Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr0.512.5625.60255.97575.93 895.89 1279.84Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr1.085.3853.75537.531,209.451,881.362,687.66Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr1.597.9379.35793.501,785.372,777.253,967.50Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000260.001280.012800.127980.28796 0.44794 0.63992Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.000540.002690.026880.268770.60472 0.94068 1.34383Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.000790.003970.039670.396750.89269 1.38862 1.98375UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),lb/yr32.7013.50135.01,3503,036 4,723 6,748UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),tpy30.0013500.0067480.067480.67481.5182 2.3616 3.3738Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr1.849.2092.01920.122070.28 3220.43 4600.62Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0009200.0046010.046010.46011.0351 1.6102 2.3003Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.040.181.8418.4041.41 64.41 92.01Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.00001840 0.000092010.000920120.00920120.020703 0.032204 0.046006Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr0.864.2942.94429.39966.13 1502.87 2146.95Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr1.809.0290.17901.722028.87 3156.02 4508.60Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr2.6613.31133.111331.112995.00 4658.89 6655.56Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000430.002150.021470.214700.48306 0.75143 1.07348Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.000900.004510.045090.450861.01444 1.57801 2.25430Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.001330.006660.066560.665561.49750 2.32944 3.32778EmissionstreamDisplacedgasflowrateperfillingstation1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34whenallfillingstationsareinuse,acfmMaximumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr43171671,6673,750 5,833 8,333B‐3Table B-1 ContinuedCapitalcostsandothercostsTotalinstalledcostandplanning(submergedfill),$53,9583,9583,9583,9583,958 3,9583,958Totalcapitalinvestmentforflaresystem,$644,74544,74544,74544,74544,745 44,74544,745Annualcosts,$/yrsubmergedfill771171069251827735(254)flare8$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897 $79,897 $79,897Method27testing(100containers)9$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500 $17,500 $17,500Costeffectiveness,$/tonSubmergedfill1,656,401330,56032,2462,41557347(237)SumergedfillandM27testing71,146,657 14,228,1241,421,454140,78761,733 39,14626,949Flareincremental‐‐EmissionsMethod1148,637,22329,727,4452,972,744297,274132,122 84,936 59,455Flareincremental‐‐emissionsMethod288,605,35617,721,0711,772,107177,21178,760 50,632 35,442Overall(Submergedfillandflare)60,557,30612,111,2291,210,862120,82553,539 34,314 23,933Emissionsratio(Method1/Method2)0.600.600.600.600.600.600.60B‐4Table B-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristicsEmissionsandCostsperModelTransferRack#offillingstations1111111Totalannualthroughputperrack,103gal/yr12101001,0002,250 3,500 5,000Total55gallondrums/yr3718218191818240910 63637 90910Total550gallondrums/yr41918218194091 6364 9091ReidVaporPressure3.373.373.373.373.373.373.37EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),lb/yr24.5422.69226.932,2695,106 7,943 11,347UncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),tpy20.0022690.011350.11351.13472.5530 3.9713 5.6733Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr3.0915.47154.731,5473,481 5,4157,736Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0015470.0077360.077360.77361.741 2.708 3.868Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.0620.3093.09530.94569.627 108.308 154.726Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000030950.000154730.00154730.0154730.034813 0.05415 0.077363Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr1.447.2272.21722.061,624.622,527.193,610.28Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr3.0315.16151.631,5163,4125,3077,582Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr4.4822.38223.842,2385,0367,83411,192Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000720.003610.036100.361030.81231 1.2636 1.8051Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.001520.007580.075820.758161.7059 2.6536 3.7908Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.002240.011190.111921.11922.5182 3.9171 5.5959UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),lb/yr34.5522.72272,2745,116 7,95911,370UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),tpy30.0022740.011370.11371.13702.5582 3.9794 5.6848Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr3.1015.50155.041,550.413,488.42 5,426.437,752.04Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0015500.0077520.077520.77521.744 2.713 3.876Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.060.313.1031.0169.77 108.53 155.04Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000031010.000155040.00155040.0155040.034884 0.05426 0.077520Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr1.457.2472.35723.521,627.932,532.333,617.62Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr3.0415.19151.941,519.403,418.655,317.907,597.00Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr4.4922.43224.292,242.925,046.587,850.2311,214.61Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.000720.003620.036180.361760.81396 1.26617 1.80881Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.001520.007600.075970.759701.70932 2.65895 3.79850Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.002240.011210.112151.121462.52329 3.92511 5.60731EmissionstreamDisplacedgasflowrateperfillingstation1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34whenallfillingstationsareinuse,acfmMaximumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr43171671,6673,750 5,833 8,333B‐5Table B-1 ContinuedCapitalcostsandothercostsTotalinstalledcostandplanning(submergedfill),$53,9583,9583,9583,9583,958 3,9583,958Totalcapitalinvestmentforflaresystem,$644,74544,74544,74544,74544,745 44,74544,745Annualcosts,$/yrsubmergedfill7711708679386(21) (428)(916)flare8$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897 $79,897 $79,897Method27testing(100containers)9$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500 $17,500 $17,500Costeffectiveness,$/tonSubmergedfill982,661195,81218,7711,067(26) (338)(507)SumergedfillandM27testing25,221,0345,043,485503,53749,54221,518 13,5119,187Flareincremental‐‐EmissionsMethod152,691,71010,538,3421,053,834105,38346,837 30,110 21,077Flareincremental‐‐emissionsMethod252,584,78110,516,9561,051,696105,17046,742 30,048 21,034Overall(Submergedfillandflare)35,938,9367,187,555718,49471,58831,656 20,246 14,085Emissionsratio(Method1/Method2)1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00B‐6Table B-1 ContinuedRackandMaterialCharacteristics#offillingstations1111111Totalannualthroughputperrack,103gal/yr12101001,0002,250 3,500 5,000Total55gallondrums/yr3718218191818240910 63637 90910Total550gallondrums/yr41918218194091 6364 9091ReidVaporPressure8888888EmissionsUncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),lb/yr214.4472.20721.997,22016,245 25,269 36,099UncontrolledVOCemissions(method1),tpy20.0072200.036100.360993.60998.1223 12.635 18.0496Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr9.8549.23492.264,922.611,076 17,22924,613Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0049230.024610.24612.4615.538 8.615 12.307Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.1970.9859.84598.453221.518 344.584 492.263Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000098450.000492260.00492260.049230.11076 0.17229 0.24613Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr4.5922.97229.722,297.235,168.76 8,040.2911,486.13Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr9.6548.24482.424,824.1810,854.4016,884.6224,120.88Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr14.2471.21712.147,121.4016,023.1624,924.9135,607.02Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.002300.011490.114861.148612.58438 4.02015 5.74307Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.004820.024120.241212.412095.42720 8.44231 12.06044Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.007120.035610.356073.560708.01158 12.46246 17.80351UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),lb/yr310.8053.98539.85,39812,146 18,893 26,990UncontrolledVOCemissions(method2),tpy30.0053980.026990.269902.69906.0728 9.447 13.4951Controlledemissions(submergedfill),lb/yr7.3636.80368.053680.498281.11 12881.72 18402.46Controlledemissions(submergedfill),tpy0.0036800.018400.18401.8404.141 6.441 9.201Controlledemissions(flare),lb/yr0.150.747.3673.61165.62 257.63 368.05Controlledemissions(flare),tpy0.000073610.000368050.00368050.036800.08281 0.12882 0.18402Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),lb/yr3.4417.18171.761,717.563,864.52 6,011.478,587.82Emissionsreduction(flare),lbVOC/yr7.2136.07360.693,606.888,115.4912,624.0918,034.41Totalemissionsreduction,lb/yr10.6553.24532.445,324.4511,980.0018,635.5626,622.23Emissionsreduction(submergedfill),tpy0.001720.008590.085880.858781.93226 3.00574 4.29391Emissionreductions(flare),tpy0.003610.018030.180341.803444.05774 6.31204 9.01721Totalemissionsreduction,tpy0.005320.026620.266222.662225.99000 9.31778 13.31111EmissionstreamDisplacedgasflowrateperfillingstation1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34Maximumdisplacedgasflowperrack1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34whenallfillingstationsareinuse,acfmMaximumrackoperatingtime,hr/yr43171671,6673,750 5,833 8,333B‐7Table B-1 ContinuedCapitalcostsandothercostsTotalinstalledcostandplanning(submergedfill),$53,9583,9583,9583,9583,958 3,9583,958Totalcapitalinvestmentforflaresystem,$644,74544,74544,74544,74544,745 44,74544,745Annualcosts,$/yrsubmergedfill7710704634(61)(1,027) (1,994)(3,153)flare8$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897$79,897 $79,897 $79,897Method27testing(100containers)9$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500$17,500 $17,500 $17,500Costeffectiveness,$/tonSubmergedfill309,10561,2835,523(53) (398) (496)(549)SumergedfillandM27testing7,926,9851,584,859157,88015,1826,374 3,8572,498Flareincremental‐‐EmissionsMethod116,561,8483,312,370331,23733,12414,722 9,464 6,625Flareincremental‐‐emissionsMethod222,151,3394,430,268443,02744,30319,690 12,658 8,861Overall(Submergedfillandflare)11,319,0282,263,632226,16822,4219,844 6,251 4,311Emissionsratio(Method1/Method2)1.341.341.341.341.341.341.34B‐8