1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DATE:

SUB ECT: April 22, 2014

Technical Support Document

— Pennsylvania ; Portable Fuel Container Amendment to Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan

/s/

FROM: Irene Shandruk, Physical Scientist

TO: Pennsylvania ; Docket No

. EPA

- R03

- OAR

- 2014

- 0298

/s/

THRU: Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A. BACKGROUND

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that Pennsylvania adopt and enforce a plan, known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP), to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) throughout the Commonwealth. This technical support document (TSD) evaluates the March 7 , 2014 submittal of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision pertaining to the repeal of the Pennsylvania portable f

uel c ontainer (PFC) provisions set forth in 25 P a. Code §§ 130.101

- 130.108

.

The Commonwealth’s PFC regulation, published October 5, 2002 (32 Pa.B . 4819), limited emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere from the use of PFCs designated to hold gasoline. The regulation restricted the sale, supply, offer for sale and manufacture of PFCs and spouts for sale and for use in the Commonwealth on or after January 1, 2003. The regulation was part of the Commonwealth’s plan to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground

- level ozone since VOCs are a precursor to the formation of ground

- level ozone, and high concentrations of ground

- level ozone are a serious public health and welfare threat. The PFC regulation was approved as a SIP revisions b y EPA on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70893), and was codified at 40 CFR 52.2063(c)(299). Following the regulation’s approval in the Pennsylvania SIP, the PFC regulation was included as a VOC control measure in Redesignation Requests and Maintenance

Plans for the 1997 8

- hour o zone NAAQS as well as the Attainment Demonstration fo r the Philadelphia

Area 8

- hour o zone Nonattainment Area.

On February 26, 2007, EPA promulgated Federal PFC requirements (72 FR 8428) , which were

codified at 40 CFR 59.600

- 59.699 and became effective nationwide beginning January 1, 2009. The Federal PFC regulation for controlling emissions from new and in

- use portable fuel containers apply to more types of portable containers (portable fuel, diesel, and kerosene containers) than did t he2

Commonwealth’s regulation. The Federal PFC requirements also have more stringent permeation and evaporation standards and eliminate problematic auto shut

- off spouts. Finally, since the Federal requirements are effective nationwide, this eliminates non

- compliant cross

- state border sales.

During its 2011 Regulatory Review Initiative, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) determined that the PFC regulation was unnecessary and moved to repeal it. The Pennsylvania Environmental Q uality Board (EQB) amended 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130 (relating to standards for products) by publishing the repeal of the PFC regulation (25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101

— 130.108) on July 14, 2012 (42 Pa.B . 4463). The Commonwealth PFC regulation was superseded by

the more stringent Federal PFC requirements

.

B

. EPA REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

Section 110( l ) of the CAA states that the EPA Administrator may not approve a revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirem ents concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Pennsylvania’s analysis demonstrates that repealing the Commonwealth’s regulatory requirements and relying on the

Fe deral requirements for PFCs is n ot contrary to s ection 110( l ). Table 1 compares requirements of the former Commonwealth PFC regulation with the Federal PFC requirements.

Table 1. Comparison of Pennsylvania’s and EPA’s PFC Requirements Applicable VOC Emission Control Requirement Pennsylvania’s PFC Requirements Federal PFC Requirements One Opening per Container Required Required Spout: Auto Close and Seal Required Required Spout: Auto Shut

- off Required Not Required Warranty Required Required

Permeation Barrier Seal Less than 0.4 grams hydrocarbons/gallon/day Less than 0.3 grams hydrocarbons/gallon/day

Non

- gasoline PFC Affected No Yes Applicable to All 50 States No Yes

Each of the Federal requirements is equally as stringent as, or more stringent than, the

Commonwealth’ s PFC requirements and achieve greater emission reductions than Pennsylvania’s PFC regulation:

 Pennsylvania’s regulation applied only to portable containers for gasoline fuels whereas the Federal regulation applies to portable containers for diesel and keros ene as well as portable containers for gasoline fuels.

 Pennsylvania’s regulation required automatic shut

- off spouts whereas the Federal regulation does not require automatic shut

- off spouts. In 72 FR 8428, page 8500, EPA notes that

automatic shut

- off spou ts actually increase spillage and emissions due to the wide variety of

fill

- hole designs on the receiving fuel tanks, resulting in the auto shut

- off spouts not working well with a variety of equipment types.

 The Federal permeation and evaporation standard for PFCs of less than 0.3 grams hydrocarbons per gallon of fuel per day is 25% more stringent than the permeation standard of less than 0.4 grams per gallon of gasoline per day in Pennsylvania’s regulation.

 Pennsylvania’s regulation did not prevent cross

- s tate border sales of non

- compliant PFCs, whereas the Federal requirements apply to all PFCs manufactured in or imported into the3

United States for use in the United States beginning January 1, 2009. This reduces the opportunity for cross

- state border sale s of non

- compliant PFCs.

Calculations

Pennsylvania estimated statewide VOC emissions using the control factors associated with the Federal PFC requirements. Emission estimates were calculated for 2002, 2009, and 2018. Since Pennsylvania’s PFC regulation went into effect in January 2003 and the Federal PFC regulation was effective January 2009, the rule penetration resulting from both effective dates was taken into account when calculating the emissions for the Federal PFC requirements. Rule penetration is an estimate of the percentage of emissions emitted by a facility or activity covered by a regulation. As

older non

- complying containers were replaced by Co mmonwealth

- compliant containers and then with Federally

- compliant containers, the mix of container types changed. By 2020, all PFCs used in Pennsylvania are expected to be Federally

- compliant containers.

The 2002 actual VOC emissions estimate of 12,255 .32 tons per year (TPY) was originally calculated for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. The Pechan calculations are documented in the Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) file, MANEVU_2002_Area_040606.mdb, located on the

MARAMA website www.marama.org . The 2002 actual VOC emissions estimate was used as the

basis for the demonstration for both the Commonwealth and the Federal calculatio ns because neither the Federal nor the Commonwealth regulation was in effect in 2002.

The 2009 statewide projected VOC emi ssions of 8,923.08 TPY was derived from MARAMA’s controlled, grown estimate contained in the file, MANEVU2009AreaV3_1.mdb (www.marama .org) . The 2009 MARAMA emission estimate was calculated using a control factor. To compare the emissions resulting from the two different regulations, the MARAMA number had to first be calculated as uncontrolled emissions. To remove the control factor ( control efficiency, rule effectiveness and rule penetration) from the 2009 MARAMA emission estimate, the estimate was divided by the control factor MARAMA had originally applied (shown below).

PA Rule Control Factor = Rule Effectiveness x Rule Penetration x Control Efficiency,

Where:

Rule Effectiveness = 0.80 Control Efficiency = 0.55

Rule Penetration = 0.65

PA Rule Control Factor = 0.80 x 0.55 x 0.65 = 0.29

Statewide Uncontrolled VOC Emission = Controlled Emissions / (1

– Control Factor)

= 8,923.079 / (1

– 0.29) = 12,567.72 TPY

Once uncontrolled emission estimates were calculated, the Federal and Commonwealth control factors were applied to the controlled 2009 VOC estimate. Both sets of control factors were applied because in 2009 both the Federal and Commonwealth requirements w ere in effect. Where the Federal requirement had not yet penetrated, a portion of the Commonwealth requirement had penetrated, resulting in a medley of non

- compliant, Federally

- compliant, and Commonwealth

compliant PFCs. Rule penetration was comprised of Federal plus Commonwealth requirements4

(shown below).

Federal Rule Control Factor = Rule Effectiveness x Rule Penetration x Control Efficiency,

Where:

Federal Rule Effectiveness = 1.00 Federal Control Efficiency = 0.75

Federal Rule Penetration = 0.10

Combined Control Factor = PA Control Factor + Federal Control Factor = 0.29 + (1.00 x 0.75 x 0.10)

= 0.37

Controlled Emissions = Uncontrolled VOC Emission x (1

– Combined Control Factor)

= 12,567.72 x (1

– 0.37)
= 7, 917.66 TPY VOC

The 2018 statewide projected VOC emissions of 6, 148.05 TPY was derived from MARAMA’s controlled, grown estimate contained in the file, MANEVU2018AreaV3_1.mdb ( www.marama.org ) , and was calculated using a control factor as well. To compare the emissions resulting from the Federal and Commonwealth regulations, the MARAMA number first had to be

calculated as uncontrolled emissions. To remove the control factor from the 2018 MARAMA emission estimate, the e stimate was divided by the control factor MARAMA had originally applied (shown below):

PA Rule Control Factor = Rule Effectiveness x Rule Penetration x Control Efficiency,

Where:

Rule Effectiveness = 0.80 Control Efficiency = 1.00

Rule Penetration = 0.65

PA Rule Control Factor = 0.80 x 1.00 x 0.65 = 0.52

Statewide Uncontrolled VOC Emission = Controlled Emissions / (1

– Control Factor) = 6,148.049 / (1

– 0.29) = 12,808.44 TPY

Then only the Federal control factor was applied, on the assumption that the Federal regulation had fully penetrated, entirely replacing the Commonwealth

- compliant containers

.

Federal Rule Control Factor = Rule Effectiveness x Rule Penetration x Control Efficiency,

Where:

Federal Rule Effectiveness = 1.00 Federal Control Efficiency = 0.75

Federal Rule Penetration = 0.10

Federal Rule Control Factor = 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.755 = 0.75

Controlled Emissions = Uncontrolled VOC Emission x (1

– Control Factor)

= 12,808.44 x (1

- 0.75)

= 3202.11 TPY V OC

The PA emission estimate had previously been calculated for PADEP : The 2002 actual emissions were originally calculated by Pechan and can be found in the MARAMA file, MANEVU_2002_Area_040606.mdb. The 2009 projected emissions came from MARAMA’s

contro lled, grown estimate contained in the file, MANEVU2009AreaV3_1.mdb. As the controls were already applied, this number is unchanged. The controls assumed a control efficiency of 65%, a rule penetration of 55%, and rule effectiveness of 80%. The 2018 proj ected emissions developed by MARAMA are contained in the file, MANEVU2018AreaV3_1.mdb. VOC projected emissions statewide were 6,148.0494 TPY. Since controls were already applied, this number is unchanged. The controls assumed a control efficiency of 65%, rule penetration of 100%, and rule effectiveness

of 80%.

Table 2. shows a comparison of the statewide VOC emissions calculated for both the Federal and Commonwealth PFC regulations for 2002, 2009, and 2018.

Table 2. Comparison of VOC Emissions Esti mates for Federal and Pennsylvania PFC Regulations

2002 2009 2018

PA Rule VOC Emissions (TPY) 12,255.32 8,923.08 6,148.05

Federal Rule VOC Emissions (TPY) 12,255.32 7,917.66* 3,202.11*

Additional VOC Emissions (TPY)

from Federal Rule N/A 1,005.42 2,945.94

*Assumes Commonwealth

- compliant PFC containers are in use when Federal

- compliant containers are not.

The same methodology as applied to a representative county, Lancaster County, to demonstrate that the results achieved statewide by replacing the Commonwealth regulation with the Federal regulation also holds true at the local level.

C

. RECOMMENDATION

The repeal of the provisions set forth in 25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101

- 130.108 and removal from the Pennsylvania SIP does not negatively affect the ozone air quality, since the Commonwealth’s regulation is being supersede d by more stringent PFC Federal requirem ents codified at 40 CFR

59.600

- 59.699. The reductions of VOC emissions achieved through the Commonwealth’s PFC regulation will be maintained by the VOC emission reductions achieved through the Federal PFC requirements , which in fact achieve greater VOC em ission reductions than that of the Commonwealth’s PFC regulation

. Therefore, EPA approval of this SIP revision is recommended.