UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA ’s Direct Final Rulemaking

for the California State Implementation Plan

Feather River Air Quality Management Dist rict

Rule 3. 8 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Prepared by: James Shears Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

January 201 5 2



RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency: Feather River Air Quality Management District ( FR A QM D )

SIP Approved Rule: Sutter County Rule 3. 08 (3.8) 1

– Storage and Transfer

of Gasoline

EPA

- approved

- May 3, 1982 (47 FR 18856)

Subject of this TSD: Rule 3.8

– Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Amended

– June 2 , 201 4

Submitted

– November 6 , 2014

BACKGROUND

-

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight can lead to the formation of ground

- level ozone or “smog” which can result in significant impacts to human health and the environment. Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that are classif ied as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for specific types of sources. The Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) is subject to this requirement, as the southern part of S utter County in the FRAQMD is designa ted and classified as a severe 2 ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone (40 CFR 81.305). Under CAA 182(b)(2) and (f), FRAQMD must, at a minimum, ado pt RACT level controls for sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any other major stationary source of VOCs or NOx.

RULE SUMMARY

–

FRAQMD Rule 3.8

, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities , is designed to limit VOC

emissions f rom displaced gasoline vapors while transferring gasoline into storage tanks and transport vessels in accordance with the Control Techniques Guideline ( CTG ) design criteria described in “Stage I Vapor Control Systems

– Gasoline

Service Stations ” (EPA

- 450/R

- 75

- 102). Rule 3.8, as amended, will require existing above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) with Stage 1 vapor recovery systems to perform annual leak tests

. Also, all newly installed ASTs will be required to meet the Ph ase I Enhanced Vapor

1 The original 1982 Sutter County Rule 3.8 was adopted in June, 1991 by the newly formed FRAQMD with the same rule language as in the 1982 EPA

- approved version.

2 On May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24 409), EPA granted the State of California’s request to reclassify the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment area, which includes the southern portion of Sutter County in FRAQMD,

from “serious” to “severe

- 15” for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. A sepa rate area of Sutter County, the portion of the Sutter Buttes mountain range at or above 2,000 feet in elevation , is also designated

nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour standard, but is classified as marginal, and is therefore not subject to the RACT requirem ent. 3



Recovery (EVR) and the Standing Loss Control (SLC) requirements. Newly installed USTs will only need to meet the Phase I EVR requirements since SLC requirements aren’t applicable to USTs.

S ignificant revisions of Rule 3.8 include t he following

.

1. Rule 3.8 was simplified from the previous June 1991 version to c ontain the requirements for just gasoline dispensing facilities and is renamed as such

. The unchanged standards for gasoline bulk plants, terminals, and delivery

vessels were transferred into Rule 3.9 primarily for clarity.

2. Section B.2 exempts storage tanks from the 90% control requirement if they were installed prior to June 1991 and maintain a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons.

3. Section B.3 exempts non

- reta il storage tanks f rom meeting the Phase I EVR requirements if th ey are already equipped with a Stage I vapor recovery system that meets the following requirements: achieves a minimum vapor recovery efficiency of 90% by weight, the storage tank is equipped with a pressure/vacuum valve

, and the tank was installed before July 1, 2014

.

4. Section C, Definitions, was added which includes definitions of CARB certified, Phase I (vapor recovery), Enhanced Vapor Recovery, a vapor tight specification, and several othe r definitions.

5. Section D.1 requires the storage tank to have a permanent submerged fill pipe.

6. Section D.2 includes the Phase I EVR system requirements for ASTs and USTs, SLC requirements for ASTs, vapor tight caps, seals and fittings, and

other rela ted requirements.

7. Section s D.5, 6 and 7 requires maintenance inspections at specified intervals and describes the inspection protocol.

8. Section D.8 requires source testing on new or modified dispensing facilities and describes the reporting process.

9. Sec tion E.1 includes the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.

10. Section F.1 requires the static pressure decay tests for ASTs and USTs in

accordance with California Air Resources Board ( CARB ) test procedures.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

- The following criteri a were used to evaluate the

submitted rule. 4



1. Enforceability

- The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, ( EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. Stringency

- EPA ’ s CTG titled

, “Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service Station s” (EPA

- 450/R

- 75

- 102, November 1975), CARB Vapor Recovery Certification (CP

- 201, amended Januar y 9, 20 13 ), and other state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA § 182(b)(2).

3. SIP Revisions

– CAA §110( l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 prohibits the modificati on of any SIP

approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a

nonattainment area.

EPA EVALUATION

– Rule 3.8 applies to both counties in FRAQMD, Yuba and all of Sutter County, rather than just the ozone nonattainment area of south Sut ter County.

1. Enforceability

- The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance

with Rule 3.8 consistently. The rule includes requirements for maintenance inspections utilizing an inspection protocol at regular intervals. Static pressure decay tests for ASTs and USTs are required in accordance with CARB test procedures.

2. Stringency

- The rule is more stri ngent than the CTG and CARB’s 2013 CP

201 Certification Procedure . The exemption for gasoline stations with a monthly throughput of less than 10,000 gallons complies with the CTG and

the Bluebook. 3 The rule includes the Phase I EVR system requirements f or ASTs and USTs for all new storage tanks installed beginning July 1, 2014.

The rule is also as stringent as other air district rules , such as the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 213 (February 21, 2013) and the Sacramento Metropolitan A ir Quality Management District Rule 448 (February 26, 2009)

, for this category. As a result, we propose to determine

that this rule fulfils RACT requirements.

3 The exemption allowance for storage tanks with a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or less is specified
in Table 1.3(d) of the Bluebook. 5



3. SIP Revisions

- W e propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply w ith CAA § 110(l) and § 193 because (1) the proposed SIP

revision would not interfere with the on

- going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met , nor would it

interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA , and (2) the requirements in the submitted rule are more stringen t than the existing control requirements that they would replace in the approved SIP.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

– The following revision is not currently the basi s for rule disapproval, but is

recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

1

. In section B.1.b., we recommend the exemption for all agricultural tanks be

revised to only exempt agricultural tanks that are less than 550 gallons in

the nonattainment area (see Placer County APCD Rule 213, Bay Area AQMD Rule 8.7).

EPA ACTION

- The submitted Rule 3.8 complies with all relevant CAA requirements at this time

. Therefore, EPA staff recommends a full approval of

Rule 3.8 pursuant to CAA § 110(k)(3)

.

REFE RENCES

-

1. Feather River Air Quality Management District ( FRAQM D ) Rule 3.8

, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, as submitted to the EPA on November 6

, 2014.

2

. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), Regulation 4, Rule 44 8 , “Gasoli ne Transfer into Stationary Source Containers”, February 26, 2009.

3

. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Regulation 8, Rule 7, “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities”, November 6, 2002.

4. Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Rul e 213, “Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers”, February 21, 2013.

5. Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), Rule 2.22, “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities”, June 12, 2002.

6

. EPA comment letter from A. Steckel to D. Valler, dated December 12,

2006.

7

. CTG, “Design Criteria for Stage 1 Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service Stations (EPA

- 450/R

- 75

- 102, November 1975).

8

. CARB Vapor Recovery Certification Procedure (CP

- 201, amended January
9, 20 13 ).

9

. The Little Blueb ook, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001.

1 0

. The Bluebook, EPA, May 25, 1988.