aboveground storage tanks (ast) enhanced vapor recovery regulation september 27, 2006
DESCRIPTION
Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation September 27, 2006. 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)
Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation
September 27, 2006
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 4
AST Emissions
Pressure
2”
1”
0”
3”Tank gauge
Em VentFill port
Vent pipe
Nozzle
AST FIELD STUDY
9/27/2006 6
350 Gallon
550 Gallon1000 Gallon550 Gallon
9/27/2006 7
350 Gallon
• Control TankOpen To Atmosphere Through Flip Top Cap
• Test TankP/V Valve and
Insulation
9/27/2006 8
550 Gallon
• Control TankOpen To Atmosphere
Through Flip Top Cap
• Test Tank # 1Open To Atmosphere
Through Carbon Canister and Flip Top Cap
• Test Tank # 2P/V Valve,
White Paint, andShade structure
• Test Tank # 3P/V Valve and
Insulation
9/27/2006 9
1000 Gallon
• Control Tank Open To Atmosphere
Through
Flip Top Cap
• Test TankP/V Valve, White Paint, Shade
Structure, and Carbon Canister
9/27/2006 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.
9/27/2006 11
Load Cell
9/27/2006 12
Comparison Between AP-42 and Load Cell Measurements for Uncontrolled ASTs
AP-42
Load Cell
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Measurement Technique
AP-42
Load Cell
Gra
ms
of
gas
oli
ne/
gal
lon
/da
y
9/27/2006 13
AST FIELD STUDY RESULTS
9/27/2006 14
Evaporative Emissions Measured in Summer Months
• Using different measurement techniques.
35
20
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
350 GallonSept-Oct(55days)
1000 GallonAug-Oct(92days)
AP-42Load Cell
Gal
lon
s o
f g
aso
line
0.85
1.321.22
1.95
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
350 Gallon 1000 Gallon
AP-42Load Cell
Gra
ms
of
gas
oli
ne
/ g
allo
n /
day
PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
9/27/2006 16
Average % Emission Reduction from Uncontrolled ASTs(Calculated Using *Modified AP-42 Methodology)
43
65 66 67
83
97
0
1020
3040
50
6070
8090
100PV**
Carbon Canister (CC)
PV+Paint
PV+Paint+shade
PV+Paint+shade+CC
PV+InsulationType of Control Technologies
% E
mis
sion
Red
uctio
n
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to control tanks (open systems)
**3”W.C. PV valve
9/27/2006 17
STATEWIDE AST POPULATION AND
EMISSION INVENTORY
9/27/2006 18
Statewide AST Population
• Based on Survey results
• Extrapolated ~ 9600 tanks statewide
• 33% (3200) non-agricultural applications
• 67% (6400) agricultural applications
9/27/2006 19
Size Distribution
0500
100015002000250030003500400045005000
0-350 Gallons
351-750Gallons
>750 Gallons
Total # of Tanks
Non-AgriculturalTanks
AgriculturalTanks
# o
f T
anks
17%
36%
15% 15%12%
5%
Note: Percentages are of total population.
9/27/2006 20
Statewide AST Emission Estimates (2005)
(Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Annual J uly
StatewideAverage
Non-agAverage
AgAverage
To
ns
of
HC
/Day
1020 Gal./day
1540 Gal./day
Note: Almost 50% of the emissions are from ASTs<750 Gallon
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems
9/27/2006 21
District Permitted AST Emission Estimates
(Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Permitted ASTs
Total DailyEmissions
ASTs > 750Gallon
ASTs < 750Gallon
To
ns
of
HC
/Day
320 Gal./day 310 Gal./day
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems
~3000 ~2200 ~800
10 Gal./day
9/27/2006 22
Statewide Survey Results Summary
SOURCE PROTECTED SINGLE WALL TOTAL REPORTED
2006Districts 2,359 752 3,111
2004Fuel Carriers 1,962 7,620 9,582
2003Districts -- -- 1,892Fuel Carriers 2,873 4,760 7,633
AST EVR REGULATORY PROPOSAL
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 25
Vaulted Tank• Below grade, top fill, remote dispensing• CP-201 Phase I and Phase II Requirements
9/27/2006 26
Non-Vaulted Tank
• Non-Vaulted Tanks– Above grade, top or side fill– CP 206 Phase I and Phase II Requirements
9/27/2006 27
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 31
Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature Attenuation
Single Wall Tank
9/27/2006 32
Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature Attenuation
Protected Tank
9/27/2006 33
Standing Loss Emission Control
Standing Loss
Performance Based Design Based
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 35
Design BasedCertification Emission Factors
9/27/2006 36
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 37
Phase INew and Existing Facilities
• Cargo Tank to AST
• Currently 90% Efficiency
• Proposed 98% Efficiency
• Minimum 180 Day Test
9/27/2006 38
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 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
9/27/2006 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
COST AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
9/27/2006 43
Retrofit Costs, Cost Effectiveness of Different Standing Loss Controls
on a 550 Gallon *Permitted AST
Control Technology
ConfigurationCost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/lb.)
Net Cost ($)
Insulation 1090 0. 52 170
Paint + CC 1260 0.86 600
Shade + CC 2370 1.61 1710
Paint + shade 1770 2.30 1390
Paint 330 0.46 -30
*Assuming a permitted AST already has a PV Valve which controls ~40% of the emissions from an uncontrolled AST
9/27/2006 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.
9/27/2006 45
Cost Effectiveness for Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery
Systems
• Currently Being Evaluated
9/27/2006 46
Timeline (Tentative)
• December 2006 Workshop for Certification Procedure and Test
Methods
• March 2007 Staff Report and Regulatory Proposal
• April 2007 Board Meeting
9/27/2006 47
Questions?
9/27/2006 48
CONTACTS
• Field Study– Jim Watson (916) 327-1282 or
[email protected]– Pamela Gupta (916) 324-4458 or
• Regulatory– Joe Guerrero (916) 324-9487 or
[email protected]– Michael Werst (916) 449-5289 or