[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10974]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 13, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4881-4]
RIN 2060-AD02

 

Federal Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading 
Operations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Standards implementing two provisions of the Clean Air Act 
(the Act) are being proposed by today's notice. One set of standards is 
proposed under section 183(f) of the Act and would limit air emissions 
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
from new and existing marine tank vessel loading and unloading 
operations. These standards would require the application of reasonably 
available control technology (RACT).
    An additional set of standards is proposed under section 112(d) of 
the Act and would limit air emissions of HAP from new and existing 
marine tank vessel loading and unloading operations. These proposed 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) would 
require existing and new major sources to control emissions using the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 1994.
    Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held on June 15, 1994 
beginning at 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Interested parties may submit comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention: Docket No. A-90-44, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Agency 
requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed 
below.
    Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held at the EPA's Office 
of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 
Persons wishing to present oral testimony should contact Ms. Lina 
Hanzely, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5673 by the dates specified above.
    Technical Support Document: The technical support document (TSD) 
for the proposed standards may be obtained from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, 
Virginia 22161, telephone number (703) 487-4650. Please refer to 
``Technical Support Document for the Development of an Emissions 
Standard for Marine Vessel Loading Operations'' (NTIS number PB93-
793910, EPA 450/3-92-001a). Electronic versions of the TSD as well as 
this proposed rule are available for download from the EPA's Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), a network of electronic bulletin boards 
developed and operated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for 
the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bits 
per second (bps) modem. If more information on TTN is needed contact 
the systems operator at (919) 541-5384.
    Docket: Docket No. A-90-44, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 
the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside 
Mall, room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. The proposed regulatory text and other materials related to this 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket. A reasonable fee may 
be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Markwordt, Chemicals and 
Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-0837.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. History
    B. Legal Authority for Tank Vessel Standards
    C. Process Description and Description of Control Technologies
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. Source Category to be Regulated
    B. Pollutants to be Regulated
    C. Proposed Standards
    D. Emission Points to be Regulated
    E. Format for the Proposed Standards
    F. Compliance Deadline
    G. Initial Performance Tests
    H. Vessel Tightness Testing
    I. Monitoring
    J. Recordkeeping and Reporting
III. Rationale
    A. Selection of Affected Sources
    B. Selection of Pollutants to be Regulated
    C. Selection of Basis and Level of the RACT Standards
    D. Selection of MACT Regulatory Approach
    E. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed MACT Standards
    F. Selection of Format of the Standards
    G. Selection of Test Methods
    H. Selection of Monitoring and Compliance and Performance 
Testing Requirements
    I. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    J. Solicitation of Comments
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Docket
    C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

    The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal 
Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-90-44 or by request 
from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this notice free of 
charge. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). See the Docket section of this 
preamble for more information on accessing TTN.

I. Background

A. History

    In 1982, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime 
Administration (MARAD) began working with the EPA regarding the 
establishment of Federal regulations under the Clean Air Act pertaining 
to air pollutants emitted from commercial marine vessels. The MARAD 
raised concerns regarding the potential disruption of interstate and 
foreign commerce and safety problems that may result from State 
regulation of marine vessel emissions. The MARAD believed that the most 
appropriate method to control these emissions without causing undue 
disruption of commerce or safety problems would be for the EPA to 
promulgate national standards regulating air pollutants from these 
sources.
    In 1985, the U.S. Department of Transportation requested that the 
National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) evaluate 
the feasibility of controlling emissions from marine tank vessel 
loading operations. At that time, many States were already considering 
vapor controls for barge and tankship loading and tankship ballasting. 
The NRC Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) then 
convened a Committee on Control and Recovery of Hydrocarbon Vapors from 
Ships and Barges. This committee operated under the guidance of the 
Marine Board of the NRC. The committee and the Marine Board consisted 
of members of industry and academia and State representatives. The 
Coast Guard (U.S. Department of Transportation) and the EPA also worked 
with the committee on the feasibility study. In 1987, the committee 
issued its report ``Controlling Hydrocarbon Emissions From Tank Vessel 
Loading'' (Docket A-90-44, item II-I-4).
    The Marine Board's report determined that controls were technically 
feasible but that there was a need for the Coast Guard to promulgate 
safety requirements and a need for the EPA to set uniform emissions 
standards to mitigate some of the safety issues that could arise from 
varied State regulations. The report recommended that the Coast Guard 
``lead the development and implementation of a coordinated program to 
ensure the safety and standardization of maritime hydrocarbon vapor 
emissions controls.'' The Coast Guard would be responsible for the 
safety issues involved (standardized equipment, detonation arrestors, 
personnel training, etc.), and the EPA would be responsible for the 
emissions standards. One of the methods suggested to achieve the 
coordination necessary to develop standards for marine tank vessel 
loading operations was an amendment to the Act.
    Part of the Marine Board's task was to develop cost estimates. The 
Marine Board contracted United Technical Design (UTD) to develop cost 
estimates for three different model terminals and four model vessels. 
These model terminals and costs served as the basis for the EPA costs 
(Docket A-90-44, item II-I-5).
    In response to the NRC recommendation, the Coast Guard's Chemical 
Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) formed a Subcommittee on Vapor 
Control to develop standards for designing and operating vapor control 
systems. This CTAC subcommittee presented its final recommendations to 
the Coast Guard in February 1989. The Coast Guard standards for safe 
design, installation, and operation of marine vapor recovery equipment 
were promulgated in June 1990 (55 FR 2596). The Coast Guard regulations 
are found in 33 CFR part 154 and 46 CFR part 39.
    As a result of the NRC recommendation, Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 (the 1990 amendments) added a new section to the Act, section 
183(f), that requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to 
emissions of VOC and other air pollutants resulting from the loading 
and unloading of tank vessels.
    The 1990 amendments also revised section 112 of the Act to require 
the EPA to publish a list of categories of major sources and area 
sources of listed HAP and to promulgate emissions standards for each 
listed category of emission sources. In the Agency's initial list of 
categories of sources to be regulated under section 112(c) of the Act, 
the marine vessel loading and unloading source category was not listed 
because the Agency intended to regulate the emissions of HAP as well as 
VOC under the authority of section 183(f) of the Act (57 FR 31566, July 
16, 1992). After publication of this initial list of source categories, 
the Agency decided to regulate HAP emissions from major sources of 
marine vessel loading and unloading facilities under authority of 
section 112 of the Act (58 FR 60021, November 12, 1993).

B. Legal Authority for Tank Vessel Standards

1. Clean Air Act Section 183(f)
    Section 183(f) of the Act requires the Administrator, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 
Guard is operating, to

    Promulgate standards applicable to the emissions of VOC and any 
other air pollutant from loading and unloading of tank vessels (as 
that term is defined in section 2101 of title 46 of the United 
States Code) which the Administrator finds causes, or contributes 
to, air pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare. Such standards shall require the 
application of reasonably available control technology, considering 
costs, any non-air-quality benefits, environmental impacts, energy 
requirements and safety factors associated with alternative control 
techniques.

The Act further directed the Administrator to limit the application of 
the standards, to the extent practicable, to loading and unloading 
facilities and not to tank vessels. The standards were to be 
promulgated within 2 years after enactment of the amended Act and must 
be effective within 2 years of promulgation. The Coast Guard was 
directed to issue regulations ``to insure the safety of the equipment 
and operations which are to control emissions from the loading and 
unloading of tank vessels * * *.''
2. Clean Air Act Section 112
    Title III of the 1990 amendments revised section 112 of the Act to 
reduce the amount of nationwide air toxics emissions. Under title III, 
section 112 was amended to give the EPA the authority to establish 
national standards to reduce air toxics from industries that generate 
these emissions. Section 112(b) contains a list of 189 HAP, the 
emissions of which are to be regulated. Specific HAP on the list 
include benzene (including benzene from gasoline), toluene, and hexane. 
Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this pollutant list to develop 
and publish a list of all categories of major and area sources of the 
pollutants on the HAP list. National emissions standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) will be developed for each of the source 
categories on that list. The list of source categories was published in 
the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and was revised to 
include marine vessel loading and unloading operations on November 12, 
1993 (58 FR 60021).
    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing major and area sources according to the statutory 
directives set out in section 112(d) of the Act. (Section 112(a) 
defines a major source as any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or has the potential to emit considering control, 10 tons per 
year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP. 
An area source is any stationary source that is not considered 
``major''.) The statute requires the standards to reflect the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable for new or 
existing sources. This control level is referred to as the ``maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT)'', the selection of which must 
reflect consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reduction, 
any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements for control levels more stringent than the MACT floors.
    The MACT floor is the minimum stringency level for MACT standards. 
For new sources, MACT must be no less stringent than the level of 
emission control already achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source. For existing sources, MACT must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of existing sources or the best performing 5 sources in 
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    Once the floor has been determined for new or existing sources for 
a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards 
that ``shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction of the 
hazardous air pollutants subject to this section * * * that the 
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 
emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or 
existing sources * * *.'' These standards must be no less stringent 
than the MACT floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources 
within the category or subcategory. In establishing standards, the 
Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of 
sources within a category or subcategory.

C. Process Description and Description of Control Technologies

1. Process Description
    Marine tank vessel loading operations are facilities that load and 
unload liquid commodities (e.g., crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel, 
kerosene, toluene, alcohols, fuel oil Numbers 2 and 6, some chemicals, 
and groups of solvents or petrochemical products, etc.) in bulk. The 
cargo is pumped from the terminal's large, above-ground storage tanks 
through a network of pipes and into a storage compartment (tank) on the 
vessel. Most marine tank vessel loading operations are associated with 
petroleum refineries or synthetic organic chemical manufacturers, or 
are independent terminals.
    Gasoline, crude oil, and other VOC- and HAP-emitting commodities 
are normally delivered from refinery to terminal or terminal to 
terminal via pipeline, ship, or barge. During marine tank vessel 
loading operations, emissions result as the liquid that is being loaded 
into the vessel displaces vapors from the vessel's tank. The vapors 
emitted fall into two categories: Arrival emissions and generated 
emissions. Arrival emissions are attributed to any vapors remaining in 
the otherwise empty cargo tanks prior to loading. Generated emissions 
refer to vapors resulting from the evaporation of the liquid cargo as 
it is loaded. The ratio of arrival vapors to generated vapors can vary 
greatly depending upon the liquid, vapor pressure, loading method, and 
loading conditions.
    The major emission points for marine vessel loading operations 
include open tank hatches and overhead vent systems. Overhead vent 
systems collect vapors displaced during loading and route them to a 
vertical pipe or stack. The vapors are released well above the height 
of the deck with an upward velocity to help isolate the vapors from the 
deck. Other possible emission points are hatch covers or domes, 
pressure-vacuum relief valves, seals, and vents.
    Emissions may also occur during ballasting, which is the process of 
drawing ballast (i.e., water) into a cargo hold. When ballast is loaded 
into tanks that contain vapors from the preceding cargo, the vapor is 
displaced and emitted from the vessel. Most tankships carrying crude 
oil built since 1980 are required by domestic law and international 
agreement to use segregated ballast tanks, which prevent the 
possibility of ballast emissions (see also: The Port and Tanker Safety 
Act (1978), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (1980), the Marine 
Vapor Control System Standards (55 FR 25396, June 21, 1990); and the 
Double Hull Standards for Tank Vessels Carrying Oil (57 FR 36221, 
August 12, 1992). However, some older and smaller tankships may be 
exempt from these requirements. Inland barges do not carry ballast.
2. Control Technologies
    The description of control technologies has two components, the 
capture of vapors and the destruction or recovery of VOC and HAP. The 
capture of vapors at the marine vessel requires that the compartments 
on both tankships and barges be closed to the atmosphere during 
loading. Most tankships are already equipped for closed loading as a 
result of having inert gas systems on board because closed loading is 
necessary to maintain the legally required minimum inert gas pressure 
in the cargo tanks in accordance with Coast Guard regulations (46 CFR 
32.53 and 46 CFR 153.500). Barges generally do not use inert gas and 
are usually open loaded. Equipment necessary for closed loading 
includes (1) devices to protect tanks from underpressurization and 
overpressurization, (2) level-monitoring and alarm systems to prevent 
overfilling, and (3) devices for cargo gauging and sampling.
    The vapor emissions captured from marine tank vessel loading 
operations can be controlled using one of two primary methods: 
Combustion or recovery. Combustion devices include flares, enclosed 
flares, and thermal and catalytic incinerators. The primary recovery 
methods are carbon adsorption, absorption, vapor balancing, and 
refrigeration. (For a more complete discussion of the capture and 
control techniques, consult the technical support document (TSD) 
previously mentioned in the ADDRESSES section.)

II. Summary of the Proposed Standards

    The following summarizes the proposed standards. A full discussion 
of the rationale underlying these proposed regulations is found in part 
III.

A. Source Category To Be Regulated

    The source category to be regulated is major source marine tank 
vessel loading and unloading operations. Regulations will require those 
operations exceeding certain gasoline or crude oil throughput cutoffs 
or certain HAP emissions cutoff at major sources to install vapor 
control systems. Approximately 300 marine tank vessel loading and 
unloading operations would be affected by these proposed regulations. 
Vessels loading at affected sources must meet vapor tightness criteria 
in order to load product.
    The source category includes only emissions that are directly 
caused by the loading and unloading of bulk liquids at points where 
marine terminal equipment is connected to marine vessel sources. Thus, 
this source category does not include storage tanks and leaking 
equipment associated with terminal transfer operations. Nor does this 
source category include emissions from offshore vessel-to-vessel bulk 
liquid transfer operations (i.e., lightering operations). Lightering 
operations do not take place at onshore terminals. The Agency may 
consider addressing lightering operations in a separate source 
category.

B. Pollutants To Be Regulated

    The pollutants to be regulated are all VOC and HAP emitted during 
marine tank vessel loading and unloading operations.

C. Proposed Standards

    The proposed standards are developed under sections 183(f) and 
112(d) of the Act. As discussed above, section 183(f) requires the 
promulgation of standards implementing reasonably available control 
technology (RACT). Section 112(d) requires the promulgation of maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT), which is selected using different 
criteria than are used for determining RACT. As a result, RACT 
standards developed under section 183(f) have somewhat different 
applicability criteria, as well as a different level of emissions 
reduction, compared to the section 112(d) MACT standards. However, the 
majority of requirements (e.g., reporting, recordkeeping, performance 
tests, monitoring) are identical. In order to simplify the regulatory 
process, both sets of standards, RACT and MACT, are presented in a 
single regulation and proposed under 40 CFR part 63.
1. Proposed RACT Standards
    Existing and new sources exceeding either of the throughput cutoffs 
of 790 million liters per year (L/yr) (5 million barrels per year (bbl/
yr)) of gasoline or 16 billion L/yr (100 million bbl/yr) of crude oil 
must meet the RACT requirement of capture and control of vapors from 
marine vessel loading operations. The EPA believes that approximately 
25 terminals will be required to install controls under these proposed 
standards. The RACT for marine vessel loading operations is a capture 
system consisting of a vapor tight marine vessel and all of the piping 
and equipment necessary to route all VOC vapors to a control device 
connected to either a thermal destruction device or a recovery device. 
If a thermal destruction device is used to process vapors, 98 percent 
destruction efficiency must be achieved. If a recovery device is used 
to process the vapors, 95 percent recovery must be achieved, or as an 
alternative, for recovery of gasoline vapor emissions, a source must 
ensure an outlet concentration of 1,000 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv) or less.
2. Proposed MACT Standards
    New marine vessel loading operations exceeding 1 megagram per year 
(Mg/yr) (1.1 tons per year) of uncontrolled HAP emissions that are 
located at major sources must meet the MACT requirement of capture and 
control of vapors from marine vessel loading operations. The MACT for 
new marine vessel loading operations is a capture system consisting of 
a vapor tight marine vessel and all of the piping and equipment 
necessary to route all VOC vapors to a control device that is capable 
of reducing HAP emissions to the atmosphere by 98 percent.
    Existing marine vessel loading operations exceeding approximately 1 
Mg/yr of HAP emissions that are located at major sources must meet the 
same vessel tightness requirements as new sources. The EPA believes 
that approximately 300 terminals will be affected by these proposed 
standards. These operations will have a MACT emissions requirement of 
93 percent emission reduction. Control devices used to achieve this 
emission limit are required to operate at 95- and 98 percent removal 
efficiencies respectively. However, these facilities have the option of 
exempting emissions of one or more commodities from control provided an 
overall 93 percent emission reduction is achieved. This overall 
emission reduction may be demonstrated by controlling all but a few 
commodities loaded. Partial control of any given commodity would not be 
allowed under the proposed compliance provisions.
    At both new and existing sources, emissions from ballasting 
operations would be prohibited. Emissions of HAP from steam stripping 
used to regenerate carbon beds when carbon adsorption is used to 
control emissions from marine vessel loading operations would also be 
prohibited under today's proposed standards.
3. Source Reduction and Recycling
    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508; 42 U.S.C. 
13101 et seq., ER 71:0501) establishes the following pollution 
prevention hierarchy as national policy:
    a. Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever 
feasible;
    b. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an 
environmentally safe manner wherever feasible;
    c. Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated 
in an environmentally safe manner wherever feasible; and
    d. Disposal or other release into the environment should be 
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an 
environmentally safe manner.
    Pollution prevention means ``source reduction,'' as defined under 
the Pollution Prevention Act, and other practices that reduce or 
eliminate the creation of pollutants. Source reduction is any practice 
that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance entering the waste 
stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to recycling, 
treatment, or disposal. Source reduction does not include any practice 
which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or 
the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through 
a process or activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for 
the production of a product or the providing of a service. Under the 
Pollution Prevention Act, recycling, energy recovery, treatment and 
disposal are not included within the definition of pollution 
prevention. Some practices commonly described as ``in-process 
recycling'' may qualify as pollution prevention.
    Pollution prevention principles have been incorporated into the 
proposed marine vessel standards. The proposed prohibition of emissions 
from ballasting and steam stripping operations has the effect of 
preventing pollution from occurring at the source. Alternative 
processes (i.e., segregated ballast tanks and vacuum regeneration) are 
readily available, widely used, and have the benefit of not resulting 
in HAP or VOC emissions.
    Although not considered pollution prevention, vapor recovery and 
recycling is a common practice in this industry, particularly gasoline 
recovery (the lower vapor pressure crude oils are less conducive to 
recovery and are more likely to foul the carbon bed). The proposed 
standards encourage vapor recovery by allowing the use of well- 
operated and maintained recovery devices that operate at 95-percent 
emission reduction. Recovery devices are desirable compared to 
combustion devices because the recovered compounds can be reused in 
other processes, which reduces the quantity of virgin materials that 
must be produced. Recovery devices also tend to generate fewer 
secondary pollution impacts than do combustion devices.

D. Emission Points To Be Regulated

    The emission points to be regulated include all means of venting 
the tank during loading of product or ballast. These include, but are 
not limited to, open hatches and/or overhead vent systems. The proposed 
rulemakings will not directly regulate seals, hatches, or covers 
associated with the marine tank vessel. However, these items must be in 
satisfactory condition for the vessel to pass one of the three 
different marine tank vessel tightness tests, and must remain closed 
during the loading process.

E. Format for the Proposed Standards

    The chosen format for the standards for product loading is a 
percentage of mass emissions reduction. An alternative format for 
gasoline vapor recovery, a maximum allowable concentration for the 
vapor processor exhaust is also proposed. Emissions are prohibited from 
ballasting operations and from regeneration of carbon adsorber beds.

F. Compliance Deadline

    The compliance deadline for existing sources affected by the RACT 
standards is 2 years after the date of promulgation. The compliance 
deadline for existing sources affected by the MACT standards is 2 years 
after the date of promulgation. An existing source that subsequently 
exceeds a RACT throughput cutoff will have 2 years to comply once the 
source exceeds a throughput cutoff. Similarly, any source that exists 
as of the effective date of the standards and subsequently exceeds the 
MACT applicability thresholds would have 2 years to comply with the 
existing source MACT standards. All other new or reconstructed 
facilities will have to comply upon startup, with the exceptions noted 
in Sec. 63.6 of the part 63 General Provisions.

G. Initial Performance Tests

    Owners or operators must perform initial performance tests as 
required by Sec. 63.7 of the General Provisions for all combustion or 
recovery devices except devices such as boilers or process heaters 
where the emissions stream is the primary fuel or boilers and process 
heaters having a design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or more. 
The test method for compliance for combustion devices is the EPA Method 
25 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The test method for compliance for 
recovery devices is the EPA Method 25A of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. 
Flares are not subject to the same tests as other control devices, but 
must pass a visible emissions test according to the requirements of 
Method 22 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The performance tests must 
be conducted to include the loading of the last 20 percent of a 
compartment, and may be spread out over multiple compartments.

H. Vessel Tightness Testing

    Three alternatives to ensure vessel tightness are proposed: (1) 
Pressure test the vessel, (2) perform a leak test on all components 
using Method 21 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or (3) load the vessel 
at less than atmospheric pressure.

I. Monitoring

    Owners or operators using a vent system that contains valves that 
could divert a vent stream from a control device must either monitor 
vent stream flow to ensure that it is not diverted from a control 
device or secure the bypass line valve in the closed position.
    Monitoring criteria have been established for combustion devices 
(except flares), carbon adsorbers, condensers and adsorbers. In 
general, facilities would be required to establish operating parameters 
during the initial performance test and then monitor combustion 
temperature for combustion devices, VOC concentration in the exhaust 
stream outlet for carbon adsorbers, exhaust stream temperature for 
condensers, and VOC outlet concentration for adsorbers. In the case of 
flares, owners or operators would be required to monitor for the 
continuous presence of a flame and to monitor vent stream flow. Owners 
or operators seeking to use other types of control devices may develop 
enhanced monitoring criteria for these devices and submit the criteria 
to the Administrator for approval.

J. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Sources required to install controls would have to fulfill the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the part 63 General 
Provisions including submittal of the following reports: (1) Compliance 
notification report, (2) notification of initial performance test, (3) 
report of initial performance test, (4) quarterly parameter exceedance 
report, and (5) quarterly emissions estimation report. These sources 
must also maintain documentation that vessels loaded at the facility 
are vapor tight. All information will be made readily available to the 
Administrator or delegated State authority for a minimum of 5 years.

III. Rationale

A. Selection of Affected Sources

    The primary release of vapors during the marine tank vessel loading 
process occurs at the tank vessel through hatches, vents, and vent 
systems. However, it is impractical for marine tank vessels to carry 
their own vapor processing systems given the limited space on 
individual vessels. It is also much more economical for terminals to 
install and operate control devices that are capable of controlling 
emissions from multiple vessels than for each vessel to control its own 
emissions. Furthermore, section 183(f) requires that ``to the extent 
practicable such standards shall apply to loading and unloading 
facilities and not to tank vessels.'' Therefore, these regulations 
require that terminals install an air pollution control device and a 
means of routing the air/vapor mixture from the vessel to the air 
pollution control device.
    Vessels will not be allowed to load or unload product unless they 
are compatible with terminal air pollution control systems or have a 
self contained emissions control system on board. Therefore, vessels 
loading at a controlled terminal will need to have their own vapor 
collection systems (i.e., pipes which allow for connection to terminal 
air pollution control system) in order to route vapors to shore. 
However, vessels are not required to load at controlled terminals. As a 
result, the affected source is limited to the terminal, which is in 
turn required to capture and control all loading emissions, with the 
exception of ballasting and off-shore terminal emissions which are 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble. Emissions from off shore vessel-
to-vessel bulk liquid transfer operations (i.e., lightering operations) 
are also not included as a source affected by these standards because 
these operations do not take place at onshore terminals.

B. Selection of Pollutants To Be Regulated

    Section 183(f) of the Act states that the Administrator shall 
``promulgate standards applicable to the emission of VOC and any other 
pollutant from loading and unloading of tank vessels which the 
Administrator finds causes, or contributes to, air pollution that may 
be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' Under 
section 112(d), the EPA is also required to regulate the emissions of 
HAP from source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c). Marine 
vessel loading operations were listed on November 12, 1993 (58 FR 
60021). In the absence of regulation, the EPA estimates that 75,200 Mg/
yr of VOC will be emitted as a result of tank vessel loading 
operations. Approximately 8,000 Mg/yr of these VOC emissions will be 
emissions of HAP. Tank vessel loading operations emit approximately 53 
different substances listed as HAP under section 112(b) of the Act. 
Such emissions include unregulated benzene emissions of about 700 Mg/
yr. In addition, approximately 6,900 Mg/yr of hexane, toluene, xylene 
compounds, ethyl benzene, iso-octane, MTBE, naphthalene, and cumene are 
emitted from tank vessel loading operations. Approximately 44 HAP 
comprise the remaining four percent of toxic emissions.
    Benzene is a known human carcinogen. It has been demonstrated to 
increase the incidence of nonlymphocytic leukemia in occupationally 
exposed individuals. It has also been linked to other leukemias, as 
well as lymphomas and other tumor types in animal studies. Benzene has 
also been associated with a number of adverse noncancer health effects, 
including effects on the blood system and the immune system. The other 
HAP identified above also may induce adverse health effects, including 
depression of the central nervous system, upper respiratory tract and 
eye irritation, skeletal abnormalities, anemia, cataracts, kidney 
damage and liver damage.
    As a result of its authority to regulate emission from tank vessel 
loading operations under both section 183(f) and section 112(d), the 
EPA shall regulate emissions of VOC and those HAP included on the list 
under section 112(b) in this rulemaking.

C. Selection of Basis and Level of the RACT Standards

1. Development of Regulatory Alternatives
    In deciding how to implement the RACT provisions of section 183(f), 
the EPA had to determine whether or not all tank vessel loading 
terminals should be subject to the standards (i.e., whether there 
should be ``cutoffs'' below which a terminal would not be subject to 
the standards) and what level of control would be appropriate. 
Consistent with the requirements of section 183(f) calling for the 
consideration of costs and other non-air quality impacts, as well as 
the general requirements under RACT to review economic feasibility, the 
EPA believes that section 183(f) gives the EPA the flexibility to 
determine the level and scope of regulation that is most appropriate 
for terminal facilities, given all of the factors indicated.
    Assuming 100 percent capture of emissions (which can be assumed 
when vapor tight vessels are loaded), the overall level of control is 
determined by the efficiency of the control device to which emissions 
are ducted. Currently, recovery devices (e.g., carbon adsorption, 
absorption, vapor balancing and refrigeration) are capable of achieving 
a 95 percent efficiency compared to a 98 percent efficiency achieved by 
thermal destruction (combustion) devices (e.g., flares, enclosed 
flares, and thermal and catalytic incinerators). Additional information 
and descriptions of these control technologies are found in the TSD for 
this rulemaking (see ADDRESSES section). For purposes of the regulatory 
alternative analysis, the use of a thermal destruction device (i.e., 98 
percent efficiency) was assumed. The control technologies selected for 
this regulation are discussed in part 4 below.
    The next step was to identify regulatory alternatives that would 
allow the EPA to choose among different optimal cutoffs specifying what 
types of terminals would have to install control devices. The EPA chose 
commodity and throughput as factors to distinguish among alternatives 
because commodities with higher vapor pressures have higher emissions 
and, for a given commodity, terminals with higher throughput loading 
similar vessels have higher emissions.
    Table 1 is a summary of the five regulatory alternatives developed 
by the EPA. The regulatory alternatives varied in stringency from 
controlling all emissions at all facilities to controlling only 
gasoline loadings at terminals with annual throughputs greater than 
1,590 million liters (10 million bbl/yr) and crude oil terminals with 
throughputs greater than 15,900 million liters/yr (100 million bbl/yr). 
The control levels are all based on the capture of loading emissions 
from marine vessels and a 98 percent removal efficiency. Each 
regulatory alternative is structured such that the emissions and 
resulting cost-effectiveness values from each commodity at the stated 
throughput are roughly equivalent. For example, the costs of 
controlling emissions from 10 million barrels of gasoline is treated as 
being roughly equivalent to the costs of controlling emissions from 100 
million barrels of crude oil because the emissions per volume of 
gasoline is ten times higher than for crude oil. (For a more complete 
rationale behind the selection of the regulatory alternatives, consult 
the technical support document (TSD) previously mentioned in the 
ADDRESSES section.)

                                                         Table 1.--RACT Regulatory Alternativesa                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             VOC                                                                            Incremental 
                                                          emissions   Percent VOC     No. of      Capital       Annual         Cost            cost     
         Alternatives, throughput (MM bbl/yr)             reduction,   emissions     affected     costs, $     costs, $   effectiveness,  effectiveness,
                                                           Mg/yrb     reductionb    terminals    millionc     millionc         $/Mg            $/Mg     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Gasoline >10 MM bbl/yr..............................       53,200           66           13          220           41            770             N/A 
    Crude oil >100 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                            
II. Gasoline >5 MM bbl/yr..............................       58,100           72           25          280           53            910           2,500 
    Crude oil >100 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                            
III Gasoline >1 MM bbl/yr..............................       64,500           80           60          420           85          1,300           5,000 
    Crude oil >10 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                             
IV. Gasoline >0.5 MM bbl/yr............................       66,900           83          120          570          120          1,800          15,000 
    Toluene >0.5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                              
    Alcohols >1.5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                             
    Crude oil >5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                                                              
V. All terminals.......................................       72,000           98        1,500        2,600          610          8,500         96,000  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aa Terminals affected by State regulations or loading less than 1,000 bbl/yr are not included in the above estimates.                                   
Ab Based on a 98-percent control efficiency and total VOC emissions of 74,000 Mg/yr.                                                                    
Ac Costs are in 1990 dollars.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                        
ASource: Docket A-90-44, items II-A-23 and II-A-32.                                                                                                     

    The analysis leading to a decision to regulate emissions from 
ballasting and steam stripping operations is presented in section D, 
Selection of MACT Regulatory Approach.
2. Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
    The EPA developed model (i.e., example) vessels and terminals for 
use in estimating the environmental, cost, and economic impacts 
associated with the actual terminals represented by the waterborne 
commerce in the United States (WCUS) data base. The impacts that 
resulted from this analysis are presented in Tables 1 through 3. The 
EPA performed an economic impact analysis of the regulatory 
alternatives considered for these regulations. Potential price, output, 
and employment impacts for affected products and for the marine 
transport industry and for small businesses were examined. Estimated 
maximum price increases for any product loaded in bulk varied but were 
not large under any of the regulatory alternatives. These price 
increase estimates reflect the control cost increase for both 
transporting crude and transporting refined products. Because the price 
increases are small and because the elasticities of demand for 
petroleum products are small, estimated percent output (i.e., 
throughput) reductions were minimal in all but Regulatory Alternative 
V. Correspondingly, estimated employment reductions were also small 
(less than 20) in all but Regulatory Alternative V. 

                  Table 2.--Secondary Air and Energy Impacts of RACT Regulatory Alternativesa b                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  SOX          NOX           CO      Electricity    Natural gas 
    Alternatives, throughout (MM bbl/yr)       emissions,   emissions,   emissions,    impacts,   impacts, 1,000
                                                 Mg/yrc       Mg/yrc       Mg/yrc      MWh/yrd       ft\3\/yrd  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Gasoline >10 MM bbl/yr...................           61          130          120        3,000         340,000
    Crude oil >100 MM bbl/yr                                                                                    
II. Gasoline >5 MM bbl/yr...................           61          150          140        5,400         620,000
    Crude oil >100 MM bbl/yr                                                                                    
III. Gasoline >1 MM bbl/yr..................           65          180          170       11,000       1,300,000
    Crude oil >10 MM bbl/yr                                                                                     
IV. Gasoline >0.5 MM bbl/yr.................           65          190          180       20,000       2,200,000
    Toluene >0.5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                      
    Alcohols >1.5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                     
    Crude oil >5 MM bbl/yr                                                                                      
V. All terminals............................           69          250          230      170,000      16,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTerminals affected by State regulations or loading less than 1,000 bbl/yr are not included in the above        
  estimates.                                                                                                    
bBased on use of incineration.                                                                                  
cThese impacts represent increases in emissions; increases would not be expected if all affected sources used   
  recovery technologies.                                                                                        
dThese impacts represent increases in energy usage.                                                             
                                                                                                                
Source: Docket A-90-44, item II-A-24.                                                                           


                                          Table 3.--Summary of RACT Economic Impacts by Regulatory Alternative                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               No. of                                                   
                Terminals covered/                    Maximum       Percent                  terminals                                                  
  Reg. alt.     throughout, MM BBL/  Total cost,   percent price     output     Employment     under       Impact on vessels   Displacement potential by
                        yr                MM         increases     reductions   reductions  competitive                                 pipeline        
                                                                                              pressure                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............  Gasoline >10.0......           41       0.16-0.19         0.02          <50            0  Low level of          Minimal.                 
                                                                                                          dedication.                                   
               Crude oil >100......  ...........       0.10-0.18           ND  ...........  ...........  ....................  .........................
II...........  Gasoline >5.0.......           53       0.18-0.21         0.02          <50          0-5  Low level of          Minimal.                 
                                                                                                          dedication.                                   
               Crude oil >100......  ...........       0.10-0.18           ND  ...........  ...........  ....................  .........................
III..........  Gasoline >1.0.......           85       0.25-0.29         0.02  ...........  ...........  Moderate level of     Minimal.                 
                                                                                                          dedication.                                   
               Crude oil >10.0.....  ...........       0.18-0.31           ND          119         0-30  ....................  .........................
IV...........  Gasoline >0.5.......          120       0.32-0.37         0.03  ...........  ...........  Significant level of  Minimal.                 
                                                                                                          dedication.                                   
               Crude >5.0..........  ...........       0.18-0.32           ND          165         0-65  ....................  .........................
               Alcohols >1.5.......  ...........            0.60         0.04  ...........  ...........  ....................  .........................
               Toluene >10.0.......  ...........            0.41               ...........  ...........  ....................  .........................
V............  All.................          610         0.3-1.8        0.07-          924       >1,000  High level of         Some in long run.        
                                                                         0.26                             dedication to                                 
                                                                                                          regulated products.                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND=Not determinable, function of other products derived from crude oil.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Reference: Docket A-90-44, items II-A-23 and II-A-32.                                                                                                   

    Because today's proposed regulation involves the application of 
both RACT and MACT, impacts for each standard were determined 
separately. In order to avoid overestimation or double-counting, and 
because the requirements for RACT are more stringent than MACT, the 
impacts for facilities affected by RACT (i.e., facilities with gasoline 
throughputs of greater than 790 million L/yr (5 million bbl/yr) or 
crude oil throughputs of greater than 16 billion L/yr (100 million bbl/
yr)) were calculated first, and were discounted when determining the 
impacts for facilities affected by MACT (i.e., facilities emitting 
greater than 1 Mg/yr of HAP).
3. RACT Threshold Determination
    The Administrator is proposing Regulatory Alternative II as the 
regulatory threshold for the RACT standard. Regulatory Alternative II 
would require controls for crude oil loadings at facilities with an 
crude oil marine throughput of approximately 15,900 L/yr (100 million 
bbl/yr) or more, and gasoline loadings at facilities with a gasoline 
throughput of approximately 795 million L/yr (5 million bbl/yr). 
Approximately 25 terminals (1.5 percent of all terminals) will be 
affected if the thresholds for Regulatory Alternative II are 
implemented. In addition, under this alternative, only a small volume 
of U.S. marine vessels will need to be retrofitted. It is anticipated 
that only those vessels that are least costly to retrofit would be 
retrofitted. Approximately 76 percent of the VOC emissions from all 
marine terminals would be controlled at an average cost effectiveness 
of approximately $770/Mg of VOC reduced under Regulatory Alternative 
II.
    The Administrator believes that the incremental cost effectiveness 
($5,000/Mg) of going beyond Regulatory Alternative II is inappropriate 
given this standard.
    Regulatory Alternative III was strongly considered. However, the 
additional 35 terminals controlled under Regulatory Alternative III 
would produce only an additional eight percent reduction in nationwide 
emissions. Of those 35 additional terminals, as many as 25 could be 
under increased competitive pressure, compared to only up to five 
terminals under Regulatory Alternative II. (Increased competitive 
pressure refers to the situation where the controlled terminal is in 
direct competition with a much smaller or larger terminal. The smaller 
terminal may not be controlled and the larger terminal may be able to 
control vapors more effectively on a per-barrel basis. The controlled 
terminal could be forced to absorb some of the control costs, reduce 
throughput, substitute nonregulated products, or close the facility.)
    Additionally, the more stringent regulatory alternatives considered 
involved control of commodities which have vapor pressures much lower 
than gasoline and crude oil. Emissions generally correspond to the 
vapor pressure of the commodity being loaded. Gasoline and crude oil 
generally have the highest vapor pressures, and therefore present 
better control alternatives. Because the economic and other 
environmental impacts of Regulatory Alternative II are reasonable and 
should not place an undue burden on industry or the environment, the 
Administrator selected Regulatory Alternative II as representative of 
RACT.
4. Selection of Emission Control Technologies and Emission Control 
Standards for RACT
    Control of marine vessel loading emissions requires the capture of 
displaced vapors and efficient control of vapors once captured. Vessels 
loading at facilities with controls must install a vapor collection 
system and pass one of three tank vessel tightness alternatives to 
ensure good capture of vapors. The tightness alternative may be one of 
the following: (1) A leak check performed during loading on all 
components using Method 21 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60; (2) a 
pressure test, where the internal tanks are pressurized and the 
pressure drop is monitored over time to determine if the vessel is 
tight; or (3) for noninerted vessels (i.e., vessels having tanks that 
are not blanketed with nonreactive gas during loading to ensure that 
vapors in the tanks are below the explosive range), load the vessel at 
less than atmospheric pressure. These tightness alternatives are the 
same as those promulgated in the NESHAP for benzene (40 CFR part 61 
subpart BB). The EPA does not have sufficient data necessary to 
determine at what point vessel leaks affect the operation and 
efficiency of the control system; however, the Agency believes that the 
three tightness alternatives proposed are sufficient to provide for the 
collection of nearly all displaced vapors. The EPA believes that once 
assured of good capture and collection of the vapors through the 
tightness tests, facilities can concentrate on the operation and 
maintenance of the control device as a means of ensuring compliance.
    The EPA is proposing that vapor emissions captured from marine tank 
vessel loading operations can be controlled using one of two primary 
methods: Combustion or recovery. The primary devices used for 
combustion of vapors are flares, enclosed flares (often referred to as 
thermal oxidizers), catalytic incinerators, and thermal incinerators. 
The primary methods for recovery of vapors include carbon adsorption, 
absorption, refrigeration, and vapor balancing. In States with marine 
tank vessel loading standards that allow both combustion and recovery, 
the control devices are evenly split between enclosed flares and carbon 
adsorption.
    The EPA is proposing that standards for the control of vapors 
captured during the loading operations be one of the following: (1) A 
combustion device meeting 98 percent or greater destruction efficiency 
or (2) A recovery device meeting 95 percent or greater recovery 
efficiency. The difference in control efficiencies between recovery and 
combustion is designed to not prohibit recovery systems, which have 
smaller secondary air emission (sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and 
carbon monoxide) impacts than combustion systems. The smaller emissions 
reduction is also warranted because these emissions are recovered as 
product instead of destroyed. Additionally, the EPA has data supporting 
the 95- and 98-percent control efficiencies as achievable for recovery 
and combustion devices, respectively (Docket A-90-44, items II-A-7 and 
II-B-1). For terminals that use recovery devices for control of 
gasoline vapor emissions, the EPA is proposing an alternative means of 
compliance. Such sources can comply by ensuring an outlet concentration 
of 1,000 ppmv or less for emissions from gasoline loadings. The EPA 
believes the 1,000 ppmv limit for gasoline vapor is generally more 
strict than the 95 percent reduction requirement. Data from an existing 
facility show this limit to be achievable (Docket A-90-44, item II-B-
13). The intent of the concentration alternative is to allow those 
facilities that operate at a higher efficiency than required by the 
proposed standard to perform a simpler compliance test, as they would 
only have to test at the outlet of the control device. Because of the 
lower emission factors associated with crude oil emissions, the fact 
that hydrogen sulfide present in crude oil may poison the activated 
carbon, and that there are no known facilities controlling crude oil 
emissions with carbon adsorbers, the EPA is not proposing a 
concentration alternative for controlling vapors from crude oil 
emissions.
5. Impacts of the Proposed RACT Standards
    The environmental, costs, energy, and economic impacts of the 
proposed RACT standards are summarized in Tables 1 through 3, and are 
represented by Regulatory Alternative II. They are also discussed in 
parts C.2. and C.3. above. Economic effects of the proposed RACT 
standards include a maximum price increase of approximately 0.2 percent 
and nationwide employment reductions of less than fifty. Up to five 
terminals controlled under the proposed standards could be under 
increased competitive pressure. Economic effects on oil tankers include 
an average control cost per barrel of crude oil loaded equal to $0.002.
    A primary concern in the implementation of the proposed standards 
is safety. Section 183(f)(1) dictates that the EPA consult with the 
Coast Guard and consider safety when promulgating these standards. 
Section 183(f)(2) states:

    Regulations on Equipment Safety.--Within 6 months after the date 
of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the 
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating 
shall issue regulations to ensure the safety of the equipment and 
operations which are to control emissions from the loading and 
unloading of tank vessels, under section 3703 of title 46 of the 
United States Code and section 6 of the Ports and Waterways Safety 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1225). The standards promulgated by the Administrator 
under paragraph (1) and the regulations issued by a State or 
political subdivision regarding emissions from the loading and 
unloading of tank vessels shall be consistent with the regulations 
regarding safety of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
operating.

    The Coast Guard regulations (55 FR 25396) were promulgated in June 
1990, before the passage of the amended Act. These standards dictate 
equipment, system, and operational requirements for vapor control 
systems for benzene, gasoline, and crude oil. The EPA has maintained 
communication with the Coast Guard throughout the rulemaking process. 
All control systems installed as a result of this proposed regulation 
would be subject to the Coast Guard regulations, and nothing in the 
proposed standard should be construed as to require any act or omission 
that would be in violation of any regulation or other requirements of 
the United States Coast Guard or prevent any act or omission necessary 
to secure the safety of a vessel or for saving life at sea. 
Representatives from the United States Coast Guard have participated in 
all phases of the development of these proposed rules. The EPA is 
confidant that these regulations are consistent with the Coast Guard 
regulations and that the safety factors have been adequately addressed.
6. Attainment/Nonattainment Status and Site Specific Risk Assessment
    At one time, the Agency was considering planning regulating based 
exclusively under the authority of section 183(f). During this time, 
the Agency held a public meeting to discuss a possible approach for 
considering a facility's attainment/non-attainment status with respect 
to NAAQS ozone program and a facility's site specific risk to the 
public in developing the standards (see Docket A-90-44, item II-E-42). 
This approach would have required intensive effort on the part of the 
Agency and the regulated community to develop acceptable criteria and 
technological methodologies for demonstrating whether the criteria have 
been met. However, with regulation under section 112, any facility that 
might have been exempted from RACT under section 183(f) with the 
approach discussed at the public meeting would ultimately be regulated 
under the MACT standards of section 112. Therefore, no further 
consideration was given to this approach.

D. Selection of MACT Regulatory Approach

1. Area Source Finding
    The HAP emitted from this source category include benzene, toluene, 
hexane, xylene, and ethylbenzene from gasoline and crude oil loading as 
well as approximately 60 HAP from alcohols and specialty chemicals. Of 
the approximately 1,800 marine vessel terminals in this source 
category, at least 60 emit 25 ton/year of HAP or more, and are 
therefore considered major sources. In addition, under section 
112(a)(1), a marine vessel terminal may be a part of a major source if 
it is part of a ``group of stationary sources located within a 
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per 
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more 
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' There are 
approximately 600 refineries and chemical production facilities in the 
United States; all of these are considered to be major sources. While 
the Agency does not have the data in its marine vessel data base to 
estimate how many of these facilities have bulk marine loading 
terminals that are contiguous to and under the same control as the main 
facility, there is a high correlation between large refineries and 
production facilities and large bulk loading terminals. Therefore, at a 
minimum, for purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumed that 
approximately 300 terminals are major sources because they are likely 
to be located at major sources such as refineries or chemical 
production facilities. This leaves approximately 1,200 facilities that 
are considered likely area sources. Based on the emissions data 
contained in the Agency's data base, these 1,200 facilities represent 
only 2 percent of nationwide HAP emissions.
    Section 112(c)(3) states that categories of area sources emitting 
HAP may be listed and regulated if the Administrator finds the sources, 
individually or in the aggregate, present a threat of adverse effects 
to human health or the environment. Based on limited data available to 
the Agency, the Administrator is unable to determine a threat of 
adverse effects at this time. Therefore, the Agency is proposing not to 
regulate such area sources in this rulemaking. This is consistent with 
the Agency's decision not to include in its initial list of source 
categories those categories that contained no major sources and for 
which the Agency had not made a finding of threat of adverse effects 
(57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992). The Agency may, however, revisit these 
sources in the future, if additional data become available.
2. Determination of Subcategories
    The source category to be regulated is major sources of marine 
vessel loading and unloading operations. As part of the NESHAP 
development process, the source category was evaluated to determine if 
subcategorization of the source category was justified. Although the 
Act does not specify the criteria from which subcategories can be 
developed, section 112(d)(1) of the Act states that the ``Administrator 
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category or subcategory * * *.'' The Agency believes that these same 
criteria are acceptable criteria to use in making subcategory 
determinations.
    Size appears to be a likely candidate for a distinguishing feature, 
and using total estimated HAP emissions as an indicator for size, the 
EPA evaluated marine tank vessel loading operations to determine 
whether it was appropriate to subcategorize the source category on the 
basis of size. The limit for determining subcategories was examined in 
0.5 Mg increments of HAP emissions from 0.5 Mg/yr to 2.0 Mg/yr. A 
subcategory based on 1 Mg of HAP emissions per year was selected for 
the following reasons. First, facilities that emit less than 1 Mg of 
emissions are likely to be area sources and therefore not subject to 
the proposed standards, or are facilities that are represented by 
relatively minimal, episodic emissions. For example, a typical river 
barge holds 10,000 barrels or 420,000 gallons of gasoline. An 
uncontrolled facility below a 1-Mg cutoff could be loading less than 30 
barges per year. These facilities also typically emit less frequently 
than facilities emitting more than 1 Mg/yr and typically only load a 
single commodity. Additionally, these facilities also tend to load (and 
therefore emit) commodities having lower vapor pressures than 
commodities loaded at other, larger, facilities. Also, facilities that 
emit 1 Mg or more of HAP emissions contribute approximately 98 percent 
of HAP emissions to the national inventory. (See Docket A-90-44)
3. Determination of the MACT Floor
    The MACT floors were determined for the following types of 
operations: Product loading and ballasting.
    a. Product loading. The marine vessel data base is based on 
throughput data for marine vessel loading terminals. The throughput 
data are divided into crude oil, gasoline, and 11 other commodity 
categories. Additional information on these data are available in the 
TSD for this proposed regulation (see ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble). The EPA estimated the emissions of HAP from each of these 
terminals using these throughput data and incorporating assumptions 
about how many of these facilities were controlled, and the extent of 
their control. These assumptions are based on existing Federal and 
State regulations. For example, benzene loadings are already controlled 
by the benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart BB). In addition, four 
States have regulations requiring control of emissions from marine tank 
vessel loading operations: New Jersey, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and 
California (District regulations). (Additional information on the 
derivation of the MACT floor is found in Docket A-90-44, item II-A-44.) 
Additional discussion of the Agency's interpretation of the MACT floor 
is presented in section J. Solicitation of Comments.
    Of the approximately 360 terminals estimated to be affected by the 
proposed regulation, 43 facilities comprise the best performing 12 
percent of facilities used in calculating the MACT floor for terminals 
emitting over 1 Mg of HAP emissions. These terminals are subject to 
State regulations in California, New Jersey, and Louisiana. Averaging 
the required control levels of these facilities results in a MACT floor 
of 93 percent control for facilities emitting more than 1 Mg of HAP per 
year. Although this derived average does not precisely match a control 
technology, for all practical purposes it is equivalent the emission 
reduction achieved by recovery techniques (i.e., 95 percent). 
Additional information on the derivation of the MACT floor may be found 
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking effort.
    There are approximately 1,440 facilities that would emit less than 
1 Mg of HAP emissions annually if uncontrolled. The average control 
level of the best performing 12 percent of facilities is 36 percent 
control. This control level does not represent an existing technology. 
Therefore using the average of the best performing 12 percent is 
inappropriate for establishing the MACT floor. Taking the median of the 
best performing 12 percent of these sources (94th percentile) results 
in a control level of zero because the median facility is uncontrolled. 
This is a more appropriate portrayal of the level of control that 
exists in this subcategory. Therefore, this level of control (i.e., no 
control) represents the MACT floor for terminals emitting less than 1 
Mg/yr.
    The MACT floor for new facilities, regardless of size, is a 98-
percent overall control of emissions. This control level represents the 
best performing similar source. The Agency will take comment on whether 
the MACT floor for new sources could, consistent with the requirements 
of section 112(d) of the Act, be equal to a control requirement of 95 
percent when a recovery device is used. As discussed elsewhere in this 
preamble, the Agency wishes to encourage the use of recovery devices. 
However, a 95 percent reduction requirement for recovery devices may be 
considered inconsistent with the requirement of section 112(d)(3) of 
the Act that emission standards for new sources shall not be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved by the best controlled 
similar source. The EPA requests comments on whether the secondary 
benefits of recovery devices provide the Administrator with the ability 
to determine that a 95 percent reduction requirement for those sources 
using recovery is ``not less stringent'' than a 98 percent reduction 
requirement for all other sources.
    b. Ballasting. According to the Marine Board report, most tankships 
have segregated or clean ballast tanks due to Coast Guard regulations 
and international agreements that effectively prohibit ballast 
emissions from occurring. Since the Marine Board report was issued in 
1987, as older vessels have been retired, the proportion of 
``uncontrolled'' vessels has decreased further. However, the Agency 
does not have any information available to it to evaluate the 
percentage of vessels that still emit ballasting emissions, 
particularly those vessels that are not in crude oil service (where the 
vast majority of ballasting occurs). The Administrator determined that 
the MACT floor for ballasting at new or existing sources would be a 
prohibition of ballasting emissions. The Agency is requesting comment 
on this decision to prohibit ballasting emissions.

E. Selection of Basis and Level of Proposed MACT Standards

1. Development of Regulatory Alternatives
    a. Product loading. Two regulatory alternatives were developed for 
the subcategory represented by major source marine tank vessel loading 
and unloading operations that emit less than or equal to 1 Mg of HAP 
annually. The regulatory alternatives are summarized in Table 4. The 
first alternative, Regulatory Alternative A, represents the MACT floor 
of no control. Regulatory Alternative B represents the control of a 
facility's total HAP throughput resulting in an overall emission 
reduction of 95 percent.
    Two regulatory alternatives were considered for the subcategory 
represented by existing facilities emitting more than 1 Mg of HAP per 
year. Regulatory Alternative A represents the MACT floor level of 
control (93 percent overall control). Regulatory Alternative B 
represents the control of a facility's total HAP throughput to an 
overall control of 95 percent.
    There are no regulatory alternatives for new facilities that exceed 
the MACT floor of 98 percent control because no other alternatives that 
are more stringent than the floor were considered technically feasible.

                                    Table 4.--MACT Regulatory Alternativesa                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     HAP                                                                            Incremental 
   Regulatory     emissions   Percent HAP     No. of      Capital       Annual         Cost            cost     
  alternative     reduction,   emissions     affected     costs, $     costs, $   effectiveness,  effectiveness,
                    Mg/yr        limit     terminalsb    millionc     millionc         $/Mg            $/Mg     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For facilities                                                                                                  
 emitting less                                                                                                  
 than or equal                                                                                                  
 to 1-Mg/yr                                                                                                     
 HAP:                                                                                                           
    A. No                                                                                                       
     control                                                                                                    
     (MACT                                                                                                      
     floor)....            0            0            0            0            0               0             N/A
    B. 95                                                                                                       
     Percent                                                                                                    
     emission                                                                                                   
     limit.....          125           95        1,200        1,800          430       3,400,000       3,400,000
For facilities                                                                                                  
 emitting                                                                                                       
 greater than 1-                                                                                                
 Mg/yr HAFd:                                                                                                    
    A. 93                                                                                                       
     Percent                                                                                                    
     emission                                                                                                   
     limit                                                                                                      
     (MACT                                                                                                      
     floor)....        1,300           93          240          570          130          99,000             N/A
    B. 95                                                                                                       
     Percent                                                                                                    
     emission                                                                                                   
     limit.....        1,300           95          240          (e)          (e)             (e)            (e) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTerminals affected by State regulations or the benzene NESHAP are not included in these estimates.             
b``Affected Terminals'' are terminals that would be required to control emissions.                              
cCosts are in 1990 dollars.                                                                                     
dTwenty-five facilities have HAP emissions greater than 1 Mg/yr and are affected by RACT. These facilities are  
  not included in these estimates.                                                                              
eGiven the structure of the UTD cost estimates, distinctions between the costs at 93 percent and 95 percent     
  emission reduction were not possible. However, costs would be at least as high as those shown at the 93       
  percent emissions reduction plus additional retrofit costs for vessels. (Retrofit costs for vessels range from
  $9,000 to $61,000.)                                                                                           
                                                                                                                
 Source: Docket A-90-44, items II-A-23, II-A-32, and II-A-34.                                                   

    b. Ballasting. There are no regulatory alternatives beyond the MACT 
floor.
2. Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
    The impacts of the product loading regulatory alternatives are 
summarized in Tables 4 through 6.

                  Table 5.--Secondary Air and Energy Impacts of MACT Regulatory Alternativesab                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                SOX           NOX            CO      Electricity    Natural gas 
          Regulatory alternative             emissions,  emissions,Mg/   emissions,    impacts,    impacts 1,000
                                               Mg/yrc         yrcK        Mg/yrcK      MWh/yrd        ft3/yrd   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For facilities emitting less than or equal                                                                      
 to 1-Mg/yr HAP:                                                                                                
    A. No control (MACT floor)............          0.0           0.0           0.0            0               0
    B. 95 Percent emission limit..........          0.5            28            27      114,000      12,000,000
For facilities emitting greater than 1-Mg/                                                                      
 yr HAP:                                                                                                        
    A. 93 Percent emission limit (MACT                                                                          
     floor)...............................          6.6            64            61       27,000       3,000,000
    B. 95 Percent emission limit..........          6.8            66            62       28,000       3,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTerminals affected by State regulations or the benzene NESHAP are not included in these estimates.             
bBased on use of incineration.                                                                                  
cThese impacts represent increases in emissions; increases would not be expected if all sources used recovery   
  technologies.                                                                                                 
dThese impacts represent increases in energy usage.                                                             
                                                                                                                
Source: Docket A-90-44, items II-A-24 and II-A-33.                                                              


                                          Table 6.--Summary of Economic Impacts by MACT Regulatory Alternativea                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Terminals                                                          No. of                                               
                                 covered/                  Maximum      Percent                  terminals                                  Displacement
    Regulatory alternative     throughout,  Total cost,    percent       output    Employ-ment     under           Impact on vessels        potential by
                                 (million      ($MM)        price      reductions   reductions  competitive                                   pipeline  
                                 bbl/yr)                   increase                               pressure                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For facilities emitting less                                                                                                                            
 than or equal to 1-Mg/yr                                                                                                                               
 HAP:                                                                                                                                                   
    A. No control (MACT                  0            0            0            0            0            0  None.........................  None.       
     floor).                                                                                                                                            
    B. 95 Percent emission           1,200        1,800          (b)          (b)          (b)          (b)  (b)..........................  (b)         
     limit.                          (320)                                                                                                              
For facilities emitting                                                                                                                                 
 greater than 1-Mgy/r HAPc:                                                                                                                             
    A. 93 Percent emission             240          570    0.09-0.54       0-0.04          166          230  High level of dedication;      Minimal.    
     limit (MACT floor).             (750)                                                                    retrofitting of vessels.                  
    B. 95 Percent emission             240          (d)          (e)          (e)          (e)          (e)  (e)..........................  (e)         
     limit.                          (750)                                                                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTerminals affected by State regulations or the benezene NESHAP are not included in these estimates.                                                    
bGiven the structure of the UTD data base, estimation of the impacts that would be anticipated at a control level more stringent than the MACT floor was
  not possible. However, it is expected that these impacts would br more severe than those expected for facilities emitting more than 1 Mg/yr of HAP.   
cTwenty-five facilities have HAP emission greater than 1 Mg/yr and are affected by RACT. These facilities are not included in these estimates.          
dGiven the structure of the UTD cost estimates, distinctions between the costs at 93 percent and 95 percent emission reduction were not possible.       
  However, costs would be at least as high as those shown for the MACT floor plus additional vessel retrofit costs. (Vessel retrofit costs range from   
  $9,000 to $61,000.)                                                                                                                                   
eGiven the structure of the UTD data base, distinctions between the impacts at 93 percent and 95 percent emission reduction were not possible. The      
  impacts for facilities emitting greater than 1 Mg/yr of HAP would be at least as high as the impacts shown for the MACT floor, with higher impacts on 
  vessels.                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
Source: Docket A-90-44, items II-A-23, II-A-32, and II-A-34.                                                                                            

3. MACT Determination
    a. Product loading.--(1). Existing sources emitting 1 Mg/yr or 
less. Under Regulatory Alternative B, the average cost effectiveness to 
control existing facilities emitting less than 1 Mg/yr of HAP is 
approximately $3.4 million per Mg. The Administrator has determined 
that these costs are unreasonable and, as a result, that MACT for the 
subcategory represented by existing facilities with emissions less than 
or equal to 1 Mg per year of HAP emissions is equivalent to a MACT 
floor of no control. This determination follows section 112(d) of the 
Act where the Administrator is required to consider cost of achieving 
emission reductions beyond the MACT floor (among other criteria) when 
selecting MACT. These smaller facilities represent only 2 percent of 
all industry-wide emissions.
    (2). Existing sources emitting greater Than 1 Mg/yr. The 
Administrator has determined that MACT for the subcategory represented 
by existing facilities with HAP emissions exceeding 1 Mg per year is 
the MACT floor of 93 percent overall control. The incremental benefits 
of additional control are not justified considering the costs of 
achieving these reductions.
    The bulk of the incremental costs of control beyond the 93 percent 
emission limit (MACT floor) are the costs to retrofit a sufficient 
number of vessels to capture emissions beyond those required at the 
MACT floor and supplemental operating costs. Unfortunately, the 
Agency's marine vessel data base does not contain the type of data 
needed to analyze the nationwide cost effectiveness of a more stringent 
alternative. However, the average cost per facility to retrofit 
sufficient vessels to allow the facility to comply with the incremental 
emission reduction required for that facility to meet standards beyond 
the MACT floor ranges from approximately $9,000 to $60,000 per year. 
(Additional information on this analysis is found in Docket A-90-44, 
item II-A-23 and item II-A-32). In addition, there may be substantial 
additional costs to the facility to equip additional emission points 
(e.g., berths) with emission control equipment. The Administrator deems 
that any costs beyond the MACT floor, which itself has a cost 
effectiveness of over $90,000 per Mg, would not be reasonable. (The 
statute itself precludes the Administrator from selecting a less costly 
MACT floor.) Based on this limited analysis, the Administrator has 
elected to not require control beyond the MACT floor for this 
subcategory.
    The selection of 93 percent emission limit as MACT for existing 
sources emitting greater than 1 Mg/yr should provide flexibility to 
terminals that install control equipment that is expected to achieve 95 
to 98 percent emissions reduction. This flexibility enables facilities 
to control HAP emissions in the most efficient manner by not requiring 
the control of liquids having minimal emissions. The Agency is 
soliciting comment on the need for this flexibility, and on methods to 
ensure enforceability of these standards given this flexibility.
    It should be noted that the EPA does not believe that the analysis 
performed above for MACT-regulated facilities is applicable to the 
determination of RACT discussed in section III-C. The EPA believes that 
the incremental benefits of controlling the MACT-regulated terminals 
above 93 percent control is unjustified, given the costs already 
associated with the MACT standard. On the other hand, the RACT 
standards apply only to the largest crude oil and gasoline terminals in 
the United States. The cost effectiveness associated with requiring 95 
or 98 percent control at these facilities is considerably more 
favorable than that associated with requiring 95 or 98 percent control 
for the MACT-regulated facilities. As shown above, the cost 
effectiveness associated with the RACT standard is $2,100/Mg, 
considerably less than that for the MACT standard. Therefore, the 
Agency believes that it is not appropriate to reduce the percent 
reduction requirements of the RACT standard to match those of the MACT 
standard. The EPA recognizes that for some individual facilities 
regulated under both sections 112 and 183(f), the RACT standard may be 
more stringent than the MACT standard. The EPA believes that this 
result is appropriate, but the EPA is taking comment on this issue. The 
EPA also notes that the control equipment required under both the MACT 
standard and the RACT standard must meet the 95 or 98 percent control 
threshold. The MACT standard offers flexibility with regard to the type 
of liquids controlled, not the manner in which they are controlled.
    (3). New sources. The Administrator has determined that MACT for 
new facilities is the MACT floor, which is an overall control 
requirement of 98 percent. However, as discussed above, the EPA will 
take comment on whether MACT for new facilities could, consistent with 
section 112(d) of the Act, be equal to 95 percent reduction for 
recovery devices and 98 percent reduction for other destruction 
devices.
    b. Ballasting. The Administrator believes that the combined impact 
of fleet turnover and Coast Guard and other regulatory requirements for 
tankships to use segregated ballast tanks means that there should be no 
impacts from the control (i.e., prohibition) of ballast emissions. As a 
result, MACT was determined to be equivalent to a prohibition of 
emissions from ballasting. However, as discussed in section J.2, 
Ballasting Emissions, the Administrator is soliciting comments and data 
on the possibility of significant impacts to currently uncontrolled 
vessels.
4. Selection of the Proposed MACT Standards
    a. Product loading. As with the RACT standards, vessels loading at 
facilities with controls must install a vapor collection system and 
pass one of three tank vessel tightness alternatives.
    The MACT standards for existing facilities are based on a facility 
demonstrating that 93 percent of HAP emissions are controlled. 
Facilities would be allowed to demonstrate that the standard is being 
met in one of two ways. In the first case, a facility may choose to 
demonstrate that emissions from all vessels being loaded at the 
facility are being routed to either a 95 percent efficient recovery 
device or a 98 percent efficient destruction device. In the other case, 
the facility may opt to exclude the emissions of certain vessels or 
process lines from control, based on documented emission estimates, so 
long as at least a 93 percent overall level of control is achieved. The 
partial control of any commodity loaded or unloaded at the terminal 
would not be allowed as a means of showing compliance with the 93 
percent overall emissions reduction standard. The facility would still 
be required to demonstrate that all controlled emissions are being 
routed to either a 95 percent efficient recovery device or a 98 percent 
efficient destruction device.
    The MACT standards for new facilities require an emissions limit of 
98 percent control. Additionally, these facilities would be required to 
maintain tank-tight vessels while loading.
    b. Ballasting. Owners or operators of existing and new marine tank 
vessel loading and unloading operations would be required to 
demonstrate compliance with the ballasting standards by maintaining 
records showing that the vessels loaded met one of the following 
criteria: (1) The vessel does not perform ballasting at any time, (2) 
the vessel meets the Coast Guard standards, or (3) ballasting emissions 
are ducted to a control device.
5. Impacts of the Proposed MACT Standards
    The environmental, costs, energy and economic impacts of the 
proposed MACT standards are summarized in Tables 4 through 6, and are 
represented by Regulatory Alternative A for facilities emitting less 
than or equal to 1 Mg of HAP and Regulatory Alternative A for 
facilities emitting more than 1 Mg of HAP. There are no projected 
impacts to controlling emissions from ballasting.
    As discussed in section IV.C.5, the EPA believes that the potential 
safety impacts of the standards have been addressed.
    The estimated impacts of the standards are a VOC reduction of 
12,400 Mg/yr of which 1,300 Mg are HAP. The capital and annualized 
costs are estimated to be $570 million and $130 million, respectively.
    The EPA performed an economic impact analysis of the MACT 
determination for this regulation. Potential price, output, and 
employment impacts for affected producers and for the marine transport 
industry were examined for each alternative. Potential small business 
impacts were also isolated. Additional information on these economic 
impacts is available in the docket for this proposed regulation.
    Estimated maximum price increases for the affected products varied 
but were not large (less than 1 percent) for any of the products under 
Regulatory Alternative A of the MACT determination for terminals 
emitting more than 1 Mg/yr. These price increase estimates reflect both 
the control cost increase for transporting crude oil and the control 
cost increase for transporting petroleum products. Because these price 
increases are small and because the elasticity of demand coefficients 
for petroleum products are small, estimated percent output (i.e., 
throughput) reductions were minimal. Correspondingly, estimated 
employment reductions were also small (less than 200).
    Under Regulatory Alternative A of the MACT determination for 
terminals emitting more than 1 Mg/yr, potentially significant economic 
impacts on the smaller terminal operations that would have to install 
controls were identified. These significant impacts may have resulted 
from the high costs overall acting in combination with high per-barrel 
control cost differentials between the smaller and larger terminal 
operations that would have to control. It is expected that many of the 
smaller terminal operations would not be able to pass all of their 
control costs forward to consumers since they would be under increased 
competitive pressure from the larger terminal operations. It was 
estimated that up to 200 of the 264 affected terminal operations will 
have difficulty either absorbing control costs or passing along these 
costs to consumers under the proposed standard.
    The potential economic impact on marine vessel owners is relatively 
small. Average control cost per barrel for tankers shipping crude oil 
or refined products was estimated to be $0.002 per barrel while owners 
or barges shipping refined products would face control costs of $0.08 
per barrel. Because 77 percent of U.S. marine-transported petroleum 
product volume would be affected by these proposed standards, a 
significant percentage of U.S. marine vessels will need to be 
retrofitted. The vessels least costly to modify (most likely the 
larger, newer, double-skin vessels) will be retrofitted first, leading 
to a significant degree of dedicated service. It is expected that 
vessel owners that do retrofit will be able to pass retrofit costs 
forward to consumers.
    As discussed above, a primary concern in the implementation of 
these proposed regulations is safety. Though section 112 of the Act 
does not specifically address U.S. Coast Guard regulations on safety, 
the EPA has endeavored to make sure that safety factors are adequately 
addressed and that nothing in the proposed regulations, whether 
proposed under section 183(f) or 112, is inconsistent with current U.S. 
Coast Guard regulations.
    In addition, section 183(f)(2) of the Act requires that any 
regulations promulgated by any State or political subdivision regarding 
emissions from the loading and unloading of tank vessels must be 
consistent with U.S. Coast Guard regulations regarding safety. This 
consistency requirement is equally applicable to any State or local 
regulation promulgated under the authority of the Clean Air Act section 
112. Moreover, section 112(l) requires that the Administrator 
disapprove any program submitted by a State if the Administrator 
determines that the program is not likely to satisfy the objectives of 
the Act. The EPA believes that any State or local program that is 
inconsistent with U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations is ``not likely 
to satisfy the objectives of the Act'' and would therefore be 
disapproved by the Administrator.

F. Selection of Format for the Standards

    The chosen format for the standards is a percent of mass emissions 
reduction. The percent of mass reduction format allows a focus on the 
final control device after good capture has been ensured. This approach 
is consistent with the benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61 subpart BB). 
Sufficient data to develop a mass per unit loaded standard were not 
available. Additionally, emission rates can vary between facilities and 
between vessels based on loading temperature and the arrival condition 
of the vessel, making it difficult to set an acceptable mass per unit 
loaded standard while ensuring good capture and control. Developing a 
mass per unit loaded standard would have required extensive testing and 
would need to be more stringent than the percent of mass reduction 
format in order to accommodate the varying terminal and vessel 
conditions. For this reason, a mass per unit loaded alternative is not 
being proposed.
    The primary format, mass emissions reduction, for the MACT 
standards is the same as the RACT standards. However, because the MACT 
standards allow the source the flexibility to control only the portion 
of total facility emissions needed to meet the 93 percent reduction 
requirement, facilities may choose to calculate both potential 
uncontrolled and actual controlled emissions as part of the compliance 
demonstration.
    Emissions from ballasting operations would be prohibited.

G. Selection of Test Methods

    The proposed standards require the use of approved test methods to 
ensure consistent and verifiable results for initial performance tests 
and compliance demonstrations.
    Different test methods are specified for combustion and recovery 
devices. For combustion devices, Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A (Method 25) has been specified. Method 25 is appropriate for 
measuring the VOC destruction efficiency of combustion devices whose 
output is greater than 50 ppmv. Given the large inlet concentrations 
associated with marine loadings, outlet concentrations of less than 50 
ppmv are not expected.
    For recovery devices, (Method 25A) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
(Method 25A) has been specified. The (Method 25A) is appropriate for 
measuring the VOC removal efficiency of a nondestructive control 
device. Method 25A may be used for testing both removal efficiency and 
outlet concentration.
    Because emissions and control efficiency also vary during the 
loading cycle, the EPA has determined that performance tests should be 
conducted to include the loading of the last 20 percent of a 
compartment, and may be spread out over multiple compartments. Data 
show that the greatest emissions occur during the last 20 percent of 
loading of a tank or compartment. The EPA believes that the control 
equipment should be designed to handle the peak loading emissions, 
which occur during this period. 
    The proposed standards also allow the use of any test method or 
test results validated according to the protocol in Method 301 of 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A to allow owners or operators greater 
flexibility in testing. 
    Under today's proposed standards, owners or operators not having 
documentation of vessel vapor tightness would be required to test the 
vapor tightness of vessels using a pressure test provided in the 
regulation, or a leak test provided in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. Methods are also provided for owners or operators loading 
under negative pressure. These test methods were first proposed for 
owners or operators of benzene transfer operations on September 14, 
1989 (54 FR 38083) and were promulgated on March 7, 1990 (55 FR 8292). 
In the proposal of the benzene transfer operations NESHAP, comments 
were specifically requested regarding the suitability of these methods 
for these sources. Based on the comments received on these methods and 
the Agency's knowledge of the use of these methods under the benzene 
transfer NESHAP, the Agency is confident that these methods are 
suitable for determining vapor tightness for today's proposed 
regulation. 
    Regarding the emission estimation procedures to be followed in 
determining compliance with the proposed standards, the Agency is 
proposing that facilities use either actual test data or AP-42 
emissions factors to identify emissions from the various commodities 
and streams loaded. The Agency is requesting comment on this approach 
for estimating emissions. 
H. Selection of Monitoring and Compliance and Performance Testing 
Requirements 
    The proposed standards list parameters to be monitored for the 
purpose of determining compliance. Monitoring requirements are proposed 
for both the vapor collection system and control devices. The vapor 
collection system monitoring requirements ensure that vent streams will 
not be diverted from the control device through the use of flow 
indicators or routine inspection of secured by-pass lines. While many 
forms of monitoring may qualify as enhanced monitoring, enhanced 
monitoring for tank vessel loading vapor control systems will generally 
be limited to a continuous control device parameter monitoring system, 
a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), portable monitors, or 
a combination thereof. 
    The monitoring criterion for carbon adsorption is a CEMS for VOC 
concentration at the exhaust to atmosphere. The compliance condition 
will be no exceedance of the average concentration demonstrated during 
the facility's last compliance test. This monitoring criteria does not 
correspond precisely to the 95 percent reduction requirement, however 
it will be less costly to install and maintain than a system monitoring 
inlet and outlet and calculating removal efficiency. 
    The monitoring parameter for combustion devices, except flares, is 
combustion temperature. Combustion temperature is a strong indicator of 
performance. The temperature to be maintained will be determined from 
the facility's compliance test. For compliance purposes, temperature 
variation is limited to 5.6 deg.C (10 deg.F) 
compared to the average temperature during the most recent compliance 
test. 
    The monitoring parameter for condensers is the exhaust stream 
temperature. Exhaust temperature directly correlates to exhaust 
concentration and is easier to monitor than outlet concentration. 
Coolant temperature was not chosen because it provides no guarantee of 
heat transfer efficiency or control efficiency. As with combustion 
devices, temperature deviations from the operating parameters 
established during the most recent compliance test are limited to 
5.6 deg.C (10 deg.F). 
    The monitoring requirements for flares are established in 40 CFR 
60.18, which requires the owner or operator to monitor for the presence 
of a flame at all times. 
    The monitoring parameters for absorbers are the temperature and 
specific gravity of the scrubbing liquid. Deviations from the operating 
parameters established during the most recent compliance test are 
limited to 11 deg.C (20 deg.F) above the baseline scrubbing liquid 
temperature and 0.1 unit from the baseline scrubbing liquid 
specific gravity respectively. 
    Finally, in order to not prohibit the use of other control devices 
or new technology, a facility not using a control device for which 
enhanced monitoring criteria have been included may develop its own 
monitoring criteria and submit them to the Administrator for approval.
    The Agency is also proposing alternative means of monitoring 
compliance with the standards at terminals using recovery devices for 
control of gasoline vapor emissions. These terminals would monitor the 
outlet concentration of VOC from the recovery device. Compliance with 
the standards is indicated provided that the VOC concentration is 1,000 
ppmv or less. The EPA believes the 1,000 ppmv limit for gasoline vapor 
is generally more strict than the 95-percent control device efficiency 
requirement. Data from an existing facility show this limit to be 
achievable (Docket A-90-44, item II-B-13). The intent of the 
concentration alternative is to allow those facilities that operate at 
a higher efficiency than required by the proposed standard to perform a 
simpler compliance test, as they would only have to test at the outlet 
of the control device. The EPA does not have sufficient data to 
determine a ppmv emission limit for controlling VOC vapors from crude 
oil emissions. Nor does the EPA have sufficient data to determine a 
ppmv emission limit for controlling HAP vapors from crude oil emissions 
or other commodities. The EPA is soliciting data and comments regarding 
a ppmv limit for controlling non-gasoline VOC and HAP emissions and 
whether carbon adsorption would be used to control emissions from crude 
oil and other commodities.

I. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    For enforcement purposes, it is necessary to require records and 
reports of various parameters at all facilities. Two types of records 
would be required to ensure compliance of facilities required to 
install controls: (1) Monitoring results from the most recent 
performance test and (2) results from periods when the measurement of 
parameters significantly deviated from measurements of the same 
parameters during the most recent performance test. Reports of those 
periods when monitored parameters were significantly outside the 
specified range would be submitted quarterly. These reports are 
necessary to ensure that the control equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    Additionally, owners or operators would be required to keep vapor 
tightness documentation for marine vessels loaded on file in a 
permanent form available for inspection. The owner or operator would be 
required to update the vapor tightness documentation at least once per 
year to ensure that only vapor tight marine vessels are loaded.
    Owners or operators of affected facilities seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with the 93 percent emission reduction standard must 
maintain records of their determination of HAP control efficiency and 
must submit quarterly reports of the source's HAP control efficiency 
calculated from their actual throughputs. The Agency is soliciting 
comment on these requirements. Specifically, the Agency requests 
information on the type and method of documentation that should be 
required to assure compliance with the 93 percent emission reduction 
standard.

J. Solicitation of Comments

    The Administrator specifically requests comments on the topics 
discussed in this section. Commenters should provide available data and 
rationale to support their comments on each topic.
1. Subcategories
    The Agency has proposed to establish a subcategory for terminals 
emitting less than 1 Mg/yr of HAP. The Agency is also requesting 
comment on whether off-shore terminals and the Valdez Marine Terminal 
should be placed in separate subcategories under section 112 of the 
Act. The Agency requests comment regarding whether subcategories should 
be established for other types of terminals based on particular 
characteristics of these types of terminals of which the Agency 
currently has no information. EPA also requests comments on whether 
further subcategorization based on size is warranted.
    a. Offshore terminals. The Agency does not believe that a facility 
which is at least one-half mile offshore is part of a land-based 
contiguous site. Offshore terminals (both those with subsea lines and 
platforms) that are part of a contiguous terminal (i.e., offshore 
terminals less than 1/2 mile from shore) present unique regulatory 
challenges such as the cost and environmental impacts of installing 
additional subsea lines to carry vapors to land-based equipment. Size 
constraints, permitting difficulties, and other concerns may be issues 
with an offshore control system. The EPA is proposing that offshore 
terminals exceeding the throughput cutoffs and emission limits be 
subject to the proposed regulations and control vapors to the same 
extent as onshore facilities. The EPA is soliciting information and 
comments regarding the feasibility and cost of controlling emissions 
from offshore terminals. Comments are also requested on the grouping of 
offshore facilities into a separate subcategory with different control 
requirements under MACT.
    b. Additional subcategory for the valdez marine terminal. On 
December 29, 1993, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (``Alyeska'') 
sent a letter to the Agency regarding this proposed rule (see Docket A-
90-44, item II-D- 65). In the letter, Alyeska discussed an alternative 
regulatory approach that would allow the use of less stringent controls 
at Alyeska's Alaska Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT). Alyeska ``believes 
that the optimal vapor emission control system for the VMT is a system 
that captures and recovers vapors from tanker loading, rather than one 
that incinerates captured vapors.'' Alyeska believes that it can 
successfully design a vapor recovery system for the VMT but intuitively 
believes that the emission reduction that such a system can achieve 
will be less than the percentage emissions reduction achieved by 
significantly smaller systems and particularly those which address 
emissions from refined petroleum products rather than crude oil. 
Alyeska also believes that a vapor recovery system for the VMT is 
unlikely to meet today's proposed requirements of a 95-percent emission 
reduction of VOC and HAP for recovery devices under section 183(f) and 
section 112, respectively. In addition, Alyeska states that the VMT 
should be placed in a separate category or subcategory under section 
112(d) because Alyeska believes the VMT is unique among U.S. marine 
terminals.
    Alyeska has also suggested separately (see Docket A-90- 44, item 
II-D-71) that a recovery device may be available to VMT that could meet 
a HAP emission reduction requirement approaching 93 percent but that 
would likely not meet a VOC reduction requirement above 70 percent. 
Alyeska suggests that as it is located in an ozone attainment area in 
an extreme northern climate where formation of ozone is not a practical 
concern, a lesser VOC reduction requirement may be reasonable under 
section 183(f). The proposed format for the Section 112 emission limit 
requires the VMT to reduce all the crude emissions by 95 percent when 
using a recovery device. The EPA requests comments on whether this 
format could be changed to allow for a 93-percent reduction of 
emissions for less efficient control technologies.
    The EPA made no changes to the proposed standard in response to 
Alyeska's letter. However, the EPA is seeking public comment on the 
issues addressed by Alyeska. In addition, Alyeska intends to provide 
the EPA with further documentation supporting its position before the 
end of the public comment period. The EPA will consider this new 
information in addition to currently available information in deciding 
the final standard. Currently available information which will be 
considered is described in the following paragraphs.
    Section 183(f) requires the application of RACT considering 
``costs, any non-air quality benefits, environmental impacts, energy 
requirements and safety factors associated with alternative control 
techniques.'' Section 112(d) requires the application of MACT 
considering the ``cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements.'' (In addition, as described previously, a minimum 
control level is specified, referred to as the floor.)
    Section 112(c) requires the EPA to establish categories and 
subcategories of sources for regulation under section 112(d). In the 
EPA's notice of initial list of categories, the EPA stated that ``a 
category of sources is a group of sources having some common features 
suggesting that they should be regulated in the same way and on the 
same schedule.'' (57 FR 31578, July 16, 1992). The EPA also noted that 
``criteria that may need to be considered in defining categories of 
similar sources include similarities in: process operations (including 
differences between batch and continuous operations), emissions 
characteristics, control device applicability and costs, safety and 
opportunities for pollution prevention'' (57 FR 31580). To justify VMT 
being placed in a separate category or subcategory, it needs to be 
shown that VMT has distinctions that are relevant from a regulatory 
standpoint (given the restrictions of section 112), in determining 
whether the VMT can be regulated in a similar manner as other 
terminals.
    The VMT is the largest crude oil loading facility in the U.S. with 
hourly crude loading rates more than 15 times that of any other marine 
terminal. The VMT is one of only a few terminals which are exclusively 
used for crude oil loading.
    Alyeska has acknowledged that it could use a combustion device at 
VMT to achieve a 98 percent reduction in emissions. However, Alyeska 
has raised concerns about the feasibility of recovering crude oil 
vapors with a 95 percent efficiency using conventional recovery devices 
such as carbon adsorbers.
    According to Alyeska the design and construction of a vapor 
recovery system for the VMT would be technically more complicated than 
for any other marine terminal. This is because no existing vapor 
recovery system is currently operating on as large a vapor stream as 
the VMT terminal, there is great complexity in recovering crude oil 
vapor (as opposed to petroleum product vapor), and for reasons 
discussed in the following paragraph, a VMT recovery system would have 
to be designed to operate efficiently over a broad range of declining 
input volumes. In addition, the sub-Arctic climate of the region 
presents unique problems with regard to handling water vapor in terms 
of both complications on the technical processes by which crude oil 
vapors can be recovered and in terms of monitoring accuracy. Different 
and more complex operating parameters must be considered in the design 
and construction of a vapor recovery system that will operate 
effectively on the VMT crude oil stream because the number and range of 
volatility of the hydrocarbon components are greater in a crude oil 
stream than in a product stream. Alyeska believes that it may not be 
possible to achieve as high a recovery from a crude oil vapor stream as 
is achievable from a product vapor stream because of this difference in 
the number and range of volatility of the hydrocarbon components.
    The throughput in the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline (TAP), which supplies 
the crude for loading at the VMT, is expected to decline such that the 
volume of vapors that must be handled by the VMT recovery system will 
decrease with time. In 1988 annual TAP throughput reached a peak of 
2.14 million barrels per day. Throughput subsequently has declined to a 
current level of 1.62 million barrels per day (average year to date for 
1993) and estimates indicate that production will continue to decline 
over the life of the now declining North Slope oil fields. An emission 
control system designed for the VMT needs to be able to operate 
efficiently over a broad range of declining input volumes. When 
considering declining throughput, a recovery system enables more design 
flexibility than an incineration system because recovery systems 
require enough contact with either surface area or scrubbing liquid to 
ensure high recovery; as flow decreases contact increases which 
marginally increases recovery. Therefore, a facility may design very 
large control units or smaller parallel units, both of which will 
function at design efficiency. An incinerator is not as flexible in 
operation as a recovery system. An incinerator requires proper mixing 
of the waste stream and the flame and mixing becomes poorer as flow 
rates decline. Large incinerators cannot be run at flow rates much 
lower than one half design rates without affecting mixing and 
corresponding combustion efficiency.
    In addition the VMT will require the use of ``active'' detonation 
arrestors instead of ``passive'' detonation arrestors used at other 
marine terminals, due to the amount of vapors that must be collected 
and the distance between the vessel loading berths and vapor recovery 
facilities. Alyeska has developed active detonator arrestors that have 
been approved by the Coast Guard, because passive detonation arrestors 
would not protect a VMT type system from explosion.
    Alyeska estimated that the additional amount of energy that could 
be conserved by recovering (instead of incinerating) tanker vapors at 
the VMT would be as great or greater than the energy that could be 
saved by recovering tanker vapors at all other U.S. crude oil loading 
marine terminals combined (about 250,000 barrels at current 
throughput). Both recovery and incineration result in other air 
pollutants including particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOX), 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide 
(CO2). Vapor recovery may be more advantageous when considering 
the overall contribution of all pollutants to the environment.
    The proposed standard does not treat a facility such as the VMT as 
a separate category or subcategory. However, the EPA is still 
considering whether these characteristics described above are 
sufficient to warrant treatment of a facility like the VMT as a 
separate subcategory, and is requesting additional information and 
public comments on this issue. Comment is also requested on the extent 
to which these factors, largely related to recovery devices, should be 
considered if such a facility can use an incinerator. Additional 
information is sought on the extent to which factors such as a 
different detonator device are relevant to the decision. The EPA also 
invites comment on Alyeska's suggestion that a VOC reduction 
requirement less stringent than 95 percent is appropriate for a 
terminal in an ozone attainment area in an extreme northern climate 
where ozone formation is not a practical concern. The EPA will evaluate 
all information and comments submitted in making a final determination 
before promulgation of the standard.
    Alyeska states that diminishing throughput could eliminate the need 
for control equipment at all berths in the future; if throughput 
continues to decline, the VMT will eventually be able to handle the 
entire throughput at only two berths instead of the four available 
berths. Alyeska has raised an issue concerning the need to control the 
berths normally not in use if they are used for ``emergency purposes.'' 
The issue is independent of the choice of control systems and would not 
be considered in a determination of whether it is appropriate to put 
the VMT in a separate subcategory. However, the EPA may evaluate a 
regulatory approach which requires full control of emissions at the 
primary loading berths, but allows occasional use of uncontrolled 
berths. This type of regulatory scenario assumes that emissions from 
the uncontrolled berths would be negligible when compared to emissions 
to the controlled berths. For the EPA to evaluate such an approach 
requires VMT to provide detailed information on the impacts and 
tradeoffs for various scenarios of the controlled versus uncontrolled 
berths. The EPA is requesting comments on this type of approach, 
including the need to limit frequency of use or mass emissions, and the 
details that should be in the rule to ensure compliance.
    If facilities with characteristics like the VMT were in a separate 
subcategory, the MACT floor would appear to be no control. The EPA 
would consider requiring control levels more stringent than the MACT 
floor. The tradeoffs between incineration and vapor recovery would be 
considered in this determination, and also in the determination of RACT 
under section 183(f). The declining throughput and its affect on the 
number of berths would also be considered in this decision.
    Alyeska is still studying the total impacts associated with vapor 
recovery systems. Currently, Alyeska has not yet provided the EPA with 
the control efficiency of the recovery process, the energy 
requirements, costs, or the secondary pollutants associated with 
recovery; nor has Alyeska provided evidence showing that a 93 or 95 
percent reduction in emissions of HAP using a recovery device is 
infeasible at VMT. Moreover, given that the EPA's definition of VOC 
does not include methane and ethane, there is some question as to 
whether a 95 percent reduction in VOC is in fact possible using 
recovery at the VMT. Additional information is also needed on the 
declining throughput, its effect on the number of berths controlled, 
and the tradeoffs involved. The EPA could possibly consider the trade-
offs among HAP, VOC, PM, SOX, NOX, CO and CO2 in 
addition to energy savings when evaluating recovery versus 
incineration. The EPA invites comment on whether a regulatory approach 
that would allow the use of a less stringent vapor recovery system at 
the VMT is permissible and appropriate under the Act. Such comments 
should include the consideration of tradeoffs between HAP, other 
pollutants, energy, and whether consideration of such tradeoffs is 
permissible under sections 112 and 183(f). Before promulgating a final 
rule, the EPA will evaluate all additional information, data, and 
comments submitted. Based on this evaluation, the promulgated standards 
could be set at the proposed RACT and MACT levels, but the EPA will 
examine all information relevant to including a separate subcategory 
for large crude terminals and establishing a different MACT level for 
each subcategory.
2. Ballasting Emissions
    In preparing today's proposed rule the Agency has assumed that the 
prohibition of ballasting emissions does not contain any impacts for 
industry because of the U.S. Coast Guard regulations requiring 
segregated ballasting tanks. The Administrator is soliciting comments 
and data that might indicate that there are potential impacts to 
certain classes of vessels, particularly those carrying noncrude oil 
product. In addition, the Administrator encourages comment on how a 
prohibition of ballasting emissions could be implemented most 
effectively.
3. Alternative Concentration-Based Compliance Determination
    For terminals that use recovery devices for control of gasoline VOC 
and/or HAP emissions, the EPA is proposing an alternative means of 
compliance to the proposed standards. The EPA is soliciting data and 
comments regarding a ppmv limit for controlling non-gasoline VOC and 
HAP emissions and whether carbon adsorption would be used to control 
emissions from crude oil and other commodities.
4. Vessel Tightness Testing
    The proposed standards require vessels to undergo one of three 
tightness tests at least every 12 months. The Administrator is 
soliciting data on the frequency of leaks on marine vessels to 
determine whether the interval between tests is appropriate. The 
Administrator is also requesting data on the effectiveness of requiring 
vessels to undergo one of these three tightness tests.
5. Procedures to Estimate HAP Emissions
    The TSD describes the limited data regarding marine vessel loading 
emission factors available to the Administrator to use in estimating 
HAP (or VOC) emissions from marine vessel loading operations. While 
these data are sufficient to estimate emissions as part of regulatory 
impact analyses, they may not be sufficient for the Administrator to 
require the use of specific emission factors in the emission estimation 
alternative allowed under the proposed part 63 standards for existing 
sources. For this reason, facilities wanting to take advantage of this 
alternative will develop and submit documentation of emission estimates 
on a case-by-case basis. The Administrator requests that commenters 
submit data on possible emission factors and/or alternative emission 
estimation procedures for consideration in the final rule.
6. RACT Standard of 93 Percent Reduction
    As discussed above, for those sources regulated under section 
183(f) of the Act, the EPA is requiring that such sources reduce 
emissions at their facility overall by 95 percent if using a recovery 
device or by 98 percent if using a destruction device. Nevertheless, 
the Agency specifically decided not to increase the stringency of its 
MACT standard, for those existing sources regulated under section 112, 
beyond a reduction level of 93 percent because the cost effectiveness 
level of such an increase would not be reasonable.
    The Agency believes that it is reasonable, given the associated 
cost effectiveness values, to require the facilities regulated under 
section 183(f) (the largest terminals of their kind in the U.S.) to 
reduce emissions by 95 or 98 percent, despite the fact that the Agency 
is requiring only 93 percent reduction for the terminals regulated 
under section 112. However, the EPA understands that it is unusual for 
a RACT standard for any single source to be more stringent than a MACT 
standard for that source, as it may be for certain sources regulated 
under both sections 112 and 183(f).
    The Agency requests comment on whether the analysis performed for 
regulation of sources under the MACT standard of section 112 is equally 
valid under the RACT standard of section 183(f). That is, given the 
cost effectiveness values associated with decreasing the stringency of 
the RACT standard from 95 or 98 percent control to 93 percent control, 
would it be reasonable, ``considering costs, any nonair-quality 
benefits, environmental impacts, energy requirements and safety 
factors,'' for the Agency to promulgate a standard of 93 percent 
control for those sources regulated under section 183(f), in addition 
to those sources regulated solely under section 112?
7. Carbon Bed Regeneration Emissions
    In the proposed regulation, the Agency is prohibiting HAP emissions 
from the regeneration of a carbon bed when a carbon bed adsorber is 
used to control HAP emissions. The Agency is requesting comment on this 
requirement.
    Specifically, the Agency requests comment on the degree to which 
steam stripping (in which steam is used to regenerate these carbon 
beds) is used at affected sources.
8. MACT Floor Determination
    In a March 9, 1994, Federal Register notice reopening the public 
comment period for determination of ``MACT floor'' for NESHAP source 
categories (59 FR 11018), the Agency considered more than one 
interpretation of the statutory language concerning the MACT floor for 
existing sources and solicited comment on them. The MACT floor decision 
that the EPA will make on the basis of this March 9, 1994, notice will 
have broad precedential effects, and will presumptively be followed by 
the Agency in any rulemakings subsequently promulgated under Title III 
of the Act. The MACT floor determinations proposed in today's 
rulemaking may therefore be affected by the Agency's final 
interpretation of ``MACT floor.''
    Sections 112(d)(3) (A) and (B) of the Act require that the EPA set 
standards no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources'' if 
there are at least 30 sources in a category, or ``the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources'' if there are 
fewer than 30 sources in a category. During the development of this 
proposed rule, the EPA considered two interpretations of this statutory 
language. One interpretation groups the words ``average emission 
limitation achieved by'' together in a single phrase and asks what is 
the ``average emission limitation achieved by'' the best performing 12 
percent. This interpretation places the emphasis on ``average.'' It 
would correspond to first identifying the best performing 12 percent of 
the existing sources, then determining the average emission limitation 
achieved by these sources as a group. Another interpretation groups the 
words ``average emission limitation'' into a single phrase and asks 
what ``average emission limitation'' is ``achieved by'' all members of 
the best performing 12 percent. In this case, the ``average emission 
limitation'' might be interpreted as the average reduction across the 
HAP emitted by an emission point over time. Under this interpretation, 
the EPA would look at the average emission limits achieved by each of 
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, and take the 
lowest. This interpretation would correspond to the level of control 
achieved by the source at the 88th percentile if all sources were 
ranked from the most controlled (100th percentile) to the least 
controlled (1st percentile). For today's proposed regulation, the 
Administrator is using the first interpretation described above, which 
interprets the statutory language to mean that the MACT floor for 
existing sources should be set at the level of control achieved by the 
``average'' of the best performing 12 percent.
    In establishing the MACT floor for today's proposed regulations, 
the EPA also considered two possible meanings for the word ``average'' 
as the term is used in section 112(d)(3) (A) and (B) of the Act. First, 
the EPA considered interpreting ``average'' as the arithmetic mean. The 
arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the measurements 
divided by the number of measurements in the set. The EPA determined 
that the arithmetic mean of the emissions limitations achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of existing sources in some cases would 
yield an emission limitation that fails to correspond to the limitation 
achieved by any particular technology. In cases where this limitation 
existed, the EPA decided not to select this approach. The EPA also 
considered interpreting ``average'' as the median emission limitation 
value. The median is the value in a set of measurements below and above 
which there are an equal number of values (when the measurements are 
arranged in order of magnitude).
    For the subcategory of sources emitting 1 Mg/yr or more of HAP, the 
Agency determined that the derived arithmetic mean, for all practical 
purposes, is equivalent to recovery technologies and thus the Agency 
used the mean to determine the MACT floor for this subcategory. The EPA 
selected the median for the subcategory of sources emitting less than 1 
Mg/yr of HAP because the arithmetic mean yields a value that does not 
correspond to a particular emission control technology.
    The EPA solicits comment on its interpretation of ``the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the 
existing sources'' (section 112(d)(3)(A) of the Act) and its 
methodology for determining the MACT floor.
9. Monitoring Parameters
    The proposed standard requires that terminals using a combustion 
device to comply with the standard monitor the combustion temperature 
computed every hour as an hourly average, and every third hour as a 3-
hour block average. Operation of the affected source in deviation of 
the baseline temperature developed during the compliance test in excess 
of 5.6 deg.C (10 deg.F) constitutes noncompliance with the standard. 
The baseline temperature is averaged over the loading cycle. The Agency 
believes that it is appropriate to average temperatures measured during 
the compliance test to establish a baseline temperature to which 
monitored data can be compared. The Agency is soliciting comments on 
the effect of the proposed averaging times on the parameter's 
effectiveness in ensuring compliance with the proposed standards.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    The EPA will hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed standard 
in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the amended Act. Persons 
wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed standards for marine 
tank vessel loading operations should contact the EPA at the address 
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The EPA will limit 
oral presentations to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may 
file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the 
hearing. Send written statements to the Air Docket Section address 
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should refer to 
Docket A-90-44.
    The EPA will make a verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements available for public inspection and copying during normal 
working hours at the EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the 
information submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the 
development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the 
docket are (1) to allow interested parties to readily identify and 
locate documents so that they can intelligently and effectively 
participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve as the record in 
case of judicial review (except for interagency review materials) 
(section 307(d)(7)(A) of the amended Act).

C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews

1. Paperwork Reduction Act
    The information collection requirements in this proposed standard 
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the 
EPA (ICR No. 1679.01), and interested parties may obtain a copy from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (2136), 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public 
reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 
average 265 hours per respondent per year, including time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA.'' The final standard will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
2. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 Review
    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a section of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more is 
anticipated. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. 
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be 
documented in the public record.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980) 
requires consideration of the impacts of regulations on small entities, 
which are small businesses, small organizations, and small governments. 
The major purpose of this Act is to ensure consideration of regulatory 
alternatives that might mitigate adverse economic impacts on small 
entities. If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis 
must be performed to examine alternatives that might lessen such 
effects.
    The EPA performed an economic impact analysis of the MACT 
determination considered for this regulation, which included a 
preliminary assessment of the potential adverse impacts on small 
entities. Two types of businesses were identified that could incur 
adverse small business impacts: marine terminal operations and marine 
vessel operations.
    With regard to marine terminal operations, the proposed standards 
exempt facilities with HAP emissions of less than 1 Mg/yr. This reduces 
the number of impacted terminals from approximately 1,450 to 264. These 
exemptions allow the smallest operations to avoid installation of 
controls. These exemptions greatly reduce per-barrel control cost 
differentials that, as indicated in the economic impact analysis, would 
make it difficult for owners of the smallest terminals to pass forward 
control costs to consumers had no or fewer exemptions been made. With 
the proposed standards, however, it is expected that a large portion 
(up to 200) of the 264 regulated terminals will only be able to pass a 
fraction of the control costs on to consumers in the form of higher 
prices. This condition is attributable to the EPA's assumption that 
loading costs will increase by the average cost of control, that 
terminals are competitive and that higher than average control cost 
terminals will have to absorb those differences. Thus, the economic 
impact on these terminal owners is expected to be significant because 
of the impact of cost absorption on profitability and/or difficulty in 
raising capital for the control system. On the other hand, of those 200 
terminals, it is expected that many are part of large integrated 
petroleum operations, have easier access to capital and will remain 
open. Some with higher than average control costs will also be in a 
position to raise their prices as much as their control costs because 
of favorable locations or other market conditions. However, the overall 
number of small business terminal operations significantly affected by 
this regulation is expected to be substantial.
    With regard to marine vessel operations, the economic impact 
analysis considered all of these operations to be small businesses. The 
number of vessel operations estimated to be impacted by the proposed 
standards is expected to be substantial since a significant percentage 
of the petroleum products transported via marine vessels will be 
affected by the standards. Excluding volume from the three large crude 
oil terminals affected (these terminals are served by large oil tankers 
with insignificant estimated retrofit costs ($0.002/bbl), 77 percent of 
the U.S. marine transported throughput of controlled products and crude 
oil will be affected by the standards. That same volume percentage of 
the fleet marine vessels will need to be retrofitted to service 
regulated terminals. It is expected, however, that many of these vessel 
owners will be able to pass forward retrofit costs in the form of 
higher transport prices.
    The Agency has therefore judged that a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities (namely terminals) will 
likely result from the proposed standards and that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis should be performed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tank vessel 
standards.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, 183(f) and 301 Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7511b(f), and 7601.


    Dated: April 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-10974 Filed 5-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P