U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-    ]

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 undo 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 (PL 101-508;
42 USC 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
section 63.6 of the part 63 General Provisions.
     G.  Initial Performance Tests  
     Owners or operators must perform initial performance
tests as required by section 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.)       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.      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.  
     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.       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 Requirements 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 ñ5.6øC (ñ10øF) 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 ñ5.6øC (ñ10øF).
     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 11øC (20øF)
above the baseline scrubbing liquid temperature and
ñ0.1 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 trade-offs 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 5.6øC (10øF) 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 operation
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. 
6560-50
LIST OF SUBJECTS
     Environmental protection, tank vessel standards, air
pollution control, intergovernmental relations, reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, incorporation by reference,
SIC Code 4491.
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.


____________________________  __________________________
Date                           Carol M. Browner
                               Administrator