Post on 04-Jan-2016
description
Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)
Enhanced Vapor Recovery Regulation
September 27, 2006
9/27/2006 2
Topics• Background• AST Field Study• AST Field Study Results• Projected Emission Reductions• Statewide AST Population and Emission
Inventory• AST EVR Regulatory Proposal • Costs and Cost Effectiveness• Timeline
9/27/2006 3
Background
• Considered Going to Board In 2004– Needed More Public Outreach– Needed to Get a Better Estimate on the Number of
ASTs in California– Identified Need to do More Research on Control
Techniques
• Since Then:– Met with Stakeholders and Facilitated Workshops– Conducted Survey to Estimate the Number of ASTs– Developed and Conducted Field Study
9/27/2006 4
AST Emissions
Pressure
2”
1”
0”
3”Tank gauge
Em VentFill port
Vent pipe
Nozzle
AST FIELD STUDY
9/27/2006 6
350 Gallon
550 Gallon1000 Gallon550 Gallon
9/27/2006 7
350 Gallon
• Control TankOpen To Atmosphere Through Flip Top Cap
• Test TankP/V Valve and
Insulation
9/27/2006 8
550 Gallon
• Control TankOpen To Atmosphere
Through Flip Top Cap
• Test Tank # 1Open To Atmosphere
Through Carbon Canister and Flip Top Cap
• Test Tank # 2P/V Valve,
White Paint, andShade structure
• Test Tank # 3P/V Valve and
Insulation
9/27/2006 9
1000 Gallon
• Control Tank Open To Atmosphere
Through
Flip Top Cap
• Test TankP/V Valve, White Paint, Shade
Structure, and Carbon Canister
9/27/2006 10
Emission Measurements in AST Field Study
• Daily fuel surface temperature measurements using thermocouples (AP-42 Methodology)– However, AP-42 underestimates emissions from uncontrolled
tanks (open systems).– Does not account for emissions escaping through the vent due
to ambient conditions.
• Gravimetric Measurements using Load Cells– Test and control tanks were weighed before and after the
completion of each respective test.– Difference in the weight of the tanks = Amount of Emissions – More accurate method.
9/27/2006 11
Load Cell
9/27/2006 12
Comparison Between AP-42 and Load Cell Measurements for Uncontrolled ASTs
AP-42
Load Cell
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Measurement Technique
AP-42
Load Cell
Gra
ms
of
gas
oli
ne/
gal
lon
/da
y
9/27/2006 13
AST FIELD STUDY RESULTS
9/27/2006 14
Evaporative Emissions Measured in Summer Months
• Using different measurement techniques.
35
20
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
350 GallonSept-Oct(55days)
1000 GallonAug-Oct(92days)
AP-42Load Cell
Gal
lon
s o
f g
aso
line
0.85
1.321.22
1.95
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
350 Gallon 1000 Gallon
AP-42Load Cell
Gra
ms
of
gas
oli
ne
/ g
allo
n /
day
PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
9/27/2006 16
Average % Emission Reduction from Uncontrolled ASTs(Calculated Using *Modified AP-42 Methodology)
43
65 66 67
83
97
0
1020
3040
50
6070
8090
100PV**
Carbon Canister (CC)
PV+Paint
PV+Paint+shade
PV+Paint+shade+CC
PV+InsulationType of Control Technologies
% E
mis
sion
Red
uctio
n
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to control tanks (open systems)
**3”W.C. PV valve
9/27/2006 17
STATEWIDE AST POPULATION AND
EMISSION INVENTORY
9/27/2006 18
Statewide AST Population
• Based on Survey results
• Extrapolated ~ 9600 tanks statewide
• 33% (3200) non-agricultural applications
• 67% (6400) agricultural applications
9/27/2006 19
Size Distribution
0500
100015002000250030003500400045005000
0-350 Gallons
351-750Gallons
>750 Gallons
Total # of Tanks
Non-AgriculturalTanks
AgriculturalTanks
# o
f T
anks
17%
36%
15% 15%12%
5%
Note: Percentages are of total population.
9/27/2006 20
Statewide AST Emission Estimates (2005)
(Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Annual J uly
StatewideAverage
Non-agAverage
AgAverage
To
ns
of
HC
/Day
1020 Gal./day
1540 Gal./day
Note: Almost 50% of the emissions are from ASTs<750 Gallon
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems
9/27/2006 21
District Permitted AST Emission Estimates
(Calculated Using *Modified U.S. EPA AP-42 Methodology)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Permitted ASTs
Total DailyEmissions
ASTs > 750Gallon
ASTs < 750Gallon
To
ns
of
HC
/Day
320 Gal./day 310 Gal./day
*correction factor of 1.6 applied to open systems
~3000 ~2200 ~800
10 Gal./day
9/27/2006 22
Statewide Survey Results Summary
SOURCE PROTECTED SINGLE WALL TOTAL REPORTED
2006Districts 2,359 752 3,111
2004Fuel Carriers 1,962 7,620 9,582
2003Districts -- -- 1,892Fuel Carriers 2,873 4,760 7,633
AST EVR REGULATORY PROPOSAL
9/27/2006 24
AST Proposal Topics
• Vaulted and Non-vaulted Tanks – Definitions
• Standing Loss Emission Control– New Installations– Existing Facilities (Retrofits)
• Phase I EVR
• Phase II EVR
9/27/2006 25
Vaulted Tank• Below grade, top fill, remote dispensing• CP-201 Phase I and Phase II Requirements
9/27/2006 26
Non-Vaulted Tank
• Non-Vaulted Tanks– Above grade, top or side fill– CP 206 Phase I and Phase II Requirements
9/27/2006 27
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 28
Standing Loss Emission Control
• Existing and New Facility Emission Factors
• Controls Performance During Periods of No Transfers
• Interchangeable with Phase I and Phase II Systems
9/27/2006 29
Standing Loss Emission ControlProposed Emission Factors
• New Installations: 0.26 g/gal/day (90%)*
• Existing Facilities: 0.61 g/gal/day (76%)*
*compared to open system
9/27/2006 30
Standing Loss Emission ControlCertification Testing
• Evaluate Systems and Components:– Fuel Surface and Ambient Temperature Ratio
(Attenuation)– Hydrocarbon Emissions (Processors)
• Emission Factor = Attenuation + Processor Controls Meets– New Installations: 0.26 g/gal/day– Retrofit: 0.61 g/gal/day
9/27/2006 31
Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature Attenuation
Single Wall Tank
9/27/2006 32
Standing Loss Emission ControlTemperature Attenuation
Protected Tank
9/27/2006 33
Standing Loss Emission Control
Standing Loss
Performance Based Design Based
9/27/2006 34
Standing Loss Emission Control
• Performance Based Approach– Components Field Tested as System – System Meets Emission Factor (New or Retrofit)– System Issued Executive Order– System Must Stay Together
• Design Based Approach– Technologies/Tanks Field Tested Once – Components Meet Emission Factor (New or Retrofit)– Certified Components Added to Executive Order– Mix and Match Certified Components from Table
9/27/2006 35
Design BasedCertification Emission Factors
9/27/2006 36
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 37
Phase INew and Existing Facilities
• Cargo Tank to AST
• Currently 90% Efficiency
• Proposed 98% Efficiency
• Minimum 180 Day Test
9/27/2006 38
AST Proposal
Vapor RecoverySystem
Standing LossEmission Control
Phase I Phase II
9/27/2006 39
Phase IINew and Existing Facilities
• AST to Motor Vehicle
• Currently 90% Re-fueling Efficiency
• Proposed efficiency increase to 95%
• Does not include:– Fugitives– Pressure Profile
• Certified with Phase I System
• Minimum 180 Day Test
9/27/2006 40
Phase IIState Requirements
• California Health and Safety Code:– Liquid Retention (Dispensing Nozzle or Vapor
Return Line)– No Excessive Liquid Spillage– ORVR Compatibility– Operating Hold Open Latch– ARB Required to Test for Certification
9/27/2006 41
AST ProposalSummary
• Vaulted (CP-201)
• Non-vaulted Tanks (CP-206)
• Standing Loss Emission Control• New: 0.26 grams/gallon/day• Retrofit: 0.61 grams/gallon/day
• Phase I EVR System
• Phase II EVR System
COST AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
9/27/2006 43
Retrofit Costs, Cost Effectiveness of Different Standing Loss Controls
on a 550 Gallon *Permitted AST
Control Technology
ConfigurationCost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/lb.)
Net Cost ($)
Insulation 1090 0. 52 170
Paint + CC 1260 0.86 600
Shade + CC 2370 1.61 1710
Paint + shade 1770 2.30 1390
Paint 330 0.46 -30
*Assuming a permitted AST already has a PV Valve which controls ~40% of the emissions from an uncontrolled AST
9/27/2006 44
Retrofit Costs, Cost EffectivenessAssumptions for Standing Loss Controls
• Life of an AST is 15 years
• Permitted ASTs already have a PV valve
• Cost of gasoline is $2.50 per gallon
• Net cost = Cost of control – Lifetime cost savings of gasoline
• Negative costs indicate the amount of money saved by using the respective controls on ASTs.
9/27/2006 45
Cost Effectiveness for Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery
Systems
• Currently Being Evaluated
9/27/2006 46
Timeline (Tentative)
• December 2006 Workshop for Certification Procedure and Test
Methods
• March 2007 Staff Report and Regulatory Proposal
• April 2007 Board Meeting
9/27/2006 47
Questions?
9/27/2006 48
CONTACTS
• Field Study– Jim Watson (916) 327-1282 or
jwatson@arb.ca.gov– Pamela Gupta (916) 324-4458 or
pgupta@arb.ca.gov
• Regulatory– Joe Guerrero (916) 324-9487 or
jguerrero@arb.ca.gov– Michael Werst (916) 449-5289 or
mwerst@arb.ca.gov