b'Marketer Member NewsRules & RegulationsEPA Proposes Costly Vapor Balancing Equipment at Bulk Plants with Gasoline StorageThroughput Threshold Trigger Cargo Tank VehiclesThe most significant change under the proposed rule is the lan- Currently, EPA requires cargo tank vehicles in gasoline serviceguage used to establish the daily gasoline throughput thresholdto undergo EPA Method 27 tank tightness tests. The EPA Method that triggers vapor balancing requirements. Under current MACT27 measures vapor leaks from cargo tank compartments and rule, the threshold trigger for vapor balancing is any bulk plantallows no more than 3 inches of water pressure drop within the with more than 20,000 gallons of actual daily gasoline through- tank shell measured over a five-minute period. EPAs proposed put. The current 20,000-gallon gasoline throughput thresholdrule would require a more stringent graduated vapor tightness leaves most small bulk plants out of vapor balancing require- standard ranging between 0.5 to 1.25 inches of water pressure ments. Unfortunately, the threshold trigger for vapor balancingdrop over a five-minute period depending on the cargo tank compliance under the proposed rule is lowered to bulk plantscompartment size. According to the EPA, model year 2004 and with a daily maximum design capacity throughput of more thannewer specification cargo tanks are designed to certify to the 0.5 4,000 gallons. The difference between the threshold languageto 1.25 inches water pressure drop standard. Others disagree and actual daily throughput in the current rule and daily maxi- say only cargo tank model years 2018 and newer are designed to mum design capacity throughput under the proposed rule ismeet the new pressure standards. While retrofits may or may not significant. Daily maximum design capacity throughput has nobe required on these model years, pressure test costs will most correlation to actual daily gasoline throughput for purposes ofcertainly increase.compliance. Instead, daily maximum design capacity throughput sets the compliance threshold at the daily maximum amount ofSmall Business Cost Analysisgasoline that could be throughput each day based on storage tankEMA is opposing the proposed rule because of the onerous design specifications. This seemingly subtle change in throughputcosts it would impose on small business energy marketers. language would not only bring all small bulk plants with gasolineEMA believes the EPA erred when it failed to conduct a com-storage capacity under new costly vapor balancing requirements,prehensive cost analysis as required by law anytime a proposed but under costly additional regulatory requirements as well.rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number Leak Detection of small businesses. EPA did not conduct a small business cost analysis because it grossly underestimated the number of small The proposed rule uses the same 4,000 gallons daily maximumbulk plants that would be affected. The EPA counted just 111 design capacity throughput to impose new leak detection require- small bulk plants with gasoline storage tanks that would be ments on operators of small bulk plants with gasoline storage.significantly impacted by the proposed rule. Based on this small Currently, leak detection methods for above ground gasoline stor- number of regulated bulk plants, the EPA concluded the proposed age tanks only require sight, sound and smell observations with arule did not have a significant impact on small businesses and 30-day repair window allowance. The proposed rule still allowstherefore no small business cost analysis was required by law. In sight, sound and smell observations, but also requires installationfact, EMA estimates there are well over 1,000 small bulk plants of new and enhanced leak detection monitoring equipment forthat would be affected by the rule, which meets the significance valves, pumps, pressure relief devices, loading racks, samplingthreshold triggering a small business cost review. The failure by connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges orthe EPA to accurately identify regulated parties affected by the other connectors in the gasoline liquid transfer and vapor collec- proposed rule is a major omission which could significantly delay tion systems. In addition, the proposed rule would shorten theor even derail the proposed rule altogether.repair window to just 15 days and impose new leak reporting and recordkeeping requirements for small bulk plant operators.WPMA News / Winter 202229'