P. 1 

# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document, Number: Docket Number: 

# -B- 4 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 11 of 132P. 2



### ___._____. —A 9 8 1 3

MEMORANDU

M TO : Stev e Shedd

U.S . EPA/OAQPS/ESD/WCPG - - FROM : GregLaFla mJ^: '

Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) c - DATE : Augus t

13 , 199 8 ~ ~ P:\N81 9 SUBJECT : P-MAC T Existin g Sourc e Contro l Level s Weightin g Thi s memorandumpresent s additiona l rational e fo

r th e curren

t contro l level s summa rize d i n Sectio n 5 ofth e document , "Presumptiv e MAC T fo r Organi c Liquid s (non-Gasoline ) Distributio n Facilities, " Jun e 9,1998 . A s state d i n tha t document , th e P-MACT determina

tion s wer e derive d fro

macomprehensiv e review ofth e curren t Federal , State , an

d loca l regulation s applicabl e t o emissio n source s foun d i n th e organi c liquid s distributio n (OLD ) industry . Tabl e 1 summarize s th e P-MAC T level s fromth e Jun e 9t

h document . Th e P-MAC T contro l level s fo r existing source s wer

e determine d usin g atwo-step process . Th e firs t

step wa s t o obtai n copie s o f rule s fro mindividua

l State s and regulate d loca l district s fo

r th e emissio n source s o

f concer n an d grou p th e simila

r rule s together

i n term s o f stringency . A s a

n exampl e o

f thi s grouping , the requirement s affectin g storag e vessel s were place d into group s o f simila r tan k siz e an d liqui d vapor

pressure cutoff

. Th e second ste p wa s t o us e th e gathere d information t o tr y to determin e wha

t th e curren t practice s ar e fo

r th e bes t controlle d 6 to 1 2 percent

of th e industry . T o mak

e thi s determi

nation , th e Independen

t Liqui d Terminal s Associatio n (ILTA ) membershi p director y wa s consulte d to determin e th e nationa l distributio n o

f HA P liqui d terminal s b

y State . Th e Petroleu mSuppl

y America s (PSA) an

d PetroleumTermina

l Encyclopedi a(PTE ) wer

e use d to determin e th e nationa

l distributio n o

f pipeline facilitie s by State . Som e of th e identifie d regulation s cove r onl y aspecifi c regio n o r

urba n are awithi n a particula r State . In suc h cases , th e percentag e value derive d fo r th e Stat e b y usin g th e ILT

A director y or th e PS A and PT

E wa s adjuste

d t o estimat e th e percentag e o

f industr y covere d b

y th e specifi c regulatio n or

regulations . I

n case s wher

e th e percentag e ha s bee

n estimate d i n suc h amanner , i

t i s note d withi n thi s mem

o b y the us e o f parenthese s t

o show th e origina

l statewide figur

e a s wel l a s th e estimate d percentag e fo r th e regulate d area . The following informatio n i s adescription , b y emissio n source , ofth e rational e fo r th e P-MACT existin g sourc e contro l level s fo r the Organi c Liquid s Distributio n NESHAP .P. 3

Mem o to Stev e Shed

d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 2

TABL

E 1 . SUMMAR

Y O F P-MACT DETERMINATION S FO R ORGANI C LIQUID S DISTRIBUTIO N SOURCE S BASE D O N FEDERAL , STATE , AN D LOCA L AI R POLLUTION RULE S

Emission Sourc e P-MACT Ne w Source s Existin g Source s I . STORAG

E VESSELS A . Fixe d Roof

Tanks , lo w vapor pressur e liquid s

B . Fixe d Roof

Tanks , hig

h vapor pressur e liquid s C . Top Loaded Tanks

D . Externa

l Floating Roof

Tanks (General )

E . Externa

l Floating Roo

f Tanks (Welded) > 10 k gallons an

d > 1. 9 psia , o r > 20k gallons an

d > 1. 5 psia , o r > 40 k gallon s an

d > 0.1 5 psia : Floatin g roof

, o r closed ven

t sys te mcontrolle d a

t 95 % b y weight ; > 1 1 psia : Pressur e tan k wit h n o detectable emission s (NDE

) o r 9 5 % contro l b y weight . N o floatin

g roofs . <40k gallon s an

d > 0.5 psia : Install a permanen

t submerge d fil l pip e o r perfor mbotto mloading . > 10 k gallons an

d > 1. 9 psia , o r > 20k gallons an

d > 1. 5 psia , o r > 40k gallon s an

d > 0.1 5 psia : Specifie d roo f sea l an d fitting s requirement s (se e Sectio

n 5.1.2.1) . > 20k gallon s an d > 1. 5 psia , o x > 40 k gallon s an

d > 0. 5 psia : Floatin g roof

, o r close d vent

syste m controlle d a

t 95 % b y weight . >25 k gallon s an

d > 1 1 psia : Pressur e tan k wit h NDE , o r 95 % con tro l by weight . N o floatin

g roofs . > 58 0 gallon s - 40k gallon s an d >1. 5 psia : Install apermanen

t submerged fil

l pip e o r perfor mbottomloading . 20k-40k gallon s an

d > 1. 5 psia , o r > 40 k gallon s an

d > 0. 5 psia : Specifie d roo f sea l and fitting s re quirement s (se e Section 5.1.2.1) . Tank s o f welde d constructio

n an d < 4 psia : No secondar

y sea l required if

specified primar

y seal s i n us e (see Section 5.1.2.2) . II . LIQUI

D TRANSFE

R A . Loadin g Racks , > 20

k gallon s loade d pe r da y a t entir e facilit y average d ove

r arolling thirty-da

y perio d > 0. 5 psia : 1 0 mg/lite r emission limit ; >1.5psia : 1 0 mg/lite

r emission limi t o r 98 % emissio

n reduction . >0. 5 psia : 90 % emissio n reduction .



## 7 -P. 4

Mem o t o Stev e Shed d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 3

TABL E 1 (Concluded )

Emission Sourc e P-MAC T Ne w Source s Existing Source s II . LIQUI

D TRANSFE

R(Cont ) B . Carg o Tan

k Leakag e DO T tes t o r EP A Method 27. " DO

T test , possibly EP

A Metho d 27. " UI . EQUIPMEN

T LEAK S Pumps , Valves , an

d Flange s Detaile d industr y lea k chec k practic e dat

aneeded to mak

e adetermina

tion ; see Section 5.1.5 . IV . WASTEWATE

RTREATMEN

T AN D CONTRO

L A . Wastewate

r Storag e Tank s

B . Individua

l Drain System s C . Oil-Wate

r Separator s >20k : Fixe d roo f require d >20 k an d >1. 9 psi a o r >40 k an d >0.7 5 psia : Fixe d roo f and 95 % contro l b

y weight . Vapo r suppression o

n individua

l drai n syste mopenings . Fixe d roo f an d 95 % contro l b

y weigh t o r afloatin g roof . Detailed industr y wastewate

r treat men t technolog y dataneede d t o mak e adetermination ; se e Section 5.1.4 .

V. BLENDIN

G Blending Operation s Detailed industr y datarequire d t o mak

e adetermination ; se e Sectio n 5.1.6 . 1 Furthe r industr y informatio

n i s neede d i n orde r t o determin e prevalenc

e o f carg o tan k testin g an d th e relativ e stringenc y o f DO T test s an d th e EPA' s Metho

d 2 7 (vapo r tightness ) testing .

1. 1 Fixe d Roo f

Storag e Tank s Lo w Vapo r

Pressur e Liquid s Th e P-MAC T determinatio n fo r existin g lo w vapo r

pressur e storag e tank s wa s develope d fromth e regulation s ofth e followin g States , whic h affec t approximatel y 1 2 percen t ofth e OL D sourc e category . Th e existin g sourc e P-MAC T wa s derive d fro msevera l 

# 3P. 5

Mem o t o Stev e Shed

d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 4

Californi arule s includin g th e Sout h Coast , Ba

y Area , Ventura , Sa

n Joaquin , E

l Dorado , Kern , Placer , an d Sant aBarbaraDistricts , alon g wit h th e Chicag o are aand Colorado regulations . According t o th e ILT

A directory , Californi arepresent s 9. 6 percent ofth e total ILTA membershi

p facilit y tankage . Th e Californi arule s do no t represent th e entir e State ; however , th e rule s fo

r thes e heavily populate d region s ar e assumed to affec

t 9 (out o f apossibl e 9.6 ) percent o f al l th e facilities . Illinoi s represent s 8. 3 percen t ofth e industry . The Chicag o are ai s assume d to represen

t one-thir d o f Illinois , whic

h i s 2. 8 percent . Colorado represent s 0. 3 percent ofth e industry . Th

e tota l o f thes e areas , therefore , represent s about 12. 1 percent

ofth e industry . Usin g asimila

r approach , approximatel

y 10. 5 percen

t ofth e pipelin e facilitie s industr y i s affecte d b y thes e regulations , a s follows : 1 . Californi a- 6. 5 (o f

7 ) percent , 2 . Illinois-Chicag o - 3 percent , an d 3 . Colorado - 1 percent . High Vapor

Pressure Liquid s Th e hig h vapo

r pressur e liqui d storag e existin g sourc e contro l level s wer e derive d from California' s Ventura , El Dorado , Ba y Area , Placer , an

d Sant aBarbaraare arules , alon g wit h th e Colorado an

d Texa s regulations . Fromth e ILT A directory , thes e rule s affec t approxi

mately 2 0 percen

t ofth e independen

t terminal s industry . The percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Californi a- 4 (o f

9.6 ) percent , 2 . Colorado - 0. 3 percent , an d 3 . Texa s -1 6 percent . Fro mth e ILT A directory , thes e rule s affec t approximatel

y 1 2 percent

ofth e pipelin e facilitie s i n th e country . The percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Californi a- 2. 4 (o f

7.0 ) percent , 2 . Colorado - 1 percent , an d 3 . Texa s - 9. 1 percent . 

# HP. 6

Mem o t o Stev e Shed

d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 5

To p Loade d Storag e Tank s Th e to p loade d storag e tan

k existin g sourc e contro l level s wer e derive d fromCalifor

nia' s Ba y Area , Placer , an

d Sa n Dieg o are arule s alon g wit h th e Oklahoma , Kentucky , Louisiana , an d Illinois-Ozon e Federa l (4 0 CF R 52.741 , subpar

t 0 ) regulations . Fro mth e ILT A directory , thes e rule s affec t approximately 1 5 percen

t ofth e independen

t terminal s industry . Th e percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Californi a- 4. 5 (o f

9.6 ) percent , 2 . Louisian a- 6. 9 percent , 3 . Oklahom a- 0. 6 percent , 4 . Kentuck

y - 0. 8 percent , an

d 5 . Illinoi s (Federal ) - 2. 8 percent . Fro mth e ILT

A directory , thes e rule s affec t approximatel

y 1 0 percen

t ofth e pipelin e facilitie s i n th e country . The percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Californi a- 3. 5 (o f

9.6 ) percent , 2 . Louisiana-1. 7 percent , 3 . Oklahoma-1.9percent , 4 . Kentuck

y - 0. 9 percent , an

d 5 . Illinoi s (Federal ) - 2. 0 percent . 1. 2 Externa

l Floatin g Roo f

Tank s Th e P-MAC T tan

k siz e and vapor

pressure cutof

f contro l level s fo

r genera l externa l roo f tank s ar e derive d fromth e sam

e regulation s a s th e low vapo r pressur e storag e tank requirements . EFRT . Welded Constructio n Th e secondar

y sea l exemptio n fo

r existin g externa

l floating roo f

tank s o f welde d constructio n i s foun

d in th e Contro l Technique s Guideline s (CTG ) fo r th e Storag e o f

Petro

leu mLiquid s i n Externa

l Floatin g Roof

tanks , an d i s reflected in th e Indiana , Sout h Carolina , Washington , Maryland , Louisiana , an d Texa s regulations . Using th e ILT A directory , thes e rule s affect

approximately 2 8 percen

t ofth e independen

t terminal s industry . Th e percentage s ar e a s follows : 

# 5P. 7

Mem o to Stev e Shed

d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 6

1 . Indian a- 2. 3 percent , 2 . Louisian a- 6. 9 percent , 3 . Sout h Carolin a- 0. 8 percent , 4 . Washington-1.0percent , 5 . Maryland -1. 6 percent , an d 6 . Texa s -1 6 percent . Fromth e ILT

A directory , thes e rule s affec t approximately 1 9 percen

t ofth e pipelin e facilitie s i n th e country . The percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Indiana-3. 5 percent , 2 . Louisiana-1. 7 percent , 3 . Sout h Carolin a- 2. 0 percent , 4 . Washington-1.4percent , 5 . Maryland -1. 3 percent , an d 6 . Texa s - 9. 1 percent . 1. 3 Liqui d Transfe

r Operation s (Loading Racks ) The existin g sourc e contro l level s fo r liqui d transfe

r operation s ar

e develope d fro

mth e Californi aand Texa s regulations . Using th e ILT A directory , thes e rule s affec t approximatel y 2 3 percen t ofth e independen

t terminal s industry . Th

e percentage s an

d contro l level s ar

e liste d below : 1 . Texa s (>0. 5 psia , >20k/day : 90 % control ) -1 6 percent , an d 2 . California-7. 5 (o f

9.6 ) percen

t Ba y Are a Sout h Coas t Sa n Joaqui n Ker n Count y VenturaCount

y Mojave E l Dorado (>0. 5 psia , > 6 millio n gal : 2 1 mg/L)

(>1. 5 psia , >20

k gal/day : 1 0 mg/L ) (>4 k gal/day : 90% ) (>1. 5 psia , >20

k gal/day : 1 0 mg/L ) (>1. 5 psia , >4

k gal/day : 95% ) (>1. 5 psia , >20

k gal/day : 1 0 mg/L ) (>1. 5 psia , >4

k gal/day : 95% ) (>1. 5 psia , >20

k gal/day : 90% ) (>0.5psia , > 150

k gal/year : 90% ) (>1. 5 psia , > 5 millio n gal/year : 95% ) (>1. 5 psia , > 5 millio n gal/year : 1 0 mg/L) . 

# GP. 8

Mem o t o Stev e Shed

d Augus t 13,199 8 Pag e 7

Fro mth e ILTA directory , thes e rule s affec t approximately 1 5 percen

t ofth e pipelin e facilitie s i n th e country . Th e percentage s ar e a s follows : 1 . Texa s - 9. 1 percent , and 2 . Californi a- 6. 5 (o f

7.0 ) percent . 1. 4 Othe r Source s Detaile d industr

y informatio n i s neede d i n orde r t o determine contro l level s fo r carg o tan k leakage , wastewate

r operations , an

d blendin g operations . Fe

w Stat e regulation s are know n t o regulate thes e particula r emissio n source s a s they appl y to th e OL

D industry . Response s t o th e industr

y survey sen

t out by th e EP A i n Apri l 199 8 ar

e expecte d t o provid e usefu l informatio n fo

r makin g MAC

T floo r determination s fo

r th e rang e of

HA P emissio n source s in thi s industry .



# 1