aboveground storage tanks (ast) enhanced vapor recovery regulation september 27, 2006

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

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