Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation September 27, 2006

1. Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)Enhanced Vapor Recovery RegulationSeptember 27, 2006

2. Topics • Background • AST Field Study • AST Field Study Results • Projected Emission Reductions • Statewide AST Population and Emission Inventory • AST EVR Regulatory Proposal • Costs and Cost Effectiveness • Timeline

3. Background • Considered Going to Board In 2004 • Needed More Public Outreach • Needed to Get a Better Estimate on the Number of ASTs in California • Identified Need to do More Research on Control Techniques • Since Then: • Met with Stakeholders and Facilitated Workshops • Conducted Survey to Estimate the Number of ASTs • Developed and Conducted Field Study

4. Vent pipe Em Vent Fill port Nozzle Tank gauge AST Emissions Pressure 3” 2” 1” 0”

5. AST FIELD STUDY

6. 1000 Gallon 550 Gallon 550 Gallon 350 Gallon

7. 350 Gallon • Control Tank Open To Atmosphere Through Flip Top Cap • Test Tank P/V Valve and Insulation

8. 550 Gallon • Control Tank Open To Atmosphere Through Flip Top Cap • Test Tank # 1 Open To Atmosphere Through Carbon Canister and Flip Top Cap • Test Tank # 2 P/V Valve, White Paint, and Shade structure • Test Tank # 3 P/V Valve and Insulation

9. 1000 Gallon • Control Tank Open To Atmosphere Through Flip Top Cap • Test Tank P/V Valve, White Paint, Shade Structure, and Carbon Canister

10. Emission Measurements in AST Field Study • Daily fuel surface temperature measurements using thermocouples (AP-42 Methodology) • However, AP-42 underestimates emissions from uncontrolled tanks (open systems). • Does not account for emissions escaping through the vent due to ambient conditions. • Gravimetric Measurements using Load Cells • Test and control tanks were weighed before and after the completion of each respective test. • Difference in the weight of the tanks = Amount of Emissions • More accurate method.

11. Load Cell

12. Comparison Between AP-42 and Load Cell Measurements for Uncontrolled ASTs Grams of gasoline/gallon/day

13. AST FIELD STUDY RESULTS

14. Evaporative Emissions Measured in Summer Months • Using different measurement techniques. Gallons of gasoline Grams of gasoline / gallon / day

15. PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS

16. Average % Emission Reduction from Uncontrolled ASTs(Calculated Using *Modified AP-42 Methodology) % EmissionReduction Type of Control Technologies *correction factor of 1.6 applied to control tanks (open systems) **3”W.C. PV valve

17. STATEWIDE AST POPULATION AND EMISSION INVENTORY

18. Statewide AST Population • Based on Survey results • Extrapolated ~ 9600 tanks statewide • 33% (3200) non-agricultural applications • 67% (6400) agricultural applications

19. Size Distribution 36% # of Tanks 17% 15% 15% 12% 5% Note: Percentages are of total population.

20. Statewide AST Emission Estimates (2005) (Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology) 1540 Gal./day 1020 Gal./day Tons of HC/Day Note: Almost 50% of the emissions are from ASTs<750 Gallon *correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems

21. District Permitted AST Emission Estimates (Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology) 320 Gal./day 310 Gal./day Tons of HC/Day 10 Gal./day ~3000 ~2200 ~800 *correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems

22. Statewide Survey Results Summary SOURCEPROTECTEDSINGLE WALLTOTAL REPORTED 2006 Districts 2,359 752 3,111 2004 Fuel Carriers 1,962 7,620 9,582 2003 Districts -- -- 1,892 Fuel Carriers 2,873 4,760 7,633

23. AST EVR REGULATORY PROPOSAL

24. AST Proposal Topics • Vaulted and Non-vaulted Tanks – Definitions • Standing Loss Emission Control • New Installations • Existing Facilities (Retrofits) • Phase I EVR • Phase II EVR

25. Vaulted Tank • Below grade, top fill, remote dispensing • CP-201 Phase I and Phase II Requirements

26. Non-Vaulted Tank • Non-Vaulted Tanks • Above grade, top or side fill • CP 206 Phase I and Phase II Requirements

27. AST Proposal

28. Standing Loss Emission Control • Existing and New Facility Emission Factors • Controls Performance During Periods of No Transfers • Interchangeable with Phase I and Phase II Systems

29. Standing Loss Emission ControlProposed Emission Factors • New Installations: 0.26 g/gal/day (90%)* • Existing Facilities: 0.61 g/gal/day (76%)* *compared to open system

30. Standing Loss Emission ControlCertification Testing • Evaluate Systems and Components: • Fuel Surface and Ambient Temperature Ratio (Attenuation) • Hydrocarbon Emissions (Processors) • Emission Factor = Attenuation + Processor Controls Meets • New Installations: 0.26 g/gal/day • Retrofit: 0.61 g/gal/day

31. Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature AttenuationSingle Wall Tank

32. Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature AttenuationProtected Tank

33. Standing Loss Emission Control

34. Standing Loss Emission Control • Performance Based Approach • Components Field Tested as System • System Meets Emission Factor (New or Retrofit) • System Issued Executive Order • System Must Stay Together • Design Based Approach • Technologies/Tanks Field Tested Once • Components Meet Emission Factor (New or Retrofit) • Certified Components Added to Executive Order • Mix and Match Certified Components from Table

35. Design BasedCertification Emission Factors

36. AST Proposal

37. Phase INew and Existing Facilities • Cargo Tank to AST • Currently 90% Efficiency • Proposed 98% Efficiency • Minimum 180 Day Test

38. AST Proposal

39. Phase IINew and Existing Facilities • AST to Motor Vehicle • Currently 90% Re-fueling Efficiency • Proposed efficiency increase to 95% • Does not include: • Fugitives • Pressure Profile • Certified with Phase I System • Minimum 180 Day Test

40. Phase IIState Requirements • California Health and Safety Code: • Liquid Retention (Dispensing Nozzle or Vapor Return Line) • No Excessive Liquid Spillage • ORVR Compatibility • Operating Hold Open Latch • ARB Required to Test for Certification

41. AST ProposalSummary • Vaulted (CP-201) • Non-vaulted Tanks (CP-206) • Standing Loss Emission Control • New: 0.26 grams/gallon/day • Retrofit: 0.61 grams/gallon/day • Phase I EVR System • Phase II EVR System

42. COST AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

43. Retrofit Costs, Cost Effectiveness of Different Standing Loss Controls on a 550 Gallon *Permitted AST *Assuming a permitted AST already has a PV Valve which controls ~40% of the emissions from an uncontrolled AST

44. Retrofit Costs, Cost EffectivenessAssumptions for Standing Loss Controls • Life of an AST is 15 years • Permitted ASTs already have a PV valve • Cost of gasoline is $2.50 per gallon • Net cost = Cost of control – Lifetime cost savings of gasoline • Negative costs indicate the amount of money saved by using the respective controls on ASTs.

45. Cost Effectiveness for Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems • Currently Being Evaluated

46. December 2006 Workshop for Certification Procedure and Test Methods March 2007 Staff Report and Regulatory Proposal April 2007 Board Meeting Timeline (Tentative)

47. Questions?

48. CONTACTS • Field Study • Jim Watson (916) 327-1282 or jwatson@arb.ca.gov • Pamela Gupta (916) 324-4458 or pgupta@arb.ca.gov • Regulatory • Joe Guerrero (916) 324-9487 or jguerrero@arb.ca.gov • Michael Werst (916) 449-5289 or mwerst@arb.ca.gov