P.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

64) ll-F-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:48 AM Sheet 64 of 86 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-F-11 

Note to Trov Hillier 

Subject: Cost Effectiveness estimates for Benzene NESHAP 

Date: Sept. 29, 1992 

Attached are pages from the September 14, 1989 preamble for 

Benzene Storage Vessels NESHAP and the March 7, 1990 preamble for 

the Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP. These pages show the 

anticipated emissions reductions and costs for the two rules. The 

numbers from the benzene transfer operations rule were used to 

develop the upper end of the range of cost effectiveness values 

included in the briefing package you asked me about this morning. 

The numbers from the benzene storage vessels rule were used to 

develop the lower end of the range of cost effectiveness values 

included in that briefing package. An average of the cost and 

emissions estimates for benzene storage vessels was used to 

estimate the rule's cost effectiveness. 

If you have any more questions about the data EPA has provided 

to you, please give me a call at (919) 541-0248. 

~u* wc^— 

1L~\~ 
P.3 

Federal Register / Vd. 54. No. 177 / Thursday. September 14. 1989 / Rules aad Regulations 3807! 

Although an increased cyanide 

concentration in wastewater ts expected 

with the use of indirect cooling instead 

if direct final cooling at coke byproduct 

1. ants, the increase (about 200 g/Mg oi 

ci ke) is not anticipated to cause 

problems for compliance with effluent 

regulations. 

Summary of Cost and Economic 

Impacts: The nationwide capital cost of 

the standards for furnace and foundry 

plants combined is estimated at about 

S74 million (1964 dollars): nationwide 

annual costs are estimated at $16 

miiiion/yr. 

The increase incurred in the price of 

furnace and foundry coke aa a result of 

the standards is estimated to be less 

than one percent. The EPA's economic 

analysis indicates that at baseline, 

several plants may have marginal costs 

of operation greater than the price of 

cake. The analysis predicts that 

implementation of the standards may 

add one more plant to this group. 

However, a company decision to 

actually close a plant is based on a 

number of factors that an economic 

model cannot consider, including: tbe 

premium a plant is willing to pay for a 

secure, captive coke supply; 

requirements for a particular coke 

quality: age of the batteries, foundry, or 

steel mill: continued access to profits 

from steel production; and 

management's perception regarding 

their future costs and revenues. Tha EPA 

recognizes that implementation of the 

standards could be the factor that would 

trigger closure decisions at plants that 

are presently margiaai or operating at a 

loss. 

Benzene Storage Vessels 

Summary ofthe Standards: The final 

standards, in 40 CFR 81 Subpart Y. are 

most similar to the standards proposed 

for benzene storage vessels under 

proposed policy Approaches A. 8. and 

C. The standards require control of all 

new and pxisrtng storage vessels greater 

than or equal to 3s m* (10.000 gallons) 

used to store benzene making the 

specifications incorporated by reference 

in J 61.270(a) for industrial grade 

benzene or refined benzene-4S&, -535, or 

-345. The standards do not apply to 

storage vessels used for storing benzene 

at coke by-product recovery facilities 

because they are considered under the 

coke by-product recovery plants 

NESHAP. The standards require use of 

certain kinds of equipment on each type 

of benzene storage vesseL Table 2 hsts 

the requirements. 

'ABLE 2.—€QU«PMEMT REQUIRED ON 

SENZENE STORAGE VESSELS BY *0 

CFR PART 61 SUBPART Y 

vaaaw a n and am* oi 

'. fixed root ifR 

i. ,3fl m* 

corsmjcoon attor Jwy 29. j 

'988: or >36m*. core. I 

f-wcad curia uucsovt onor r 

a Jo* 28.1988. ana neo ; 

^o 'FH, or faa an ifR I 

turnout i continuous S H

 ! 

IS ot any 28. 1988. 

5. >3B m*. aiiiiiam.au > #R 

cortstruroon pnar to -J * i u 

23. 1988. and nad an <FR 

a c t July 29. '9*8. 

i £?a vessel 

i. ,38 nf. eonanancad 

consBucaon attar OJ/IT 28. 

1988: ar j>38nH. comIFR wrtngqudmounaw or 

gaaaaiad root 

fifflnOS. 

gaskaNdreof 

WSnoa.* 

primary aaal and a 

» Juar 29. 1988, ana a e > 

ta tiw i mniwn | 

• aa oc July 

iS. 1088. 

3. ,33 n*4. convnancM 

consvucsoft onot oo July i 

28. 1388. ana nad a | 

iqud-mountad snmaiy i 

s«ai a* of July 28. T968. 

1

 GasaaonQ of roof fitsnoa s roojaaatf SM Sue ttfno> 

me vassal • daouaan. 

« n » aacowgagy aa * m watawaS » e arat a—a tm 

n m • otqasaad. 

The benzene storage vessel standards 

tequire that fixed roof vessels inchide 

an IFR with a continuous seal and 

gasketed roof fittings. Specifically, tbe 

standards require that new fixed roof 

vessels and existing fixed roof vessels to 

which an IFR was added after Jury z& 

1388. mast have EFR*s with either: fl) A 

iJauidHiHnmted continuous seal. (2) a 

vapor-mounted primary seal witii a 

secondary seal both of which are 

continuous, or (3| a mechanical shoe 

seal These vessels are also required to 

have gasketed roof fittings, even if they 

have a secondary seal These 

requirements mast be met before vesselfilling for new vessels or within 90 days 

of the effective date of this regulation 

for existing vessels. Existing fixed roof 

vessels that already had IFR's on July 

28.1968. and have vapor-mounted 

primary seals are not required to add 

secondary seals or to have their vapormounted seals replaced with liquidmounted seals. However, existing 

shingled seai IFR vessels sre required to 

replace their shingled seal with a 

continuous seal within die 90-day 

compliance period. All vessels with 

IFR's prior to July 2& 1988. are also 

required to have gasketed fittings, even 

if they have secondary seals. However. 

for these existing vessels, the fittings 

can be retrofitted at the first degassing 

or within 10 years (whichever is first). 

Owners of existing and new EFR 

vessels are required to install liquidmounted primary seals (or mechanical 

shoe seals) and continuous secondary 

seals meeting certain gap requirements. 

For new vessels, these requirements 

must be met before vessel-filling. For 

existing vessels that did not have liquidmounted primary seals as of July 28. 

1988. they must be met within 90 days oi 

the effective date of this regulation. 

Existing EFR vessels already equipped 

with a liquid-mounted primary seai ds o. 

July 28.1988. are required to add the 

secondary seal at the first degassing of 

the vessel. However, those with other 

types of primary seals (e.g.. vapor or 

mechanical shoe) must add the required 

types of primary and secondary seals 

within 90 days of the effective date of 

this regulation. 

The standards require that each IFR 

vessel be inspected from inside prior to 

the filling of the vessel (If it is a new 

vessel or is emptied to install control 

equipment) and at least onca every 10 

years. An IFR having defects or a seal 

having holes or tears would have to be 

repaired before filling die storage vessel 

with benzene. The standards also 

require that the IFR and its seal be 

inspected through roof hatches on the 

fixed roof at least once annually. 

However, if an IFR were equipped with 

a primary and secondary seal, die 

owner or operator could conduct an 

internal inspection every 5 years rather 

than perform die annual inspections. 

Any defects such as roof sinking. liquid 

on the deck, holes or tears in die seal or 

primary seal detachment (or secondary 

seal detachment if one is in service) a3 

viewed through the roof hatches are 

required to be repaired within 45 days ot 

the storage vessel would have to be 

emptied. If repair within 45 days is not 

possible, and alternate storage is not 

available to allow the tank to be 

emptied, the owner or operator could 

request an extension of up to 30 

additional days. 

The standards also require that, for 

EFR vessels, the primary seal and 

secondary seal gaps be measured 

initially and at least once every 5 years 

for the primary seal and at least once 

annually for the secondary seal. 

Conditions not meeting the standards 

which are identified during these 

inspections must be repaired within 43 

days or the vessel would have to be 

emptied. An extension of up to 3U days 

may be requested if the repair is not 

possible within the 43 days allowed. 
P.4 

38072 reaerai Register / Vol. 54. No. 177 / Thursday. September 14. 1989 / Rules and Reauiations 

Summary of :he Environmental. 

Health, and E.ie.yy impacts: Under the 

standards summarized above, benzene 

emissions from this source category are 

estimated to be reduced from die 

baseline range oi 620 to 1.290 Mg/yr to a 

level of 510 Mg/yr. The residual 

incidence of leukemia from exposure to 

benzene emissions after application of 

the standards is estimated to be 1 case 

every 25 years (0.04 case/year), and the 

MIR is predicted to be 3 x 10"*. This can 

be compared with an incidence range of 

1 case every 10 to 20 years (0.1 to 0.05 

case/year) and an MIR range of 4 X10"1 

to 4x 10"* under the baseline conditions. 

Because the control equipment and 

work practices required by die 

standards do not involve die generation 

of any wastewater or solid waste, there 

are no expected impacts on water 

quality or solid waste disposal Further, 

no noise or radiation impacts are 

expected, nor are any changes in energy 

use predicted. 

Summary of the Cost and Economic 

Impacts: National capital costs of 

control associated with achieving die 

standards are 30.66 million (1982 

dollars). The nationwide annual cost is 

SO.l million/yr (1982 dollars). No major 

adverse economic impacts are 

anticipated as a result of these 

standards. 

VI. Administrative 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection provisions 

associated with the rules have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under die Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980.44 U.S.C 

3501 et seq. and have been assigned 

OMB Control Number 2060-0185. 

During die first 3 years that die 

standards are in effect, die public 

reporting burden for collection of 

information, including time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing die collection 

of information is estimated to be: 

(1) 2.134 averaged annual hours with 

an average of 17 hours/year per 

respondent for piants witii benzene 

storage vessels: and 

(2) 5.835 averaged annual hours witii 

an average of 162 hours/year per 

respondent for coke by-product recovery 

plants. 

No new standards are being 

promulgated for EB/S process vents and 

equipment leaks, therefore, tiiere are no 

associated recordkeeping and reporting 

burdens. The existing standards for 

benzene equipment leaks will remain in 

effect Consequently, there is no change 

in the reporting and recordkeeping 

burden. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA to 

consider potential impacts of proposed 

regulations on small "entities.'' If a 

preliminary analysis indicates that a 

proposed regulation would have a 

significant economic impact on 20 

percent or more of small entities, then a 

regulatory flexibility analysis must be 

prepared. 

Present RFA guidelines indicate that 

an economic impact should be 

considered significant if it meets one of 

die following criteria: 

(1) Compliance increases annual 

production costs by more tiian 5 percent 

(2) Compliance costs as a percentage 

of sales for small entities are at least 10 

percent more than compliance costs as a 

percentage of sales for large entities: 

(3) Capital costs of compliance 

represent a "significant" portion of 

capital available to small entities, 

considering internal cash flow plus 

external financial capabilities; and 

(4) Regulatory requirements are likely 

to result in closures of small entities. 

For EB/S process vents and 

equipment leaks no additional controls 

are required, therefore, no small 

businesses will be adversely affected. 

For benzene storage vessels, very few 

businesses would be considered small 

businesses. According to Small Business 

Administration guidelines, a small 

business tiiat manufactures cyclic 

crudes and cyclic intermediates, 

pharmaceuticals, and many otiier 

chemicals is one tiiat has 750 employees 

or fewer. Very few of the businesses in 

die existing industry employ fewer than 

750 people. Benzene storage facilities 

owned by small businesses will not be 

adversely affected by die standards. In 

die economic analysis for tiiis standard, 

die price increase and profitability 

impacts were estimated for small as 

well as for larger facilities. The impacts 

for die small benzene storage facilities 

were very small (about S800/year). 

For coke by-product recovery plants. 

EPA has determined under die Small 

Business Administration guidelines tiiat 

any coke firm that employs fewer than 

1.000 workers is a small business. Six 

foundry coke firms were identified as 

being smalL The economic analysis for 

die standards estimates that one plant 

may exceed criterion (2) above. 

However, die standards are not subject 

to the RFA because there is not a 

substantial number (i.e.. 20 percent) of 

the small businesses that would be 

adversely affected. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b). I hereby certify that the ruies for 

benzene storage vessels and coke byproduct recovery plants will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of ail the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered by 

EPA in the development of tiiis 

rulemaking. The principal purposes of 

die docket are: 

(1) To allow interested parties to 

identify and locate documents so that 

they can participate effectively in the 

rulemaking process: and 

(2) To serve as die record in case of 

judicial review (except for interagency 

review materials (Section 307(d)(7)(A) of 

die CAA|). 

Miscellaneous 

As prescribed by section 112 of the 

CAA. as amended, establishment of 

today's national emissions standards 

was preceded by the Administrator s 

listing of benzene as a hazardous air 

pollutant on June 8.1977 (42 FR 29332). 

In accordance with section 117 of die 

CAA. publication of these actions on 

benzene was preceded by consultation 

with appropriate advisory committees. 

Independent experts, and Federal 

departments and agencies to die 

maximum extent practical. 

Under Executive Order 12291. EPA is 

required to judge whether these 

regulations are "major rules" and 

therefore subject to certain requirements 

of die Order. The EPA has determined 

that the regulations for benzene storage 

vessels and for coke by-product 

recovery plants will result in none of the 

adverse economic effects set forth in 

Section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

rinding a regulation to be a "major rule.'* 

These regulations are not major 

because: 

(1) Nationwide annual compliance 

costs are not as great as the threshold of 

S100 million: 

(2) The regulations do not significantly 

increase prices or production costs; and 

(3) The regulations do not cause 

significant, adverse effects on domestic 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or competition 

in foreign markets. 

The regulations presented in this 

notice were submitted to OMB for 

review as required by Executive Order 

12291. 

Any written comments from OMB to 

EPA and written EPA responses to those 

comments are included in die dockets 

listed at the beginning of today's notice 
I . 

Federal Register / vol. 55. iso. <*D / V\eam:8Ua>, 

P.5 

I\uivj anu I\c«.uia uu..-

II. Summary of Final Standards and 

Impacts 

A Benzene Transfer Operations 

Summary of Standards 

The format for the final standard is a 

weight-percent reduction and a 

limitation of loading to only vapor-tight 

tank trucks, railcars or marine vessels. 

The final standard applies to all loading 

racks where benzene is loaded into tank 

trucks, railcars or marine vessels at 

each production facility and each bulk 

terminal The standard exempts tiiose 

facilities that load only liquids 

containing less than 70 weight-percent 

benzene, or at which less than 1J 

million liters of 70 or more weightpercent benzene are loaded annually, 

from die collection and control 

provisions of the standard. These 

affected facilities must file a report 

documenting the throughput and 

concentration of benzene loaded in the 

first year of Uie standard. 

The standard requires those facilities 

that load 1.3 million liters per year or 

more of liquids containing 70 weightpercent or more benzene to equip each 

loading rack witii a vapor collection 

system and to route emissions from the 

collection system to a 98 percent 

efficient control device. The standard 

also requires that the loading of 70 

weight-percent or more benzene at 

affected facilities be limited to vaportight tank trucks, railcars, or marine 

vessels. These requirements are 

discussed below. 

The final standard requires that each 

loading rack at which at least 1.3 million 

liters per year of liquids containing at 

least 70 weight-percent benzene are 

loaded be equipped with a vapor 

collection system to prevent the vapors 

displaced during loading from passing 

into the atmosphere uncontrolled, either 

directly or through another rack. 

Additionally, the standard requires that 

die loading of benzene be limited to 

those tank trucks, railcars, and marine 

vessels equipped with vapor collection 

equipment compatible with the vapor 

collection system at the loading rack, 

and to those times when the two vapor 

collection systems are connected. 

Further provisions of the standard are 

designed to ensure that die pressure 

during loading will not cause pressurevacuum vents to open, and that 

inspections for leaks and repair of 

identified leaks are conducted fn a 

timely manner. 

Tbe final standard requires that die 

owner or operator of each affected 

facility obtain a copy of die vaportightness documentation prior to the 

loading of a liquid nrmijaiTiinrj 70 weightpercent or more benzene into any tank 

truck, railcar. or marine vessel. The test 

date on die documentation must be 

within the preceding 12 months, die 

affected facility must retain a copy of 

the test documentation, and the 

documentation must be updated at least 

once annually. The standard requires 

that tank trucks and railcars be tested 

for vapor tightness using method 27 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A. and marine 

vessels be tested using method 21 of 

appendix A to document die vaportightness. 

The standard further provides that if a 

marine vessel owner or operator cannot 

produce Uie appropriate documentation, 

Uie owner or operator of an affected 

facility may still load die vessel, tf a 

vapor-tightness test meeting die 

requirements of method 21 is conducted 

during die final 20 percent of loading. A 

copy of tiiis test must be kept with the 

vessel, and a copy must be retained in 

die affected facility's documentation 

file. If the vessel fails the vaportightness test ue facdity retains 

documentation tiiat the vessel failed die 

test and die owner or operator of die 

facility may not load die vessel again 

until documentation of repairs, or proof 

that repairs cannot be completed unless 

the vessel is dry-docked, is provided. In 

die case where repairs cannot be 

completed unless die vessel is drydocked, die standard requires these 

repairs be made die first time the vessel 

is dry-docked. The standard also 

requires tiiat die vapor-tightness test be 

performed during die final 20 percent of 

loading during die first loading 

subsequent to documented repairs. If 

tiiis test is successful, die 

documentation is retained in the 

affected facility's file, and would exempt 

die vessel from further testing for a full 

year. 

The standard also provides an 

additional vapor-tightness test in 

S 61.304(f) that may be used in lieu of 

test method 21. This test involves 

pressurizing the vessel witii dry air or an 

inert gas and determining the pressure 

change over time. The advantage of this 

test is that no benzene will be in the 

tank, and therefore cannot be emitted to 

the atmosphere during testing. 

In lieu of the vapor-tightness 

documentation, marine vessels may be 

loaded at negative pressure. i.e, with a 

benzene product tank below 

atmospheric pressure. Under 

S 61.302(e)(1), vessels loaded at negative 

pressure would be considered to be 

vapor-tight for die purposes of tiiis 

standard. 

The final standard requires that all 

vapors coUected during loading of 

liquids containing 70 weight-percent 

benzene or more be routed to a control 

device capable of reducing benzene 

emissions to the atmosphere by 98 

weight-percent. The 98 percent value 19 

based on die typical performance of an 

incinerator or a flare, which are 

universally applicable to facilities 

expected to be subject to this standard. 

Available test data indicate tiiat 

properly designed, operated, and 

maintained incinerators or flares can 

achieve at least a 98 weight-percent 

reduction of organic compounds. 

Although the standard is based on the 

use of an incinerator or flare, any 

control device may be used as long as a 

98 weight-percent reduction is achieved. 

The standard contains provisions for 

performance testing and monitoring of 

specific parameters for flares, boilers, 

process heaters, incinerators, steam 

generating units and carbon adsorption 

systems. If an owner or operator wishes 

to use a control device otiier than those 

specifically mentioned for compliance 

purposes, die standard allows the owner 

or operator to submit information to the 

Administrator describing the operation 

of die control device and those 

parameters mat would indicate proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

device. The control device must be able 

to produce a 98 weight-percent 

reduction in the benzene emissions 

routed through it. 

Records of all performance tests and 

monitoring results must be maintained 

for at least two years and be readily 

available for inspection. The standard 

requires that the vapor-tightness 

documentation for all tank trucks, 

railcars, and marine vessels be 

maintained in a permanent file and be 

available for inspection. Additionally, 

the standard requires Uie information in 

Uie file be updated at least once 

annually. The standard also requires 

quarterly reports of die following 

information: (1) Each exceedance of 

monitored parameters. (2) all periods 

when die vent stream is diverted from 

die control device, (3) all periods when a 

steam generating unit or process heater 

was not operating, when Uie control 

device used is a 6team generating unit or 

a process heater, (4) if a flare is used as 

a control device, all periods when the 

pilot flame was absent and (5) all times 

when maintenance is performed on carsealed valves, when die car seal is 

broken, and when the car-sealed valve 

position is changed. The initial quarterly 

report would be filed within 90 days of 

die effective date of the standard, or 90 

days after the startup date, if the startup 

date ia after the effective date of the 

standard. 

•••! _V 

VU^i " 

6-' 
^8294* Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 

i i a— laiiaia—• iaaaai aa—i—iITTTIIIIH i in ia^\i\m^m^mmmmsm^H^m^m^m^mi^i^ms^mmmis^mwsmm^smmtm^m^mwsm^m^m^s^s^m^mmm^s^^m^a^^mt^^^ 

P.6 

The standard requires that all tank 

truck and reilcar loading racks at each 

affected facility be in compliance with 

the standard within 90 days of the 

effective date of the standard, or obtain 

a waiver of compliance as provided for 

in § 61.11 of the General Provisions. The 

final standard requires marine vessels to 

be in compliance by February 28,1991. 

The one-year general waiver for marine 

vessels is necessary for the installation 

of controls. 

Summary of Uie Environmental. Health, 

and Energy Impacts 

Benzene emissions from this source 

category will be reduced from 4.500 

megagrams/year at baseline to an 

estimated 270 megagrams/year. a* 

reduction of approximately 94 percent. 

The residual incidence of leukemia from 

exposure to benzene emissions after 

application of this standard is estimated 

to be approximately 0.02 case/year, and 

Uie MIR is predicted to be 

approximately 4x10"'. This can be 

• . compared with an incidence of 1 case/ 

J year and a MIR of 6X10''under 

i baseline conditions. 

II I Potentia} environmental impacts of 

tiiis standard depend on the control 

device selected by each facility to attain 

compliance. Incinerators and flares are 

not expected to produce any wastewater 

or solid waste impacts. However, if 

carbon adsorbers are used, some minor 

wastewater and solid waste impacts can 

be expected from desorption of the 

carbon beds with steam, and then the 

final disposal of spent carbon. Because 

it is not known how many benzene 

transfer facilities will employ carbon 

adsorbers, rather than incinerators or 

flares, to comply with die standard. Uie 

wastewater and solid waste impacts of 

this standard cannot be quantified at 

this time. However, in light of existing 

regulatory controls, regulations being 

developed under otiier acts such as 

RCRA. and those regulations being 

considered for benzene waste. Uiese 

impacts are expected to be small. No 

changes in energy use are predicted. 

Summary of die Cost and Economic 

Impacts 

National capital costs of control 

associated with achieving die standard 

•are $167 million (in 1987 dollars). The 

nationwide annual cost is $30 million/ 

/ year (in 1987 dollars). No major adverse 

/ economic impacts are anticipated as a 

result of Uiese standards. 

B. Gasoline Marketing System 

The Administrator is withdrawing the 

standards proposed for die three 

gasoline marketing source categories. 

Since publication of the proposed rule in 

4 

1 

\ 

\ 

M 

I 

September 1989. EPA has evaluated the 

public comments and reexamined the 

proposed regulation of these source 

categories. After extensive review of 

facts relevant to these categories, EPA 

concludes that application of the 

NESHAP policy described in Uie 

September 14.1989, rule for various 

source categories of benzene (54 FR 

38044) does not mandate establishing 

NESHAP for the gasoline marketing 

source categories in order to protect 

public health because the baseline 

emissions are already within a safe 

range, and additional controls are 

unnecessary to provide an ample margin 

of safety. 

As described in the proposal the 

baseline MIR for each source category is 

as follows: 5x10"* for bulk gasoline 

terminals; l x 10"* for bulk gasoline 

plants; and 5 X10" * for service station 

storage tanks. Accordingly each of tiiese 

source categories falls below die 

presumptive acceptable risk benchmark 

of approximately 10" * MIR. 

The EPA did not rest its acceptable 

risk judgment on tiiese numbers alone. 

In addition, die incidence reduction for 

each of the categories would be very 

low, in the range of 0.03 to 0.07 case/ 

year. Finally, EPA estimates that 

without regulation the vast majority of 

the population exposed to Uiese sources 

is already protected to a level of 10"* or 

lower. 

In considering whether further 

regulation would be necessary in order 

to provide an ample margin of safety, 

EPA reviewed the control costs and 

emission reductions associated with a 

number of alternative control levels for 

each source category. For die three 

categories, capital cost would be 

approximately $1 billion, with 

annualized costs of $130 million. In 

addition. EPA considered qualitative 

information on risk distribution, the 

number of relevant facilities and their 

proximity to residential areas, and the 

potential population at risks greater 

than 10"*. The details of those 

alternatives are explained fully in 

section IV-D-6 of this notice. 

In determining tiiat die existing 

-emission levels for bulk gasoline 

terminals provide an ample margin of 

safety, EPA considered the fact that 

Incidence reduction for die alternatives 

proposed would be relatively small. It 

was also recognized that the majority of 

the risk reduction would occur in the 

population exposed at risks below 10"*. 

The cost of the alternative control 

measures were judged to be high 

relative to achievable risk reduction. 

Finally, it was recognized that as all 

new and modified facilities must meet 

the NSPS. the risk and emissions from 

this source category will be reduced 

over time. 

Likewise, for bulk gasoline plants for 

the control options considered. EPA 

found a small incidence reduction at a 

high relative cost, and the vast majority 

of Uie population exposed to risks below 

10"*. 

For service station storage vessels. 

although specific estimates of persons 

exposed at different risk levels could not 

be developed, die incidence reduction 

was considered small. The cost of 

additional control was considered 

disproportionately high, relative to the 

small health benefits. 

For these reasons, as described in 

detail in section IV, EPA determined 

tiiat for all three source categories of 

gasoline marketing, die baseline 

emissions provided an ample margin of 

safety. 

It should be noted that Uie decisions 

not to regulate tiiese source categories 

under section 112 at this time does not 

preclude controls on benzene emissions 

occurring through different means in the 

future. For example, EPA plans within 

the next several months to issue an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the control of air toxics, 

including benzene specifically, through 

gasoline and diesel reformulation. In 

addition, several proposed amendments 

to the CAA. if enacted, would authorize 

additional benzene controls. For 

example, the Administration's proposed 

amendments to die CAA include a 

major new initiative on alternative fuels 

under which the Administrator would 

set performance standards for clean-fuel 

vehicles designed, among other things. 

to reduce toxic air emissions, such as 

benzene emissions. The 

Administration's proposed amendments 

would also require that service station 

owners in certain parts of the country 

install systems for Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovery of emissions including 

benzene emissions from the refueling of 

vehicles. Finally, the Administration's 

proposed amendments would authorize 

a study and regulation of air toxic 

emissions from mobile sources. Thus, 

further benzene controls may be 

provided for under a new CAA, as well. 

C. Benzene Waste Operations 

' Summary of Standards 

Applicability. The final standards for 

benzene waste operations are 

applicable to owners or operators of 

chemical plants, petroleum refineries, 

and coke by-product recovery plants. 

The standards also apply to owners or 

operators of TSDF that receive wastes 

from chemical plants, petroleum 

1 «s las <^ r >• /•- ly 

' * •