April 17, 2014

– Public Workshop Comments

Question #1 : How many 250 gallon tanks can you have at one facility?

Response #1 : The maximum per facility would be evaluated on a case by case basis to prevent purposeful circumvention of the District’s rule s

.

Question #2 : How much does testing cost?

Response #2: About $600.

Question #3: Do you have a list of certified testers?

Response #3: The District has a list of certified testers in the area.

Question #4: Is the list of certified testers available online?

Response #4 : Not at this time. Inquire at the District.

Question #5: What happens if there are no records of the installation date?

Response #5: If there are no records of the date the tank was installed, or other agencies that can verify in stallation such as CUPA, then the installation date would be determined on a case by case basis using any available means to determine whether the tank was installed prior to

June 1991.

April 18, 2014

– ARB Comments:

No Comment Letter

May 14, 2014

– EPA Comments:

Comment #1: Rule 3.8

- There is no vapor recovery percentage requirement in section D.2.a as
there was in the previous rule section b.1. Instead, it is replaced with a reference to CARB's
Phase I Enhanced Vapor Recovery system. We understan d FRAQMD is proposing this change
out of concern that CARB may change its program. However, this proposed revision to Rule 3.8
would undermine federal enforceability since CARB's program is not in the SIP. One way to
address both our objectives would be to revise this provision to read, "The gasoline storage tank
is equipped with a CARB certified Phase I Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) system that shall
prevent emission to the atmosphere of at least 95%, by volume, of the gasoline vaporsdisplaced from the storage container during the transfer of gasoline into the container." This

language allows the rule to continue to require that tanks be equipped with CARB certified EVR
systems, even if they become more stringent than the 95% vapor recovery rate.

Resp onse #1: The District has incorporated the suggested changes.

Comment #2: Rule 3.8

- Section D.7.a should be revised to specify that gaskets are not
missing, damaged, or loose and Section D.7.c.1 should include language regarding the spill

containment d rain valve, as in Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD) Rule 448 section 306.1.

Response #2: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #3: Rule 3.8

- FRAQMD should consider revising section D.7 to specify h ow equipment defects should be handled. This should include tagouts and removal as in SMAQMD

Rule 448 Section 306.2 and Yolo

- Solano AQMD Rule 2.22, Section 402.

Response #3: The District considered the suggested change , but decided not to include it as the defect protocol is already contained in California Health and Safety Code, Section 41960.2.

Comment #4: Rule 3.9

- Section D.4.b requires that the vapor recovery system be maintained
in a gas

- tight condition, but the rule does not define gas

- tight. We recommend FRAQMD use
the term "vapor tight" to stay consistent with Rule 3.8 and add the term "vapor tight" and its

definition to Rule 3.9.

Response #4: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

May 30, 2014

– ARB Comments:

Please note that these comments were not included in the Board Package as they were received by the District after the 30 day comment period was closed.

Comment #1: Rule 3.8

- General: Several provisions of the proposed rule would be inconsistent with a Regulatory A dvisory about vapor recovery requirements for aboveground storage tanks (AST) that was issued by the Air Resources Board (ARB) on February 28, 2014. ARB staff intends to present proposed regulatory amendments to the Board in November 2014 that would

essen tially codify the provisions set forth in that February 2014 Regulatory Advisory. Once thisanticipated rulemaking process is completed, Rule 3.8 would be inconsistent with state

regulations.

In light of the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory related to AST vapor recovery systems, and the proposed regulatory amendments that are expected to be considered by the Board later this year, ARB staff suggests that district either:

a) Delay taking action on Rule 3.8 until the Board has taken action on the regulator y proposal that is expected to be presented for their consideration in November 2014, or b) Amend the proposed Rule 3.8 to be consistent with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory.

ARB staff has analyzed the AST population in Feather River Air Quality Manage ment District (FRAQMD) and determined that harmonizing the proposed rule with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory would only affect two of the 59 total AST facilities in the district.

Areas where the proposed rule is inconsistent with the Regulatory Adv isory are identified in specific comments below:

Response #1: The District is specifically amending Rule 3.8 to be consistent with EPA’s 1975 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Gasoline Service Stations. The District is required to make this change t o meet its obligations to EPA under the Ozone RACT SIP. The District is specifically not amending Rule 3.8 to comply with ARB’s rule changes which are actively under development. The District may consider changes once ARB has completed the full rule adopti on process. Furthermore, the District strongly feels it is inappropriate to amend a District rule to comply with an ARB staff issued advisory that did not undergo the full public rule development

process.

Comment #2: Rule 3.8

- Section (B.2.a): Rule 3. 8 includes an exemption from Phase I vapor recovery for any AST installed prior to 1991, whereas the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory does not provide exemptions for tanks based on their installation date. ARB staff sees no technical reason why a Phase I vapor recovery system would not work properly on a tank installed before 1991. Staff notes that some of these tanks would likely be exempt from Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) upgrades under Executive Order G

- 70

- 216 since they wouldn’t have enough tank top openings to accommodate an approved Phase I EVR system. However, such tanks should still be fitted with pre

- EVR Phase I systems.

Response #2: Please see Response #1. In addition, while technically feasible, and perhaps
desirable, the District is not aw are of any law or regulation that mandates existing small non

retail tanks to be retrofitted with Phase I hardware.

Comment #3: Rule 3.8

- Section (B.2.b): This section exempts any tank with gasoline throughput of less than 10,000 gallons per month fro m installing any Phase I system. To be consistent with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory the proposed 10,000 gallons per month exemption criteria should be changed to 5,000 gallons per month. In addition, tanks with monthly throughputs below 5,000 gal lons should be required to maintain their currently installed

pre

- EVR Phase I systems.Response #3: Please see Response #1. This comment is in error. Phase I hardware would be

required for any new or replacement aboveground tanks installed at non

- retail sites in the District. However, existing non

- retail tanks installed prior to June 1991 would not be re quired to upgrade until they exceeded the throughput limits in the rule.

Comment #4: Rule 3.8

- Section (B.3): This section includes an exemption from Phase I EVR

for non

- retail facilities. No such exemption is included in the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory. This exemption should be removed from the proposed rule in order to be consistent with the February 2014 Regulatory Advisory. Further, ARB staff notes that the emissions reductions associated with upgrading to a Phase I EVR system are equally important and cost

effective regardless of whether the tank is used for retail or non

- retail fueling.

Response #4: Please see Response #1. Additionally, the District is not aware of the legal authority by which ARB can regulate non

- retail gasoline tanks. These tanks are clearly not subject to CCR Title 17, Section 93101 (Benzene ATCM for Retail Service Stations). While the District is clearly obligated to enforce ATCMs adopted by the State Board, the District is not aware of any legal requirement that mand ates that the District enforce a “Regulatory Advisory” issued by ARB staff.

Comment #5: Rule 3.8

- Section (F.2): As written this section implies that equivalent test procedures other those specified by Executive Order may be approved by the APCO and E PA. State law (Section 41954(h) of the Health and Safety Code) prohibits districts from requiring gasoline vapor recovery test procedures other than those adopted by ARB or those have been deemed by ARB to be equivalent to the adopted test procedures.

Response #5: This comment is in error. The section in the proposed rule does not state or imply that the APCO may approve equivalent test procedures. The section does clearly state that EPA may approve different test methods, which the District believes is appropriate, given EPA’s national jurisdiction, oversight authority over the s tate air program, and adopted NESHAPs relating to gasoline storage.

Comment #6: Rule 3.9

- Section (D.5): This section requires that any transfer of gasoline into delivery vessels at loading facilities shall control at least 90 percent of displaced gas oline vapor. Such loading facilities are typically bulk plants or terminals. Any gasoline vapor recovery systems installed at bulk plants or terminals must certified by ARB as provided by ARB regulations for bulk plants and terminals (Section 94012 or 94 013, Title 17, California Code of Regulations). Once ARB certified the bulk plant or terminal vapor recovery system, the district is responsible for ensuring on going compliance. ARB would need to conduct recertification test when the vapor recovery syst em is modified or when bulk plant or terminal throughput is

increased.

Response #6: Comment noted. The District is aware of the ARB certification procedures for bulk plants and terminals.