vvEPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
          Office Of Air and Radiation
          (ANR-443)
          Washington, DC 20460
EPA-450y3-87-001a
July 1987
          Air
Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis:
Proposed Refueling
Emission Regulations
for Gasoline-Fueled
Motor Vehicles —

Volume I
Analysis of Gasoline
Marketing Regulatory
Strategies

-------

-------
                              EPA-450/3-87-001a
 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed
Refueling Emission Regulations for Gasoline-
           Fueled Motor Vehicles —

                   Volume I
             Analysis of Gasoline
             Marketing Regulatory
                  Strategies
            OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
                       AND
                  OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCES
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Air and Radiation
                  Washington, DC 20460

                      July 1987

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of Mobile Sources,
EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through the Library Services Office
(MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, or from  the National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 221661.

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section              ,                                             Page
1.0  INTRODUCTION	1-1
2.0  CHANGES TO THE ANALYSIS	  2-1
     2.1  EMISSION SOURCES AND ESTIMATES   .	2-1
          2.1.1  Emission Factor Parameters  ..........  2-1
          2.1.2  Baseline Emission Factors 	 ...  2-2
     2.2  CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND EFFECTIVENESS 	  2-7
          2.2.1  Onboard Control Technology  	  2-7
          2.2.2  In-Use Efficiencies 	  2-9
     2.3  MODEL PLANTS ANU REGULATORY STRATEGIES 	 ...  2-11
          2.3.1  Model Plants. .	  2-11
          2.3.2  Gasoline, Facility, and Vehicle Projections . .  2-12
          2.3.3  Regulatory Strategies 	  2-16
     2.4  ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS	  2-28
          2.4.1  Air Emissions	2-30
          2.4.2  Fuel Savings	2-38
     2.5  COST ANALYSIS	 .  2-38
          2.5.1  Recovery Credits	2-43
          2.5.2  Model Plant Costs	; . .  2-47
          2.5.3  Control Options	2-53
     2.6  RISK ANALYSIS.	2-57
          2.6.1  Risk Factors	2-60
          2.6.2  Occupational Exposure 	  2-60
          2.6.3  Baseline Risks	2-62
          2.6,4  Hazardous Fraction of Gasoline Vapors .....  2-62
     2.7  ECONOMIC IMPACTS	  2-66
     2.8  ENFORCEMENT IMPACTS.	2-66
          2.8.1  Stage II Enforcement Costs  	  2-66
          2.8.2  Onboard Enforcement Costs 	  2-68
     2.9  REFERENCES	 .  ,2-70
3.0  SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS	  3-1
     3.1  REGULATORY STRATEGIES	3-1
     3.2  COST EFFECTIVENESS	3-1
     3.3  INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS	3-7

                                     iii

-------
Section
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  (concluded)
     3.4  IMPACTS CONSIDERING OTHER BENEFITS	3-1,3
     3.5  IMPACTS IN SELECTED AREAS  .	3-23
          3.5.1  Onboard arid Stage II in Selected
                 Nonattainment Areas . 	 ........  3-16
          3.5.2  Combination of Onboard and Stage,II
                 in Selected Nonattainment Areas ........  3-16
     3.6  SENSITIVITY ANALYSES	....,.-	3-22
          3.6,1  Sensitivity to Various Cost Assumptions
                 for Stage II and Onboard  	 ......  3-22
          3.6.2  Inconvenience Cost Sensitivity Analysis ....  3-22
          3,6.3  Sensitivity to Gasoline RVP Change  .......  3-27
          3.6.4  Comparison of 49-State and 50-State
                 Onboard Strategy  	 ......  3-31
          3.6.5  Impact of Onboard Start-Date. .........  3-31

Appendi x                                                          Page

   A        Estimation of In-use Efficiency for Vehicle
            Refueling	  A-l
   B        Stage II Per-Facility Costs  ............  B-l
   C        Comparison of Stage II Cost Estimates  .:......  C-l
   D        Service Station Projections  ............  U-l
   E        Reanalysis of Economic Impacts 	  E-l
   F        Baseline Emissions Tables  .............  F-l
   6        Nonattainment Area Data  ... 	  G-l
   H        A Preliminary Estimation of Occupational  RisK
            to Service Station Attendants Exposed to Benzene
            and Gasoline Vapors  ..... 	  H-l
   I        Analysis of Stage II Dispenser Configurations  . . .  1-1
   J        Stage I Per-Facility Costs .	  J-l
   K        Analysis of the Impacts of the Underground
            Storage Tank (UST) Program on Stage II.Costs-.  . . .  K-l
                                    IV

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
Table                Title                                        Page
 2-1       RVP and Temperature Data Associated With Each
           Regulatory Area Examined  	  2-3
 2-2       Summary of Emission Factors Used in the
           Gasoline Marketing Analysis   	  2-5
 2-3       Estimated 1984 Service Station Size Distribution  . .  2-13
 2-4       Comparison of Total Gasoline Consumption
           Projections   	2-15
 2-5       Results of Service Station Facility  .
           Projection Model  . . .	2-17
 2-6       Summary of Characteristics of Nonattainment Area
           Groupings for the New Analysis	  2-25
 2-7       Nationwide Stage II Control Impacts for Various
           Exemption Levels (33-Year Analysis)   	  2-26
 2-8       Nationwide Stage II Control Impacts for Various
           Exemption Levels (In Year 2U10)	2-27
 2-9       Number of Affected Facilities Assumed in the
           New Cost Analysis	2-29
 2-10      Baseline VOC Emissions Associated with the New
           Analysis	2-31
 2-11      Gasoline Consumption Projections for Controlled
           Vehicles	2-32
 2-12      Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Projections for
           Controlled Vehicles   	 ...  2-33
 2-13      Nationwide Emission Reductions Associated with
           Gasoline Marketing Control Options (1988-2020)  . . .  2-36
 2-14      Nationwide Emission Reductions Associated with
           Gasoline Marketing Regulatory Strategies (1988-2020).  2-37
 2-15      Fuel Savings Associated with Gasoline Marketing
           Regulatory Strategies 	  2-42
 2-16      Facility Recovery Credit Gasoline Prices  	  2-45
 2-17      Derivation of Recovery Credit Gasoline Prices ....  2-46
 2-18      Weighted Average Stage II Costs (Retrofit of
           Existing Stations 	  2-49

-------
                  LIST UF TABLES
                   (continued)
Table
2-19

2-20
2-21
2-22

H-23

2-24

2-25

2-26

2-27
2-28


2-29

2-30

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5
Title
Stage II Revised Capital Cost Estimates for
A "Typical" 6-Nozzle Service Station ........
Comparison of Onboard Vapor Control Hardware Costs. .
New Vehicle Registration Projections ........
Refueling Recovery Credits Used in the Onboard
Analysis 	 	 	 	 .
Summary of Excess Evaporative Control Strategy Costs

Nationwide Costs of Gasoline Marketing Options
(1988-2020) 	 	 .
Nationwide Costs of Gasoline Marketing Regulatory
Strategies (1988-2020) 	 	
Comparison of Benzene and Gasoline Vapor Unit Risk
Factors 	 ...... 	
Summary of Baseline Risks ..... 	
Summary of Incidence Impacts Under Revised Analysis
for Gasoline Marketing Regulatory Strategies (1988-
2020) .......................
Comparison of Baseline High and Low Incidence
Estimates .......................
Summary of Annual Enforcement Impacts Associated
with the Regulatory Strategies (1988-2020) .....
Summary of Impacts of Regulatory Strategies
(33-Year Analysis) 	 	
Summary of Impacts of Regulatory Strategies
(After Full Implementation in Year 2010) ......
Benzene Regulatory Costs per Cancer Incidence
Avoided (33-Year Analysis) 	 	
Benzene and Gasoline Vapors Costs per Cancer
Incidence Avoided (33- Year Analysis) ........
Benzene and Gasoline Vapors Costs per Cancer
Page

2-49
2-51
2-52

2-54

2-65

2-58

2-59

2-61
2-63


2-64

2-67

2-69

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5

Incidence Avoided (33-Year Analysis)  (Assuming
Incidence from CQ and Greater Gasoline Vapors)   ...   3-6

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)

Tab!e                Title                                        Paye

 3-6       Summary of Impacts of Stage I Controls Nationwide . .  3-8

 3-7       Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Selected
           Regulatory Strategies ~ VOC Emission Reduction
           Basis   	' . .	3-9

 3-8       Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Selected
           Regulatory Strategies — Incidence Reduction
           Basis	3-10

 3-9       Incremental Analysis from a Strategy of Excess
           Evaporative Controls. 	  3-11

 3-10      Incremental Analysis from a Strategy of Stage II in 27
           Nonattainment Areas Plus Excess Evaporative Controls.  3-12

 3-11      Cost Effectiveness of VOC Reductions in NA Areas
           Considering Other Benefits	3-14

 3-12      Summary of Onboard and Stage II Impacts in
           Selected Areas	. . . .	3-17

 3-13     Incremental Analysis of Stage II in NA Areas
          (Incremental to Onboard)	   3-21

 3-14      Stage II Cost Sensitivity Analysis .	   3-23

 3-15      Onboard Cost Sensitivity Analysis
           (Incremental from Evap)	3-24

 3-16      Onboard Plus Stage II-NA Incremental to Onboard:
           Cost Sensitivity Analysis	3-25

 3-17      Cost Sensitivity Impacts on Cost Effectiveness of
           VOC Reductions in NA Areas Considering Other Benefits  3-26

 3-18      Baseline Emissions Sensitivity to RVP Change ....   3-28

 3-19      Comparison of Stage II and Onboard Impacts Under Two
           Average Gasoline RVP's	   3-29

 3-20      RVP Impacts on Cost Effectiveness of VOC Reductions
           in NA Areas Considering Other Benefits .......   3-30

 3-21      Summary of Assumptions Used in 49-State and 50-State
           Onboard Analysis	 	   3-32

 3-22      Comparison of Coverage for Onboard Strategies
           (Incremental from Evap.) ..............   3-33

 3-23      Sensitivity of Impacts to Onboard Start-Date	  3-34
                                  vii

-------
LIST OF TABLES
 (continued)
Table
A-l

.B-l

B-2

B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-ll
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20
%
B-21
Title
Balance System Defects Based on Reanalysis of Raw
Data from the Washington, D.C. Study 	
Component List for Balance or Hirt Stage II Vapor
Recovery Systems 	 	 	
Balance Dispenser Modification Equipment ;
Purchase Cost 	 	
Model Plant 1 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost
Model Plant 2 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost . . .
Model Plant 3 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost . . .
Model Plant 4 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost , . .
Model Plant 5 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost . » .
Model Plant Configurations 	 ....
Model Plant 1 Stage II Underground Direct Cost . » .
Model Plant 2 Stage II Underground Direct Cost . . .
Model Plant 3 Stage II Underground Direct Cost . » .
Model Plant 4 Stage II Underground Direct Cost . » .
Model Plant 5 Stage II Underground Direct Cost . „ .
Stage II Direct Cost Summary 	 « .

Generic Stage II Capital Cost Summary: No

Generic Stage II Annual Cost Summary: No

Generic Stage II Capital Cost Summary:
With Discounts 	 	 	
Generic Stage II Annual Cost Summary:
With Discounts 	
Balance Dispenser Modification Equipment
Purchase Cost 	 	
Model Plant 2 Stage II Aboveground Direct Cost. . . .
Page

A-7

B-5

B-14
B-17
B-18
8-19
B-20
B-21
B-23
B-32
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-37
B-40
B-41

B-46

B-47

B-48

B-49

B-50
B-53

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)
Table                Title                                        Page
8-22       Model Plant 2 Stage II Underground Direct Cost. . . .  B-54
B-23       Stage II Direct Cost Summary (New Facility) 	  B-57
B-24       Stage II Annual Cost Summary (New Facility) 	  8-58
B-25       Generic Stage II Capital Cost Summary:  No
           Discounts (New Station Costs) 	  B-61
B-26       Generic Stage II Annual Cost Summary:  No
           Discounts (New Station Costs) 	  B-62
B-27       Generic Stage II Capital Cost Summary:  With
           Discounts (New Station Costs) . .	  B-63
B-28       Generic Stage II Annual Cost Summary:  With
           Discounts (New Station Costs) ............  B-64
C-l        API Survey Results:  Total Cost of Retrofitting a
           Service Station with a Stage II Balance System  ...  C-4
C-2        API Cost Estimates of Conventional and Balance
           System Dispenser Components	  C-4
C-3        API Installation Permit Fee Estimates 	  C-5
C-4        API Cost Estimates for an Installed Balance System. .  C-5
C-5        API Cost Estimates for an Installed Vacuum
           Assist System 	 .....  C-6
C-6        API Incremental Nozzle Replacement Cost Estimates . .  C-7
C-7        Additional Maintenance Costs Assumed by API .....  C-7
C-8        Annual ization Factors Used by API	C-8
C-9        Summary of API Cost Estimates for Various Size
           Stations. ......	  C-1U
C-10       Sierra Capital Cost Estimates ....... 	  C-ll
C-ll       Capital Recovery Factors Used by Sierra 	  C-12
C-12       Throughputs Used, by Sierra for Calculation of
           Product Recovery Credits. ... 	  C-13
C-13       Sierra Capital and Annual Maintenance Cost Estimates.  C-15
C-14       Capital and Annual Maintenance Cost Summary for
           EPA Model Plants	 . . . .  C-23
                                  ix

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)
Table              .  Title                                        Page
C-15       Stage II Annual Cost Summary for EPA Model  Plants  .  .   C-27
C-16       Financial Assumptions Made by EPA,  Sierra,  and API.  .   C-31
C-17       Capital and Annual Maintenance Cost Summary With All
           EPA Inputs	    C-32
C-18       Stage II Annual Cost Summary With All EPA Inputs .  .    C-36
0-1        Summary of New Facility Projections From the Service
           Station Projection Model ... 	  ...    D-5
D-2        Results of Service Station Facility Projection
           Model	  .    D-6
D-3        Estimated 1984 Service Station Size Distribution .  .    D-8
E-l        Average Unit Cost and Quantity Effects for
           Gasoline Under Nationwide Regulatory Strategies ...   E-4
E-2        Average Unit Cost and Quantity Effects for
           Vehicles Under All Regulatory Strategies Including
           Evaporative or Onboard and Evaporative Control  .  .  .   E-6
£-3        Public Service Station Closures Attributed  to
           Nationwide Regulatory Strategies Under Method I ...   E-10
E-4        Elasticities Implicit in Method I Closure Estimates  .   £-11
E-5        Public Service Station Closures Attributed  to
           Nationwide Regulatory Strategies Under Method II.  .. .   E-12
E-6        SIC 5541 Financial Ratios by Firm Employment
           Size	E-14
E-7        SIC 5541 Financial Ratios by Firm Asset Size for
           Firms Earning Profits ..... 	 ...   E-15
E-8        SIC B541 Financial Ratios by Firm Asset Size      :
           for Firms Earning Losses	   E-16
F-l        Bulk Terminal Baseline Emissions  ..........   F-3
F-2        Bulk Terminal Storage Tank Baseline Emissions ....   F-6
F-3        Bulk Plant Baseline Emissions   	   F-10
F-4        Service Station In-Use Baseline Emissions ......   F-14

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)
Table                Title                    ..                   Page
G-l        Comprehensive Nonattainment Area Data ........  G-3
G-2        Data for NA Area Groupings  . . . ...... . . . .  G-y
G-3        Nonattainment Area Data . . .............  G-lu
G-4        Composition of "61-Area" Nonattainment Area
           Grouping  . . . . ...... . ...... .....  G-14
H-l        Service Station Sampling Locations  . . .  . .....  H-5
H-2        Attendants' TWA Exposures to Benzene Vapor  .....  H-6
H-3        Attendants' TWA Exposures to Total Gasoline
           Vapor   .......... ...... .  . .....  H-7
1-1        Dispenser Configurations Assumed for the Base Case. .  I-b
1-2        Dispenser Configurations Assumed for Multiproduct
           Dispensers  ........ .......  . . ....  1-7
1-3        Summary of Analysis of Stage II Dispenser
           Configuration Assumptions . .... . . .  . . . . . .  1-8
J-l        Bulk Terminal Bottom   Load Control Costs   .....  J-4
J-2        Bulk Terminal Top Load Control Costs  ........  J-b
J-3        Average Bulk Terminal Control Costs   ...... . .  J-7
J-4        Bulk Terminal Average Weighted Costs  ........  J-8
J-5        Cost of Installing Bolted Internal Floating Roof on
           an Existing Fixed-Roof Tank   . ..... . ......  J-9
J-6        Average Control Costs for Bulk Plants   . ......  J-10
J-7        Estimated Control Costs for Bulk Plants . ......  J-ll
J-8        Control Costs for  For-Hire Tank Trucks at
           Terminals    .....................  J-12
J-9        Control Costs for For-Hire Tank Trucks at
           Bulk Plants  .....................  J-13
J-10       Service Station Stage I Capital and Net Annual ized
           Cost Estimates  . .  .................  J-14
K-l        Estimates of Actions Taken if Any Tanks
           Are Leaking    .................  ...  K-b

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
                              (concluded)
Table                Title
K-2        Action Taken in Response to Finding a Leak
           in an Underground Tank System	 . . „    K-7

K-3        Scenarios for Estimating Stage II Trenching
           Cost Savings  ...»	 .. . »    K-7

K-4        Percent Trenching Saved by Each Model Plant e . . ,,    K-8

K-b        General Stage II Capital Costs Including UST
           Impacts	 . . „    K-1U

K-6        General Stage II Annual  Costs Including UST
           Impacts   	?	 . . «    K-ll

K-7        Comparison of Weighted Stage II Capital and
           Annual Costs With and Without a Simultaneous
           Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program  ..„..„    K-13

K-8        Impacts of the Underground Storage Tank (UST)
          'Program on Stage II Installation Costs in
           Nonattainment Areas	 . . ,    K-14

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure               Title .                                       Page

2-1        Onboard Fillneck Seal Mechanisms  ..........  2-8

2-2        Comparison of Implementation Schedules for Nationwide
           Strategies  .....................  2-19.

2-3        Comparison of Implementation Schedules for Stage II
           in Nonattainment Areas and Onboard Nationwide. .... 2-21

2-4        VOC Emissions and Percent Emission Reduction of
           Refueling Emissions Only (1985-2020)	 . .  2-39

2-5        VOC Emissions and Percent Emission Reduction of
           Refueling and Emptying Emissions (1985-2020)  ....  2-40

2-6        VOC Emissions and Percent Emission Reduction of
           Refueling, Spillages and Emptying Emissions
           (1985-2020)   ....................  2-41

2-7        Benzene and Gasoline Vapor Incidences   	  2-65

3-1        Percent VOC Emission Reductions for MA Areas
           (<10S000 Station Exemption)  ............. 3-18

3-2        Percent VOC Emission Reductions for NA Areas
           (<10, <50 Station Exemption) ............. 3-19

3-3        Percent VOC Emission Reductions - Stage II in NA
           Areas Plus Onboard		3-20

A-l        Mechanical FilTneck Seal  ..............  A-3

A-2        "J-Tube" Fillneck Seal  ...............  A-3

B-l        Exhibit-4, Twin Hose Side-Mount High-Retractor
           Configuration   ...................  B-7

B-2        Exhibit-5» Coaxial Hose Side-Mount High-Retractor
           Configuration   ...................  B-8

8-3        Exhibit-6, Twin Hose or Coaxia.l Hose Dispenser-
           Mount, High-Retractor Configuration 	  8-9

B-4        Exhibit-7, Twin Hose Dispenser-Mount, High-
           Retractor Configuration   	  B-10

B-5        Exhibit-8, High Retractor Dispenser-Coaxial
           Configuration for All New and Existing Installations.  B-ll

B-6        Exhibit-9, High-Hang Hose Configuration with
           Retractor for All  New and Existing Installations. . .  B-12
                                  xi i i

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES
                              (concluded)

Figure               Title                                        Page

8-7        Exhibit-10, High-Hang Coaxial Hose Configuration
           with Liquid Removal System for All New and Existing
           Installations	  B-13

B-8        Stage II Underground Pipiny Layouts for Model
           Plant 1	  B-26

B-9        Stage II Underground Piping Layouts for Model
           Plant 2	  B-Z7

B-1U       Stage II Underground Piping Layouts for Model
           Plant 3	B-28

B-ll       Stage II Underground Piping Layouts for Model
           Plant 4	   B-29

B-1E       Stage II Underground Piping Layouts for Model
           Plant 5  ..... 	 ............   B-30

C-l        Stage II Per-Facility Capital Cost	   C-18

C-2        Stage II Per-Facility Annual Cost
           (vs. Number of Nozzles) 	 ........    C-19

C-3        Stage II Per-Facility Capital Cost	    C-2U

C-4        Stage II Per-Facility Annual Cost
           (vs. Throughput)	 .    C-21

1-1        Multiproduct Dispenser	    1-3

K-l        Decision Tree for Tank System Leak Remedies ....    K-6
                                  xiv

-------
                           1.0.  INTRODUCTION

     This draft Regulatory Impact Analysis document is the first volume
of a two-volume set that was prepared by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to fulfill the objectives of Title 3 - Executive Order
12291 (46 FR 13193, February 19, 1981) as they apply to future rule-
making on onboard control technology for controlling vehicle refueling
air emissions.  Volume I describes changes to an environmental and
economic analysis published by EPA in 1984 (I-A-55) and presents the
results of the reanalysis.  Volume II summarizes the results of more
extensive supporting analyses of onboard costs and benefits that were
prepared in the course of developing the onboard rulemaking.l
     On August 8, 1984, EPA published in the Federal Register (49 FR
31706) notice of the availability of an analysis of regulatory strate-
gies being considered for controlling air pollutant emissions from the
gasoline marketing industry.  Public comments were solicited and more
than 180 individual comment letters were received.  This document
describes changes to the EPA 1984 analysis that were made as a result
of these comments.  Agency responses to public comments are provided in
a separate document.2  This Volume I document consists of three chapters
plus appendices.  This chapter introduces the purpose and contents of
Volumes I and II.  Chapter 2 and supporting appendices describe the
changes made to the EPA 1984 analysis.  Chapter 3 contains a summary of
the impacts of these changes on key areas of the analysis.
     Volume II provides a summary of the costs and benefits of the on-
board rulemaking, including socio-economic impacts such as the effects
on sales and employment in affected segments of the economy and impact
on the balance of trade.  Chapters 1» 2, and 3 of the Volume II docu-
ment contain an introduction to and summary of the economic impacts and
air quality benefits, respectively, of the onboard rulemaking.
     All references used in this document are contained in EPA's Gasoline
Marketing Docket (No. A-84-07).  Each document in this docket is assigned
a docket item number.  These same docket item numbers are used as
reference numbers in this document.  The docket is available for public
inspection and coping at EPA's Control Docket Section, West Tower Lobby,
                                  1-1

-------
     Gallery 1,  Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,  S.W.,  Washington,. D.C.  20460

     (phone number 202-382-7549).  A reasonable fee  may be charged  for

     copying.

     REFERENCES  FOR CHAPTER 1

I-A-55.  Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline
         Marketing Industry.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of
         Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
         and Office of Mobile Sources.  EPA-450/3-84-012a (Executive  Summary
         - EPA-450/3-84-012b).  July 1984.  [NTIS #PB 84 231075 and PB 84
         231083, respectively].

    1*.  Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Proposed  Refueling Emission
         Regulations for Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles ~ Volume II - Additional
         Analysis of Onboard Controls.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
         Office  of Air and Radiation, Office  of Mobile Sources.
         EPA-450/3-87-001b.  July 1987.

    2*.  Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline
         Marketing Industry — Response  to Public Comments.  U.S. Environ-
         mental  Protection Agency, Office of  Air and Radiation, Office of
         Air Quality Planning and Standards,  and Office of Mobile Sources.
         EPA-450/3-84-012c.  July 1987.
     *0ocket number not available.  These documents will  be  published  at  the
      same time as this report and will  be assigned docket  numbers  and
      placed in the docket at that time.

-------
                      2.0  CHANGES TO THE ANALYSIS

     Many of the basic assumptions utilized in the EPA 1984 analysis
were modified to respond to public comments and to update the analysis,
These basic assumptions included typical Reid vapor pressure (RVP)
and temperature of gasoline used in calculating emission estimates;
projections of gasoline consumption and service station populations;
and in-use control efficiencies and costs of Stage II and onboard
control systems.  In addition, the elements of the regulatory strate-
gies considered in that analysis were updated to incorporate the
concerns of conimenters.  Significant changes were made to the onboard
control analysis, the consideration of excess evaporative emission
controls and Stage II exemption levels, the identification of example
nonattainment area groupings for evaluating Stage II impacts under
various scenarios, and the projected startup and phase-in schedules
that would apply to the regulatory strategies.
     The purpose of this chapter is to summarize these changes and to
present the results of the new regulatory analysis.  As an aid in
comparing with the analysis published by EPA in July 1984 (I-A-55),
this summary will follow the same general order as used in that docu-
ment.  To obtain a more complete understanding of the methodology used
to calculate the impacts in this report, tne 1984 analysis should be
consulted.
2.r  EMISSION SOURCES AND ESTIMATES
2.1.1  Emission Factor Parameters
     The emission factors used in the July 1984 analysis were based on
emission Vectors and equations from EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (Publication AP-42) (I-A-3).  The emission factors
obtained from that document generally were based on a Reid vapor pres-
sure of 10 psi and a fuel temperature of 60°F.  However, current data
available concerning in-use fuels indicate that the RVP of these fuels
has been increasing with time and is approaching the ASTM recommended
limit (11.5 psi in the summer in Class C areas).  In addition, winter
RVP's exceed 11.5 psi and approach 14 psi in some areas of the country
(I-F-16, -20, -28, -31, -34, -35, -45, -50, -52, -76, -88).  Assuming
that future summer gasolines reached the 11.5 psi value and remained

                                  2-1

-------
constant, and winter gasolines remained constant at their current
levels, the weighted average nationwide RVP would be 12.6 ps.i.  This
value was derived by EPA based upon nationwide data on RVP.  The RVP
was weighted by the county gasoline consumption to obtain a nationwide
average.  This model also generated data on product underground temperature,
dispensed fuel temperature, and the difference between dispensed fuel
temperature and vehicle tank temperature.
     The EPA analysis evaluated not only nationwide regulatory strate-
gies, but also strategies for nonattainment areas.  The Agency analyzed
three nonattainment area strategies; one for 61 areas, one for 27
areas, and one for 11 areas (discussion of the selection of these areas
can be found in Section 2.3.3.4).  Since these nonattainment area
groupings consisted of different county mixes, and EPA had a model  with
RVP and temperature data on a county-by-county basis, different RVP
and temperature data were used for each nonattainment area strategy.
Table H-l indicates the RVP and temperature data corresponding to each
regulatory area.
2.1.2  Basel1ne Emission Factors
     2.1.2.1  Staget.  The RVP and temperature data applied in the
model discussed above were used in the API equations found in AP-42 to
generate new emission factors for tank truck loading at bulk terminals
and bulk plants, and for the filling of service station underground
storage tanks.  The data were also used in the latest API fixed-roof
and floating-roof tank equations (I-A-43, -45) for calculating emissions
from storage tanks at terminals and bulk plants.  Compared to the results
obtained in the 1984 EPA analysis, there was a significant drop in  the
fixed-roof tank breathing loss factor for bulk plants.  This was due
mainly to a change in the API equations that estimate fixed-roof tank
breathing loss emissions.
     The emission factors for underground tank "breathing" and spillage
during vehicle refueling were not changed.  An investigation of the
original  source of the underground tank breathing factor (I-F-118)
indicated that these emissions were really "emptying" losses.  No
information was provided in 'this reference on the RVP of the gasoline
upon which the emptying loss emission factor was based; consequentlys
there were insufficient data to determine the effect that changes in RVP

                                  2-2

-------
            Table 2-1.  RVP AND TEMPERATURE DATA ASSOCIATED
                   WITH EACH REGULATORY AREA EXAMINED
Fuel Temperature, °Fa
Regulatory
Area
Dispensed
RVPa Fuel
Underground
Tank
Aboveground
ATb Tank0
Nationwide
12.6
68.9
60
4.4
66
Nonattainrnentd
- 61 areas6
- 27 areas
- 11 areas

12.6
12.9
12.6

68.9
65.4
66.0

60
59.4
63.1

4.4
5.3
5.1

66
66
66
aWeighted annual average.
     is the difference between the dispensed fuel  temperature and the vehicle
 tank temperature.

cAssumed constant for all  areas because data were not available on area-
 specific aboveground tank temperatures.  The temperature used (66°F) is the
 same as that used in the July 1984 analysis.

^Nonattainment area selections are discussed in Section 2.3.3.

6Since 61 areas is a large number of nonattainment areas and they are located
 in most areas of the country a values are assumed to be equal to nationwide
 values.
                                  2-3

-------
would have on the emission estimate.  The vehicle refueling spillage
factor was not changed because spillage emissions are considered to
result from the total evaporation of spilled gasoline.  Changing the
RVP did not significantly change the density of the liquid gasoline;
therefore, the spillage emission factor was unchanged.
     2.1.2.2  Vehicle Refueling.  The vehicle refueling emission factor
was generated by using the RVP and temperature information from the EPA
model discussed earlier and an empirical equation generated by EPA.
The empirical formula, based upon additional vehicle refueling tests
conducted by EPA (I-A-69), is as follows:
     ER  = 264.2 [(-5.909) - U.0949 (AT) + 0.0884 (TD) + 0.485 (RVP)]
where:                                          '        '      •
     ER  3 Refueling emissions, mg/liter
     AT  = Difference between temperature of fuel in vehicle tank and
           temperature of dispensed fuel, °F
     TO  = Temperature of dispensed fuel, °F
     RVP = Reid vapor pressure, psia

     Table E-2 contains a summary of the emission factors used in the
1984 EPA analysis and the corresponding revised emission factors used
1n the new analysis.  Since different RVP and temperature data apply to
each regulatory area examined, different emission factors were derived
for each area grouping.
     Use of the revised emission factors resulted in changes throughout
the new analysis.  Baseline emissions and emission reductions attributed
to the regulatory strategies increased with the increased emission
factors.  Costs for many of the strategies decreased because increased
emission factors resulted in higher recovery credits.  Both decreased
costs and increased emission reductions'work toward lowering the cost
effectiveness values for the control scenarios (dollars per megagram of
emissions reduced).  Increased emission factors also resulted in higher
estimated rates of cancer incidence and increased lifetime risks due to
high exposure associated with gasoline marketing operations (except for
                                  2-4

-------
            Table 2-2.   SUMMARY OF  EMISSION FACTORS  USED IN THE
                         GASOLINE MARKETING ANALYSIS
Emission Factors



Source
BULK TEKMINALS
o Truck Loading
- Splash Fill (rag/liter)
- Submerged Fill (mg/liter)
- Controlled Loading
o NSPS (mg/l1ter)
o SIP (mg/liter)
o 90% (mg/liter)
- Truck Leakage
o 10% (rag/liter)
o 30* (mg/liter)
o Storage Tanks
- Fixed Roof
o Breathing (Mg/yr/tank)
o working {Mg/yr/tank)
- Floating Hoof (Internal)
o Rim Seal Loss (Mg/yr/tank)
o Fitting Loss (Mg/yr/tank)
o Deck Seam Loss (Mg/yr/tank)
o Working Loss (Hg/yr)
- Floating Roof (External)
o Primary Seal (Mg/yr/tank)
o Secondary Seal (Mg/yr/tank }
o Working Loss (Ng/yr)
BULK PLANTS
o Truck Loading
- Splash Fill (rag/liter)
- Submerged Fill (mg/liter)
- Balance Service
- Controlled Loading
(Balance Service)
- Truck Leakage
o 10% (mg/Hter)
o 30% (mg/liter)


July 1984
Analysis3


1,440
600

36
80
96.

96
288


8.8
34.2

0.49
1.39
0.55
7.33 x

9.63
3.22
4.61 x


1,440
600
960
96


96
288
New
Nationwide,
61 MAC
Areas


1,936
801

35
80
133.5

133.5
400.5


12.7
46.3

0.74
1.60
0.84
10-8 gd f

14.57
4.87
lo-s qd f


1,936
801
1,335
133.5


133.5
400.5
Analysis'3

27 NAC
Areas


1,912
791 .

35
80
131.9

131.9
395.6


13.3
47.7

0.78
1.68
0.88
f

15.29
5.11
f


1,970
815
1,359
135.9


135.9
407.7


11 NAC
Areas


1,936
801

35
80
133.5

133.5
400.5


12.9
46.9

0.75
1.63
0.85
f

14.86
4.96
f


1,936
301
1,335
133.5


133.5
400.5
Footnotes are shown on next page.
                                     2-5

-------
           Table  2-2.   SUMMARY  OF EMISSION FACTORS  USED  IN THE
                          GASOLINE MARKETING ANALYSIS
                                    (concluded)
Emission Factors
New Analysis'*


Source
BULK PLANTS (concluded)
o Storage Tanks
- Uncontrolled
o Breathing (mg/Hter)
o Filling (mg/Hter)
o Emptying (mg/Hter)
- Controlled
o Breathing (mg/Hter)
o Filling (rag/liter)
o Emptying (mg/Hter}
SERVICE STATIONS
o Underground Tanks
- Submerged Fill (ma/Hter)
- Splash Fill (mg/Hter)
- Emptying Loss (mg/Hter)
- Breathing Loss (mg/Hter)
- Controlled Fill (mg/Hter)
- Other Controlled Fill
o Florida (mg/Hter)
o Texas (mg/Hter)
o Louisiana (mg/Hter)
o New Hexlco (mg/liter)
o Automobile Refueling
- Displacement (mg/Hter)
- Spillage (mg/liter)
- Controlled Displacement
o 9756 efficient (mg/Hter)
o 93S efficient (mg/liter)
o m% efficient (mg/Hter)
o 62S efficient (mg/liter)
EXCESS EVAPORATIVE
o Light duty vehicles (gm/mile)
o Light duty trucks6 (pi/mile)
o Heavy duty gasoline vehicles8
(gs/tn1le)

July 1984
Analysis3



600
1,150
460

600
57.5
46


880
1,380
60
60
40

80
144
144
138

1,080
84

32
76
151
410

0
. 0
0

Nationwide,
61 NAC
Areas



228
1,174
469

228
59
47


1,075
1,691
120
0
49

80
144
144
138

1,552
84

47
109
217
590

0.175
0.255
0.418


27 NAC
Areas



235
1,194
478

235
60
48


1,084
1,705
120
U
49

80
144
144
138

1,4«6
84

4b
104
208
565

0.175
0.255
0.418


11 ft

IAC
Areas



22B
1,174
469

228
59
47


1,133
. 1,782
1.20
U
52

80
144
144
138

1,467
84

44
103
208
bb7
































0,175
0.
.0.

255
418

aEm1ss1on factors used in July 1984 analysis,
'"Hew emission factors for each selected regulatory area based on RVP and temperatures
 found 1n Table 3-1,
CNA « Nonattalnment.
dQ « Throughput in barrels per year.
eMeighted average.
f - Unchanged from July 1984 Analysis.
                                        2-6

-------
self-service and occupational  exposures, which are based on monitoring
data), and increased incidence reductions associated with the regulatory
strategies.  Again, increased  risk reductions and decreased costs both
lead to a reduction in the other measure of cost effectiveness (dollars
per cancer incidence avoided)  evaluated for the regulatory strategies.
     2.1.2.3  Excess Evaporative.  Emission factors were also derived
to estimate emissions from existing vehicle carbon canisters installed
to control evaporative emissions.  Studies have shown that these canisters
are undersized relative to the increased volatility of commercially available
gasoline, resulting in evaporative emissions in excess of the applicable
standards (I-B-24).  The EPA estimated the amount of evaporative emissions
currently being lost from existing canisters that was controllable by
either enlarging the existing  canister or reducing RVP.  These "control-
lable" excess evaporative emissions are reflected in the emission
factors in Table 2-2.  Other evaporative emissions, such as those from
hose leaks and other leaks, are not included in the "controllable"
excess evaporative emission factors.
2.2  CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND EFFECTIVENESS
     The only changes to the control technology being evaluated in the
new analysis concern the onboard technology.  The rigid nozzle fillneck
seal assumed in the July 1984  analysis was replaced by the "J-tube"
liquid seal system, as discussed in Section 2.2.1.  This new system
concept resulted in a higher in-use efficiency being attributed to
the onboard system (93 percent instead of 92 percent), as discussed in
Section 2.2.2 and Appendix A.
     No changes were considered in the Stage II control technology
evaluated.  The in-use efficiency attributed to minimal enforcement was
increased from 56 percent to 62 percent.  Again, see Section 2.2.2 and
Appendix A for further discussion of in-use efficiencies.
2.2.1  Onboard Control Technology
     There are differences between the onboard technology being evalu-
ated in the new analysis and the technology evaluated in the July 1984
analysis.  In the July 1984 analysis, the onboard control technology
included a rigid nozzle/filIneck seal that would seal around the nozzle
spout, preventing the vapors from escaping at the nozzle/filIneck inter-
face and ensuring that the vapors were routed to the onboard carbon
canister (see Figure 2-1).  In the new analysis, the rigid fillneck

                                  2-7

-------
 TRAP DOOR
                          SEAL
SPOUT
                         GUIDE

              LEAD NOZZLE RESTRICTOR
GASOLINE
 NOZZLE
                   Rigid  Nozzle/Fin neck Seal
                                 CES IKIED
                                SLOW LEAK
          VEHICLE FUEL TANK
                      J-Tube Liquid  Seal
                                                To Carbon Canister
      Figure  2-1.  Onboard Fill neck Seal Mechanisms

-------
seal is replaced by a "J-tube" fillpipe arrangement that creates a
liquid seal in the fillneck during vehicle refueling.  This liquid seal
accomplishes the same objective as the rigid fillneck seal; however,
the liquid seal is not subject to fuel switching-motivated tampering
(removal of the unleaded gasoline restricter does not affect the
efficiency of the liquid seal system).  Since fuel switching-motivated
tampering has no effect on the vapor sealing system, the J-tube yields
a higher in-use control efficiency than does the rigid seal.
2.2.2  In-Use Efficiencies
     In the July 1984 analysis, data on malfunctions, defects, and
tampering were used to adjust the theoretical efficiency to obtain an
estimate of the actual in-use efficiency.  For the new analysis, addi-
tional information from new studies was obtained to allow the revision
of some of the in-use efficiencies.  Appendix A discusses the in-use
efficiency methodologies in greater detail.
     2,2.2.1  Onboard.  For the onboard control system, the in-use
efficiency for refueling emissions applied in the July 1984 document
was 92 percent (theoretical efficiency = 98 percent).  This in-use
efficiency was based upon the latest canister and fillneck tampering
rates available at the time the analysis was published.  Since that
time, new canister tampering data have been obtained (I-A-40).  In
addition, the technology being evaluated for onboard was modified,
eliminating the rigid fillneck seal and replacing it with a liquid seal
(U-tube).  This change in design eliminated the impacts of fillneck
tampering; therefore, the new in-use efficiency was .based upon canister
tampering only (which is much smaller than fillneck tampering).  The
new analysis assumes that non-tampered onboard systems wauld operate
at theoretical efficiency (97 percent), and tampered systems would
operate at 0 percent efficiency.  Using the various tampering rates by
vehicle class, the annualized in-use efficiency of onboard for refueling
emissions was calculated as 93 percent of displacement losses during
refueling operations.
     2.2.2.2  Stage II.  For Stage II control systems, a survey of all
Stage II gasoline service station facilities was conducted in Washington,
D.C., during the summer of 1984 (I-A-61).  The survey was important
because Washington, D.C. was the only place outside California that

                                  2-9

-------
required Stage II.  The history of enforcement indicated that California
has an active, aggressive enforcement program and would represent the
upper end of the Stage II efficiency range.  Washington, D.C.,, at the
time of the survey, did not have an active enforcement program and the
experience there was considered representative of the lower end of the
efficiency range.  Since that time, the City has begun to implement
a more vigorous Stage II enforcement and maintenance program.
     In the Washington, D.C. survey, information was gathered on the
frequency of such defects as torn or missing nozzle boots and faceplates,
torn or missing vapor hoses, missing high-hang hose retractors, improper
hose drainage, and nozzle operation problems.  In addition, data were
gathered on the number of nozzles where no vapor recovery equipment was
installed.  Non-installation was divided into two categories:  (1) those
stations that installed no vapor recovery equipment, and (2) those
stations that had installed Stage II on a majority of the pumps but
had one or.more nozzles without vapor recovery installed.  (See Appendix
A for more details.)  Approximately 4 percent of the stations did not
install any vapor recovery equipment, based on the latest inspection
report.  For those stations that had installed Stage II, approximately
10 percent of the nozzles still had no vapor recovery.
     These data were used to re-evaluate the Stage II in-use effi-
ciency applicable to this area.  In the 1984 EPA analysis, an overall
1n-use efficiency of 56 percent was calculated for minimal enforcement,
based on the inspection data available at that time.  The new analysis
incorporates the_Jatest inspection data, and an in-use efficiency of
62 percent for the minimal enforcement level was calculated.
     The upper end of the Stage II efficiency range was based on
Stage II systems in California.  Insufficient data were available to
justify an adjustment of the upper in-use value used in the 1984 EPA
analysis; therefore, the upper end of the Stage II in-use efficiency
range remained at 86 percent.
     2.2.2.3  Excess Evaporative.  Excess evaporative emissions consist
of gasoline vapor currently being lost from under-sized evaporative
carbon canisters on automobiles.  The emission factors discussed in
Section 2.1.2 represent the portion of these excess evaporative emissions
that are "controllable" (i.e., do not include emissions from leaks but

                                  2-10

-------
only those emissions that are lost due to vnsufficient carbon capacity).
These "controllable" emissions can be eliminated primarily by increasing
the size of the carbon canister.  Therefore, the control efficiency
assumed in the new analysis for the controllable excess evaporative
emissions is 100 percent.
2.3  MODEL PLANTS AND REGULATORY STRATEGIES
     The purpose of this section is to describe the changes made to
the model plants and regulatory strategies used in the July 1984
analysis.  One change in the new analysis that affects all regulatory
strategies was a shift in the base year from 1982 to 1984.  This shift
was made to bring the analysis more up-to-date and to reflect the
latest information on service station population and gasoline consump-
tion.
2.3.1  Model Plants                                       •
     No changes were made to the model plants that represent the bulk
terminal, storage tank, and bulk plant industry sectors.  In addition,
no changes were made in the assumptions concerning the number of these
types of facilities that would require controls under the regulatory
strategies.
     For service stations, more details concerning the physical  layout
of the model plants were added to the analysis.  These details were
required to allow a more.accurate cost assessment of aboveground and
underground Stage II equipment.  (Appendix B discusses the physical
layout of each service station model  plant.)  In addition, several
commenters felt that the Model Plant 1 throughput (5,000 gallons/month)
was too high to represent the private sector, which forms the majority
of the facilities in Model Plant 1 (approximately 80 percent), and that
2,OUO gallons/month would be more representative.  The EPA reanalyzed
the existing data and agreed that 2,000 gallons/month would better
represent the throughput at a private facility, but would be too small,
given the installed equipment (2 nozzles), for a public facility.
Therefore, in the new analysis, Model Plant 1 was divided into a private
facility (2,000 gallons/month) and a public facility (6,000 gallons/
month).  Both are considered Model Plant 1's because both facility
types have similar physical equipment and layout.
                                  2-11

-------
     The size distribution of the remainder of the service station model
plants remained the same as in the July 1984 analysis.  However, the
parameters defining the model plants were expanded somewhat to accommo-
date the evolving trends in gasoline dispensing hardware.  The Agency
has concluded that a significant portion of existing and new service
stations installing Stage II would be using multiproduct dispensers
(i.e., equipment where each grade of gasoline is available separately
on two sides of the dispenser).  Therefore, in addition to the base
case where single product dispensers were assumed, an additional con-
figuration of two-product, 4-nozzle multiproduct dispensers has been
added to the analysis.  Table 2-3 indicates the number of nozzles
assumed for both single and multiproduct dispenser cases.  The consid-
eration of additional Stage II hardware scenarios is fully discussed in
Appendix I, and system costs are estimated in Appendix B.
     Several commenters questioned'the number of facilities assumed in
the July 1984 analysis (210,900 public stations, 210,300 private
stations for the 1982 base year).  The EPA reviewed available data and
revised the public station total to 190,UOO to reflect the latest
estimate for the new 1984 base year (I-F-124).  No data were available
to adjust the private facilities total to reflect 1984, so this value
remained at 210,3UO.
     In addition to changing the number of service stations to reflect
the new base year, the new analysis also projects the number of stations
in each year out to the year 202U.  The following section and Appendix U
discuss the projection methodology used in the analysis.
2.3.2  Gasoline, Facility, and Vehicle Projections
     2.3.2.1  tiasol 1 lie Projections.  In the July 1984 analysis, the
gasoline consumption was projected from the present to the year 2000
using a graphical approach based on data available from EPA studies
used in the 1982 gasoline lead phasedown program (47 FR 49329).  The
consumption was assumed to remain constant from the year 2000 to the
year 2020 because of the lack of available data and because of the
uncertainty of projecting gasoline consumption far into the future.  In
the new analysis, the gasoline consumption projections were based on
EPA's MOBILES Fuel Consumption Model  (I-A-99, I-B-37).  This motlel uses
inputs consistent with the widely accepted MOBILES Emission factor

                                  2-12

-------
         Table 2-3.   ESTIMATED 1984 SERVICE STATION SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Model Plant
No.
Average Throughput 103 l/no

Number of
Nozzles
(10* gal /mo)
Single, dispensers
Multldlspensers
la
7
<2
2
4
Ib
.6 23
) (6)
2
4
2
76
(20)
3
4
3
132
(35)
6
8
4
246
(65)
9
12
5
700
(185)
15
20
Totals
w>



"Public" Service Stations
- Independents
- Nonlndependents -
- Total
- Percent


-
—
8,900
40,500
49,400
26
17,700
39,300
57.000
30
22,500
27,900
50,400
26.5
10,400
16.200
26,600
14
2,600
4,000
6,600
3.5


190,000
100.0
"Private" Service Stations
Population 189,
Percent

200
90
-
"
8.600
4.1
7,400
3.5
4,200
2.0
800
0.5
210,300
100.0
Total Facilities
Population 189,
Percent

200
47
49,400
12
65.600
16
57,800
14
30,800
8
7,400
2
400,200
100.0
Throughput
  (X of total consumption)       5.1    4.0    17.8       27.4       27.1         18.5       100.0

-------
Model, such as projections for vehicle fleet registrations, fleet fuel
economy, vehicle miles traveled, fleet diesel penetration rates, and
vehicle fuel switching and tampering rates for both on- and off-
highway light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty
trucks.  Table 2-4 illustrates the differences in the projected gasoline
consumption figures used in the July 1984 analysis and the new analysis.
Due to uncertainties associated with projecting several variables
(e.g., miles per gallon) beyond the year 2UUO, these variables were
held constant after that year.  Thus, gasoline consumption is still
projected to remain constant after the year 2000.
     A revised gasoline consumption projection affects all portions of
the gasoline marketing analysis because most of the cost, emission
reduction, and incidence reduction projections are based directly or
indirectly on the gasoline consumption projections.
     2.3.2.2  Service Station Projections.  In the July 1984 analysis,
the service station population was held constant at the 1982 base year
level because it was felt there were insufficient data available to
prepare reasonable projections.  Several commenters remarked that the
number of service stations has decreased since 1982, and is expected to
continue to decrease.  In the reanalysis, a model was developed that
would change the base year number of facilities with time to reflect
changes in gasoline consumption and to reflect industry trends.  This
model was patterned after a procedure prepared by Sierra Research
Corporation for the Ford Motor Company (I-F-100, I-H-114).
     The facility projections used in the EPA model apply only to public
service stations.  The number of private stations (private company fleet
operations, police, government, etc.) was considered to stay constant
with time, since the market pressures associated with decreasing con-
sumption and shifts to more efficient stations are not likely to apply
to private facilities.  In the model, however, the throughput projection
for private facilities was decreased in proportion to the decrease in
total gasoline consumption to reflect the impact of decreased overall
consumption caused by increased fuel economy.
     The total number of public stations was adjusted to reflect a new
base year of 1984 rather than 1982.  The number of public stations was
then projected with time to reflect the decrease in consumption and the

                                  2-14

-------
        Yable 2-4.  COMPARISON OF TUTAL GASOLINE
                CONSUMPTION PROJECTIONS
              Total  Gasoline Consumption, 10^ gal/yra

  Year        July 1984 Analysis      New Analysis
1984
198S
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2QUO-2020
92.3
89.2
86.1
83.8
81.5
79.2
77.7
76
75
74
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
92
90
88.5
87
85.5
84.5
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
76
75
75
aTotal  consumption including agricultural  usage.
 Agricultural  usage varies from year to year but
 averages about 1 percent of the total.
                          2-15

-------
Industry trend toward larger stations.  The total number of stations
was decreased in proportion to the decrease in gasoline consumption
(based on the gasoline consumption projections discussed in the
previous section).   In addition, the model took into account a shift to
more efficient facilities by the closing of some existing smaller
public stations and the opening of new larger facilities.  The model
tracks, for each year, the total number of stations, the number of
stations in each model plant size, and the type of station (public,
private, independent, nonindependent).  Appendix U discusses the
methodology used for this model in greater detail.
     Table 2-5 presents the results of the service station projection
model.  Shown are the total number of service stations in each year,
the total number of public stations in each year, and the number of
public stations for each year for each model plant size.  As a check,
the model compares the total consumption in each year (from the fuel
consumption model) with the consumption obtained by multiplying the
number of facilities in each model plant size by their respective model
plant throughputs.  In no case did the yearly consumptions differ by
more than 3 percent.
     The use of the facility projections model affected the service
station costing because:  (1) the number of facilities changed with
time, (2) the closing of small facilities and opening of large facili-
ties changed the facility size distribution with time (this also
affected the evaluation of exempting certain size stations), and
(3) the tracking of each type of facility in each year allowed for the
inclusion of a cost differential between new and existing facilities.
2.3,3  Regulatory Strategies
     Most of the regulatory strategies evaluated in the July 1984
analysis v/ere retained in the new analysis.  Several regulatory strategies
that were considered in combination:with Stage I nationwide controls
were not included in the new analysis (Stage I plus Stage II natidnwides
Stage I plus onboard, Stage II in nonattainment areas plus Stage I plus
onboard, Stage I plus Stage II plus onboard - nationwide).  These were
dropped to simplify the analysis and because the Stage I - nationwide
alternative, still carried in the analysis, can be directly added to
most of the strategies to determine the impacts of combining this alter-
native with other strategies..

                                  2-16

-------
Table 2-b.
RESOLTS OF SERVICE STATION FACILITY
PROJECTION MODEL
Number of Facilities
Total of Total of All
All Public
Year Facilities3 Facilities . MPlb
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
199U
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000-20
aEstimate
estimates
refueling
400,250
395,489
391,129
387, 2U6
383,723
38U,699
377,998
375,319
372,622
369,931
367,335
364,647
362,362
360,529
359,028
357,821
356,938
190,000
185,239
180,879
176,956
173,473
170,449
167,748
165,069
162,372
159,681
157,085
154,397
152,112
150,279
148,778
147,571
146,688
49,400
47,888
46,502
45,256
44,150
43,189
42,332
41,481
40,624
39,769
38,944
38,090
37,365
36,782
36,305
35,922
35,641
includes all public and private gasol
of new facilities. Does not include
agricultural-related equipment.
bMPl = Model Plant 1.


Model plants described 1

2-17
Public Faci
MP2
57,000
55,581
54,282
53,113
52,075
51,174
50,370
49,571
48,768
47,966
47,192
46,391
45,711
45,165
44,717
44,357
44,095
lities by Model Plant
MP3
50,350
48,996
47,754
46,638
45,646
44,786
44,017
43,255
42,487
41,721
40,982
40,218
39,567
39,045
38,619
38,275
38,024
ine dispensing faciliti
farms and other small
n Table 2-3

*

MP4
26 ,600
26,207
25,849
25,526
25,239
24,990
24,767
24,546
24,324
24,102
23,889
23,667
23,478
23,328
23,204
23,104
23,031
es, includi
operations


MP5
6,650
6,567
6,492
6,423
6,363
6,310
6,262
6,216
6,169
6,123
6,078
6,031
5,991
5,959
5,933
5,913
5,897
ng
for



-------
     Several new regulatory strategies were added to the analysis.
These strategies centered around the evaluation of excess evaporative
emission controls (discussed later in this section).  New strategies
added to the analysis include:  control of excess evaporative emissions
(evap controls) by using enlarged carbon canisters, evaluation of the
combination of evap controls with Stage II nationwide and Stage II in
nonattainment areas, evaluation of onboard controls incorporating the
benefits associated with evap controls, and the evaluation of Stage II
controls in nonattainment areas plus onboard with evap controls,
     The specific areas evaluated as nonattainment areas in the new
analysis have also changed.  These are discussed later in this section
and are presented in Appendix Q.
     2.3.3.1  Strategy Implementation.  Due to the time required to
analyze the regulatory alternatives and to fully respond to public
comments, the dates on which the strategies were presumed to take
effect had to be revised.  In the July 1984 analysis, it was assumed
that Stage II installations under nonattainment area regulatory programs
would begin in 1986, Stage II installations under nationwide regulatory
programs would begin in 1987, and onboard installations would begin
with the 1988 model year.
     Under the new analysis, the same assumptions were used in deter-
mining the time necessary to implement the regulatory strategies.  The
July 1984 analysis assumed a regulatory decision in late 1984, whereas
the new analysis assumes a decision in early 1987.  Therefore, the
dates associated with the beginning of equipment installation for the
regulatory strategies in the new analysis were assumed as 1990 for
nationwide Stage II strategies (which includes time to prepare required
support documents and Federal regulations) and the 1990 model year
(considered January 199U to simplify the analysis) for onboard and
excess evaporative strategies (which includes time to promulgate stan-
dards and allows 2 model years to get the system into production after
the standard's promulgation).  The onboard and excess evaporative
emission strategies assume that the onboard controls would be installed
on new vehicles and would phase in as the vehicle fleet turns over.
Figure 2-2 illustrates the time units for the respective start dates
a/id equipment phase-ins.

                                  2-18

-------
STAGE I OR II
NATIONWIDE
NESHAP
.1
i— »
vo
ONBOARD
TITLE 2
PROMULGATION
PROPOSAL OF REGULATION:
NAPCTAC OF f BEGIN
MEETING ~\ REGULATION / INSTALLATION
I 1 ^7 |K7 V I I
1 1 1 1-1 1
PROMULGATION FIRST
OF MODEL
REGULATION YEAR
i ^7 i | ^7 i i i
III 1 1 1
1 1 II 1 1
1 1 1 III
JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
INSTALLATION
COMPLETE
(STATUTORY
PHASE- IN)
v
1 1
II 1
50 PERCENT
OF CONSUMPTION
CONTROLLED
BY ONBOARD
1 iW 1
1
1
1
JAN
1993
1 1
I I
1 1
JAN JAN
1994 1995
INSTALLATION
COMPLETE
(API PHASE-IN)
1 V 1
1 II
66 PERCENT
OF CONSUMPTION
CONTROLLED
BY ONBOARD
1 V 1
1 K 1
1 1 1
II 1
JAN JAN JAN
1996 1997 1998

*-


Figure 2-2.  Comparison  of  Implementation  Schedules For
                  Nationwide  Strategies

-------
     The phase-in schedule that EPA assumed for the nationwide  Stage II
strategies generated many public comments.  Several commenters  felt
that the 3-year statutory phase-in used in the 1984 analysis was  too
optimistic considering the many installations required and the  limited
number of qualified .installation contractors.  To respond to industry's
concerns, EPA has included an evaluation of a longer phase-in period in
the analysis.  This longer phase-in (called the API Phase-In) includes
a 3-year phase-in for non-independents and a 7-year phase-in for
independents.
     The assumptions concerning the start dates and the schedule  to
complete equipment installation for nonattainment area strategies were
also re-evaluated in the new analysis.  Since there is some uncertainty
concerning how long it would take to implement a Stage II regulation
and to complete the necessary equipment installation, three phase-in
scenarios (low, moderate, and high-difficulty) were examined to assess
the likely impacts.  Figure 2-3 illustrates these three implementation
scenarios.  The low-difficulty scenario maintains the 3-year equip-
ment phase-in used in the 1984 analysis.  The moderate-difficulty
scenario assumes the same Federal Register announcement date, but pro-
jects a 6-month longer implementation period than the low-difficulty
scenario, as well as a 3 1/2-year equipment phase-in.  Finally, the
high-difficulty scenario assumes a start date 1 year later than the
moderate-difficulty scenario and projects a 5 1/2-year equipment  phase-
in.
     For Stage II strategies combined with onboard, the 1984 analysis
assumed that Stage II equipment would not be replaced after completion
of one useful equipment life for balance and hybrid systems (15 years)
and two useful equipment lives for vacuum assist systems (16 years).
The new analysis differentiates between the useful  life of aboveground
equipment (assumed to have an 8-year life) and the underground  piping
(assumed to be of fiberglass and have a 3b-year life).  When evaluating
Stage II strategies combined with onboard, the new analysis assumes
                                  2-20

-------
                LOU
i
ro
        S
        §
        £   MODERATE
o
I
U
        u,
        *~l
        o
               HIGH
                              FINAL STATE

                              REGULATIONS:
REQUIREMENT KSIH EQUIMtiNT

ANHOUNCEB IIBTAlunu, ! *"f™? INSTALLATION
INFR / *« COMPLETE £(mET£
57 I 57 I 57 I I 57 I i i i i I ._. i I ^l
i I
FINAL STATE
REQUIREMENT REGULATIONS;
ANNOUNCED BEGIN
IN FR INSTALLATION
57 I f
1 I
FID
1 1

EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
SOI COMPLETE
I 57 i
1 1
U. STATE
REQUIREMENT ' REGULATIONS:
ANNOUNCED BEGIN
IN FR INSTALLATION
57 1 , J,™ ! 5f 1
1 1 1 I

j~PROMULSATION |
| OF ONBOARD 1
1 REGULATION '
1 	 — _-. -J

•
I 	 1
| FIRST 1
'MODEL j
/ i ¥£AR i
/ ||
1 i 1 I
I 1 1 1
i II

EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
COMPLETE
i 57 I I
1 1 1

EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
SOS COMPLETE
1 57 I I
1 I 1
1 SO PERCENT
| OF CONSUMPTION
| CONTROLLED
1 WITH ONBOARD
| 	 __ 	 I
v
1X—
1 1 J
1 1 1 I




1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1

EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
COMPLETE
| 57 ' i i i
1 H




• I





i ^i
till I "1
|~ ONBOARD EQUALS
| STAGE II ANNUAL
| ENFORCEMENT - LOU DIFF. .
j EMISSION REDUCTION
! IH JAN 1999
7
i i i I
^y
\ ^i
1 1 • 1 1 1 1 II 1 "•»
                   JAN
                           JAN
                           1988
                          JAN
                          1989
JAN
1990
• JAN
 1991
JAN
1992
JAN
1993
JAN
1994
JAN
199S
JAN
19S6
JAN
1997
JAN
1998
JAN
1999
JAN
2000
JAN
2001
                                Figure 2-3.   Comparison of  Implementation Schedules  for Stage II
                                           in Nonattainment Areas  and  Onboard  Nationwide

-------
that the aboveground "equipment 1s not replaced after one 8-year lifetime.
After the 8-year period, onboard controls would be close to 70 percent
implemented and it would be difficult to require the expenses associated
with another 8 years of Stage II equipment and enforcement, since
Stage II would control only a small portion of the vehicle refueling
events.
     These Stage II and onboard analyses were performed in early 1987 and,
although as time goes on the start dates for these strategies may
change, a general shift in the start of nationwide Stage II and onboard
strategies will not significantly change the relative impacts of
the strategies.
     2.3.3.2  Onboard Coverage.  The onboard regulatory strategy in the
new analysis no longer assumes onboard controls on all  light-duty
vehicles in all 60 states.  The new onboard strategy would require
onboard for vehicles in all States except California, since much of the
automobile refueling in California is already controlled by existing
Stage II systems (approximately 90 percent of the California consumption
and 9.5 percent of the nationwide- consumption).  Also, the Clean Air
Act allows a State, such as California, to request a waiver from controls.
This analysis assumes that the State of California would request (and
be granted) a waiver from onboard controls, and would extend Stage II
controls statewide.  It is considered feasible to differentiate between
vehicles destined for California and vehicles destined for the remainder of
the country, since a distinction is already made for vehicles currently
manufactured for sale in California due to stricter vehicle emission
standards.  Further, it is assumed that, in California, Stage II
controls, incorporating size cutoffs consistent with those considered
under other Stage II strategies (10/50 exemptions) and the present
enforcement strategy resulting in a control efficiency of 86 percent,
would be extended to all areas currently not controlled.  Extending
Stage II controls in California augments the existing State commitment to
Stage II and would provide for emission and risk reduction similar to
the onboard system.  This new strategy is referred to as "Nationwide"
or "49-State" onboard controls throughout this analysis.  A discussion
of the sensitivity of the analysis to the selection of 49-State or 50-
State coverage is contained in Section 3.6 of Chapter 3.

                                  2-22

-------
     The new onboard strategy also extends control coverage to several
heavy-duty vehicle classes that were not included in the previous
analysis, since it is now considered feasible to control such vehicles.
Therefore, the new onboard strategy includes the cost, emission, and
risk impacts associated with controlling most heavy-duty and all light-
duty vehicles.
     2.3.3.3  Excess Evaporative Controls.  Several cbmmenters felt
that the reduction of excess evaporative emissions (excess evap) should
be analyzed separately from the analysis of refueling emission control
strategies.  As a result of these comments, the Agency has developed a
new control strategy that considers the reduction in excess evap primarily
by enlarging the existing carbon canister presently used on vehicles to
control evaporative emissions.  This established a baseline against
which the refueling options (Stage II and onboard) were analyzed,
allowing a comparison of the control strategies in terms of refueling
only.  This new control strategy was considered not only separately,
but also in combination with both nationwide and nonattainment area
Stage II strategies.  Since the new onboard control strategy controls
both refueling and excess evaporative vapors, the Stage II and onboard
strategies can therefore be evaluated on an equal basis.
     The regulatory strategies were also evaluated as an increment to
an existing excess evap control program.  The results of this evalua-
tion are presented in Section 3.3 of Chapter 3.
     The excess evap control strategy, similar to the new onboard
strategy, would require excess evaporative controls (enlargement of the
existing carbon canister) on vehicles sold in 49 States.  Again,
California would be excluded from this strategy.  California currently
has implemented fuel volatility controls during the ozone season (Reid
vapor pressure limited to 9.0 psi) that effectively reduce excess
evaporative emissions.
     2.3.3,4  Nonattainment Area Sroupings.  Various ozone nonattainment
area groupings were evaluated to analyze both the impacts in areas
where controls might be necessary and the effects of attributing various
benefit levels to the control of emissions.  In the July 1984 analysis,
two nonattainment area groupings were evaluated for the impacts of
Stage II controls.  These were the all-nonattainment area grouping

                                  2-23

-------
(designated "NA"), and certain nonattainment areas that had included a
reference to Stage II in their SIP as an additional means of achieving
necessary reductions in VUC emissions to provide for ozone attainment by
1987 (designated "NA*").
     Under the new analysis, seven different nonattainment area groupings
were evaluated.  The first grouping consisted of 11 metropolitan areas
with high ozone design levels and VOC shortfalls.  The second grouping
consisted of 27 areas in 21 States that were likely to continue to be
nonattainment in 1987 and currently do not require Stage II.  The third,
grouping consisted of all areas designated as nonattainment'plus all
urban areas with a design value greater than 0.10 ppm.  (The "design
value" is the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentration
recorded during a 3-year period.)  The fourth grouping consisted of all
the designated urban and rural nonattainment areas.  The fifth grouping
consisted of only urban designated nonattainment areas and those rural
areas considered to create their own ozone from sources within the area
(self-generating areas).  The sixth grouping consisted of 61 non-
California areas that recorded design values greater than the ambient
ozone standard (0.12 ppm) in 1982-1984.
     Table 2-6 presents a summary of the characteristics of the various
nonattainment area groupings.  Appendix S contains nonattainment area
data for each grouping, as indicated by an "x" in the Nonattainment Area
Groups columns.  Also included in Appendix G are county designations,
population ranges, 1982 populations, and the 1982 gasoline throughputs
assumed in the new analysis.
     2.3.3.5  Stage'II Exemption Levels.  To respond to concerns expressed
by several commenters regarding the exemption levels evaluated in the
July 1984 document (<10,000 gallons/month for nonindependents, <5U,QOO
gallons/month for independents), the new analysis considered two addi-
tional  exemption levels (<10,000 gallons/month for all stations, and
<2,000 gallons/month for all stations).  Tables 2-7 and 2-8 present the
results of this evaluation for the Stage II nationwide strategy, both
for the 33-year analysis and in the year 2010.  These tables show that
exemption levels play an important role in the amount of emissions reduced,
total  costs, and cost effectiveness estimates.  As expected, the lower
                                  2-24

-------
             Table 2-6.  SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF NONATTAINMENT AREA
                            GROUPINGS FOR THE NEW ANALYSIS
    Nonattainment
   Area Groupings
(excluding California)
 Throughput   Population   % of U.S.   % of U.S.  Number of
(li)6 gal/yr)   (millions)  Throughput  Population   Counties
11 areas assumed to be
nonattainment in 1987
27 areas assumed to be
nonattainment in 1987
Al 1 areas designated as
15

24

58
43

64

140
15%

23%

56%
19%

28%

63%
59

109

427
  nonattainment plus all
  urban areas with a
  design value >0.10

All designated nonattain-        52
  ment areas (urban and
  rural)

All urban designated             47
  and rural self-generating
  nonattainment areas

61 Non-California areas with     36
  design values >0.12 in
  1982-1984 .
                130
                120
                 94
51%
46%
35%
56%
52%
42%
36b
240
270
                                         2-25

-------
                          Table  2-7,   NATIONWIDE STAGE  II  CONTROL  IMPACTS  FOR VARIOUS EXEMPTION  LEVELS3
                                                                  (33-YEAR  ANALYSIS)
ro
i
Regulatory Strategies
(Without Evaporative
Controls)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(No. size cutoffs)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(Ex. <2,000 gal/mo.)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(Ex. <10,000 gal/mo.)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(Ex. <10,000, <50,000 gal /mo.)
Average
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz + GV)b
32 - 46
31 - 45
29 - 42
25 - 35
Average
Annual Emission
Reduction of
Gasoline Vapors,
103 Hg/yr
230 - 340
230 - 330
210 - 310
180 - 260
Annual 1 zed
Costs,
Including
Enforcement
$ Million
410 - 500
320 - 390
200 - 240
170 - 190
Discounted
, Cost Effectiveness,
$/Hg of VOC
1,610 - 2,050
1,300 - 1,660
860 - 1,110
810 - 1,060
Average
Annual
Enforcement
Resources0
Person-tears:
$ Million
680: $26
500: $19
250: $10
190: $7
                  Program efficiency reflects the range of efficiencies found between a program of minimal  enforcement (62 percent) and an
                  active (annual) enforcement program (86 percent) and the range of equipment phase-In schedules  (3-7 years).   If no range
                  Is Indicated, the upper and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average Is  presented.
                 b
                  GV = gasoline vapors (plausible upper limit  rat data only).  Benzene Incidence reduction  alone  would represent about
                  10 percent of the total incidence reduction.

                  Enforcement shown for annual 3-year phase-In enforcement only: minimal enforcement requires zero enforcement costs and
                  resources.  See Section 2.8 on enforcement impacts.

-------
                    Table  2-8.   NATIONWIDE  STAGE  II CONTROL IMPACTS FOR  VARIOUS EXEMPTION  LEVELS*
                                                     (In Year 2010)
Regulatory Strategies
(Without Evaporative
Controls)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(No size cutoffs)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(Ex. <2,000 gal /mo.)
? STAGE II NATIONWIDE
£3 (Ex. <10,000 gal /mo.)
STAGE II NATIONWIDE
(Ex. <1Q,QQQ» <50»OQO gal/mo.)
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz + GV)b
36 - 50
35-49
33-46
28-39
Annual Emission
Reduction of
Gasoline Vapors,
103 Mg/yr
260 - 370
260 - 360
240 - 330
200 - 280
Annual
Costs,
Including
Enforcement, Cost Effectiveness,
$ Million $/Mg of VOC
520 - 580 1,580 - 1,990
430 1,250 - 1,590
260 800 - 1,050
210 750 - 990
Program efficiency reflects  the range  of  efficiencies found between a  program of minimal enforcement  (62 percent)
and an active (annual)  enforcement  program  (86 percent) and the range  of equipment phase-in  schedules  (3-7 years).
If no range Is Indicated,  the upper and lower values vary by less than 10  percent and the  average  1s presented.

GV = gasoline vapors (plausible upper  limit  rat data only).  Benzene incidence  reduction alone would represent about
10 percent of the total  incidence reduction.

Enforcement shown for annual  3-year phase-in enforcement only; minimal  enforcement requires  zero enforcement  costs
and resources.  See Section  2.8 on  enforcement impacts.

-------
exemption cutoffs would provide better incidence and emission reduction,,
but at a higher cost.  The new analysis also indicates that the exemption
level of <1USOOU gal/month for nonindependents and <5Q,OUO yal/month for
independents has the best cost effectiveness of the exemption levels
analyzed.  In addition, EPA's interpretation of Section 324 of the Clean
Air Act may require the exemption of independents less than 50,UOO gal/
month.  Therefore, the exemption level  of <1U,OOU gal/month for noninde-
pendents and 
-------
                      Table 2-9.    NUMBER  OF  AFFECTED  FACILITIES  ASSUMED
                                       IN  THE  NEM COST  ANALYSIS
Fad 1 1 ly Type
BULK TERMINALS
BULK PLANTS
'- Exempt Hutu Plants
< 4, DUO gpd
SERVICE STATIONS
NATIONWIDE ALTERNATIVES
Staye_l
- Exempt Stations
< 10.UUU aal/mo
Stage II
- Exempt Stations < 10,000 gal /mo
and Independent Stations
< sU.OUO yal/mo
( Independents Only)
NUNATTAi«€«T AREA ALTERNATIVES
Staye II
- Exempt Stations < IU.UUU gal /mo
and Indendent Stations
< so.uoo 9*1 /mo (Independents -
Unly)
11 Areas
27 Areas
• - 61 Areas
FIXED RUOF STORAGE TANKS"
TANK TRUCKS
- Ftir-hfre Terminal Trucks
- For-nlre Bulk Plant Trucks
(< 4.UOO gpd 8P Exempt)
Percent
Consumption
Control lea at
Steady State
1UU
14,9


34,6

69.4



14.6
17.7
27.2
NA
NA
NA
Total Facilities
Affected
SOU3
a,u4ub«c


si, 3m

108.4UO



23,100
27,900
42,900
s,aooa
9,400C
Nurauer of Facilities In Eacn Model Plant
MP 1 HP 2 MP 3 HP 4
240 13S lift 30
3.4UU 4,UUO bbU .. HU

_
24.SUO 31.9UU 11,700

« 42.BOU 31,500 27,300
(9,300)



9,100 6,700 5,900
(2,000)
11,000 8,100 7,100
(2,400)
15,900 12,500 10,900
(3,700)
(HP) Size
MP 8
NA
NA


2,800

6,600
(2,300)



1,400
(490)
1,700
(600)
(2,600)
(900)' •
 8ulK terminal  affected facilities  Include aoout 2,870 terminal-owned trucics.
D
 Bulk plants with tnrouynput <4,000 gal/day will ee required to use submerged fill on outgoing loads (account
 trucics),                                                                                    •

 Bulk plant affected facilities under the wltn-exemptlon option include 9,300 plant-owned trucks requiring
 vapor balance and 6,700 plant-owned trucks requiring only submerged fill.  An additional 6,900 for-n1re trucics
 would remiire suomeryea fill.
d
 Includes only fixed-roof storage tanks at bulk terminals to be retrofitted with internal floating roofs.  The
 two fixed-roof tanks  assumed per bulk plant cannot be retrofitted with internal floating roofs since floating
 roofs are not compatible wltn vapor balancing.
                                                          2-29

-------
2.4.1  Air Emissions
     2.4.1.1  Baseline Emisslons.  Baseline emissions are the level of
pollutant emissions under existing regulations in the absence of further
emission standards, assuming the existing regulations are enforced.  As
in the 1984 analysis, the throughput occurring within each industry
segment was matched to the appropriate composite emission factor dictated
by existing State and local regulations.  These were multiplied together
to yield estimates of baseline VOC emissions.  However, several changes
were made in the new analysis that affected these estimates.  First, the
base year was adjusted from 1982 to 1984, to reflect the latest informa-
tion available at the time the reanalysis began.  In addition, errors
found in the control levels assumed for States or parts of States were
corrected, the baseline throughput was updated to 1984, and the specific
throughput for one-State (Mary-land) was adjusted to respond to comments.
The biggest change to the emission baseline, however, was due to the
changes made to the emission factors to reflect changes in emission
formulas and assumptions (discussed in Section 2.1).  Different emis-
sion factors were used, depending on whether the analysis was for
nationwide alternatives or for nonattainment area alternatives (see
Table 2-2).  Taking these changes into consideration and using the same
basic methodology as in the 1984 analysis, the baseline emissions were
recalculated and are presented in Appendix F.  Table 2-10 presents a
summary of the revised baseline emission estimates.
     2.4.1.2  Regulatory Strategy Emission Reductions.  As in the July
1984 analysis,, the emission reductions calculated in the base year for
Stage I and Stage II strategies were projected for each year into the
future in proportion to the change in gasoline consumption to estimate
future emission reductions.  In the new analysis, the gasoline consump-
tion projections in Table 2-4 were used.  Onboard emission reductions
were calculated for each year based on the gasoline consumption of con-
trolled vehicles shown in Table 2-11.  Excess evaporative emission
reductions were calculated each year based on the vehicle miles travelled
by controlled vehicles shown in Table 2-12.  These new projections in
Tables 2-11 and 2-12 were obtained from EPA's MOBILES Fuel  Consumption
Model (I-A-99, I-B-37).  As in the July 1984 analysis, control options
were first considered for each source category in the gasoline marketing

                                  2-30

-------
                        Table  2-10.   BASELINE VOC EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW ANALYSIS
Emission
Category
Bulk Terminals3
Bulk Plants
Service Stations
Storage Tanks
Vehicle Refueling
Vehicle Operations
Excess Evapb


VOC
Emissions, 103 Mg/yr
NATIONWIDE
1984
.Annual
Emissions
240
170
240
530
NC
1988
2020
Avg. Annual i zed
Annual Emissions
Emissions
200
140
200
440
300
220
160
220
500
220
2010
Annual
Emissions
190
14,0 ,
190
430
380 ;
NONATTAINMENT
1984
Annual
Emissions
27 Areas
45
33
45
99
NC

AREAS
61 Areas
85
60
85
180
NC
IN3
        ^Includes  both  loading  rack  and storage tank emissions.
              excess  evap  that  is  not  currently controlled and is controllable by increasing the size  of  the
         existing canister system.                                                       ;
         NC = not  calculated.

-------
         Table 2-11.
GASOLINE CONSUMPTION PROJECTIONS
 FOR CONTROLLED VEHICLES
GASOLINE CONSUMPTION BY CONTROLLED VEHICLES 
-------
        Table 2-12.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED   PROJECTIONS
    FOR CONTROLLED VEHICLES
               VMT - NO TAMPERING <1O**9 miles/year)

        July 1934 Analysis  '         New Analysis
Year
1988
1989
199O
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2OO1
2002
2OO3
2004
2OO5
2006
2OO7
20O8
2OO9
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2O15
2016
2O17
2O18
2019
202O
Total T
207 -' -•"
'' "v~399"- •' v;'"' '
' '' ' 577
746
906
1,O51
1,181
1/299
1,407
1,491
* " 1,571 ' '
1 , 63O
1 , 686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1 , 686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1 . 686
1,686
1,686
1,686
1 , 686
1 , 686
1,686
1,686
1,686
otal 
•"• ••'••' ; O
*-_ - -, . . ..-«-• v^ . ^
2'13 - "'
4O6
580
735
873
','995 "
1,105
1,2O6
1 , 298
1,382
1,457
1,524
1,584
1,637
1 ,684
1,730
1,762
1,795
1 , 827
1,856
1,884
1,911
1,936
1,962
1,988
2,O14
2,041
2,066
2,092
2,118
2,145
LDV
0
	 : •• '•• ^O"-- -' :
159
3O4
436
" ' 556
664 _
760
847
926
999
1,065
1,124
1,176
1 , 222
1,262
1 , 298
1,329
1,355
1,379
1 , 4O2
1,424
1,445
1,465
1 , 484
1,5O4
1 , 524
1,543
1,563
1 , 583
1,602
1,622
1,642
LOT 1
O
-•' • -• O --•
'47
88
• • ' '-'123 • -
• "154
_. -179
201
220
238
' ": 255
27O
283
296
308
318
328
338
345
353
359
366
371
377
382
387
392
397
4O3
4O7
413
418
423
1DGV
O
O
3
14
2O
25
30
34
..; :.;.'38
•'-•-41
44
' "-47
50
'. •• 52
54
. • 57
- ' 59
6O
• ' 62
• ~ 64
-' •- 65
67
68
- 69
7O
72
73
74
75
-' 76
77
• 78
80

-------
Tabl« 2-12.
VEHICLE HILES TRAVELED (VMT> PROJECTIONS
    FOR CONTROLLED VEHICLES
         (Concluded)
     VMT - WITH TAMPERING (1O*»9 miles/year>

July 1984 Analysis           New Analysis
Year
1988
1989
199O
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2OOO
20O1
2002
20O3
2O04
20O5
2006
2007
20O8
2OO9
2010
2O11
2O12
2O13
2014
2O15
2016
2017
2018
2O19
202O
(Total)
2O3
388
538
717
864
997
1,113
1,218
1,312
1,381
1,447
1,5O2
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
1,544
Total
O
O
212
4O2
573
724
857
974
1 , OSO
1,176
1,263
1:,342
1,413
1,476
. 1,532
1,583
1,627
1,666
1,7OO
1,732
1,762
1,790
1,817
1,843
1,867
1 , 892
1,917
1,942
1,967
1,993
2,O18
2,043
2 , 068
LDV
O
0
159
3O2
433
55O
654
746
83O
9O5
974
1,O36
1,O91
1,141
1,184
1,222
1,255
1,284
1,3O9
1,332
1,354
1,375
1,395
1,415
1,433
1,452
1,471
1,490
1,5O9
1,528
1,547
1,566
1,585
LOT
O
O
46
86
12O
ISO
174
195
213
23O
246
280
273
285
296
306
315
324
332
339
345
351
356
362
366
371
376
381
386
391
396
4O1
4O6
HDGV
O
O
8
•' . 14
2O
25
29
33
37
4O
43
46
48
50
53
55
56
58
6O
61
63
64
65
67
68
69
7O
71
72
73
74
76
77

-------
industry.  Table 2-13 presents the revised nationwide emission reductions
associated with these control options.  The various regulatory strategies
are in turn composed of particular control options for each source
category.  Table 2-14 presents the revised nationwide emission reductions
for nine regulatory strategies.  These tables are similar to Tables b-7
and 5-9 presented in the July 1984 document (I-A-55).  However, emission
reductions for ethylene dibromide (EBB) and ethylene dichloride (EUC),
contained only in leaded gasoline, were not included because the emission
reductions and risks associated with EDB and EDC were found to be
extremely small compared to benzene and gasoline vapors, and because
the expected accelerated leaded gasoline phase-down will further decrease
the impacts from EDB and EDC.
     The values for Stage II shown in Tables 2-13 and 2-14 are presented
in a range to reflect the range of in-use efficiencies that can be
expected and the range of phase-in rates that were analyzed.  The
ranges, which represent worst-case to best-case assumptions, are as
follows:
                 Nationwi de Strategies      Nonattainment Area Strategies
Low End    -     Minimal enforcement;           Minimal enforcement;
of Kange         API (7-year) phase-in          hiyh difficulty
                                                (5-1/2 year) phase-in
High End   -     Annual enforcement;            Annual enforcement;
of Range         statutory (3-year)             low difficulty (3-year)
                 phase-in                       phase-in
     Other changes included in the emission reduction calculations
and discussed in Section 2.3.3 are:

     o use of the new designated areas for nonattainment strategies;
     o use of the new start dates for the regulatory strategies,
       thereby changing the net present value analysis;
     o use of only an 8-year combination of Stage II with onboard, with
       emission reductions ending after 8 years;
     o calculation of emission reductions for excess evaporative con-
       trols and strategies that incorporate evaporative controls;
     o calculations for a 49-State onboard analysis (no onboard in
       California, extend Stage II to all stations in California),
       addition of controls for heavy-duty vehicles, and addition of
       excess evaporative impacts.
                                  2-35

-------
              Table  2-13,
NATIONWIDE EMISSION  REDUCTIONS  ASSOCIATED  WITH
GASOLINE  MARKETING CONTROL  OPTIONS
              (1988-2020)
Emission
Facility Type
(with Size Exemptions)
o Stage I
Bulk Terminals
- Loading Kacks
-» Storage Tanks
Gasoline Vapors
Average"
Annual Annual ized'5
7b 69
29 26

2010C
81
32
Reductions (103

Average"
Annual
0.4
0.2
Mg/yr)
Benzene
Annual izedb 20lOc
0.4 0.4
0.1 , 0.2
   Balk Plants                    83          76         90

   Service Stations (Stage I?

     -  Nationwide               120         110        13U

o  Vehicle Refueling
                                      u.4
                                      0.6
U.4
O.b
O.is
0.7
Stage lla
- Nationwide
- 61 Areas
- 27 Areas
- 11 Areas
Onboard8
o Excess Evaporati ye'

18U-260
66-100
43-67
28-44
S30
2bO
160-230
54-410
3i>-?0
23-45
380
180
200-280
77-110
50- 69
32- 44
680
330
1.2-1.4
0.4-0.5
0.2-0,3
U. 1-0.2
4.2
2.8
1.1-1.2;
0.4-0.6
0.2-0.4
0.1-0,2
3.0
1.9 .
1.4-1. b
0.&-0.6
0.3
0.2
S>.b
'3.6
aAverage Annual « cumulative divided by 33.

DAnnual1zed » 1988 Net Present  Value of emissions  reannualized over 1988-2020 to a stream of constant values.

C2U1U » Estimated emission reductions in the year  2010.
       of  values represents the  range of efficiencies found between a program of minimal  enforcement and an
 active (annual) enforcement program.  For nationwide strategies, the range 1s from minimal enforcement
 (7-year phase-in), to annual  enforcement (3-year phase-in).  For nonattai nment area strategies, the range
 is fron minioal enforcement,  high-difficulty phase-in to annual  enforcement, low-difficulty phase-in.  If
 no range  is indicated, the upper and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average is
 presented.

elncludes  excess evaporative emission reduction benefits.

^Excess evaporative anissions  controllable by enlarging the existing carbon canister.
                                                2-36

-------
ro
to
                                 Table  2-14.   NATIONWIDE EMISSION  REDUCTIONS  ASSOCIATED  WITH
                                              GASOLINE  MARKETING REGULATORY  STRATEGIES
                                                               (1988-2020)
Emission Reductions (103 Mg/yr)
Gasoline Vapors
Regulatory Strategy
(with Size Exemptions)
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls'
Stage 11-27 Areas**
Stage II - 27 Areas*!, Plus
Evaporative Controls
Stage II - Nationwide^
Stage II - Nationwide,*1
Plus Evaporative
Controls
Onboard Nationwide6
Stage II - 27 Areasd, Plus
Onboard Nationwide8
Average'
Annual
310
250
43-67
290-320
180-260
430-510
530
540
Annual Izedb
280
180
35-70
210-250
160-230
330-410
380
400
2010C
340
330
50-69
380
200-280
130-610
680
680
Average*
Annual
1.6
2,8
0.2-0.3
3.1
1.2-1.4
4.0 .
4.2
4.2
Benzene
Annual f zedb
1.4
•1.9 .
0.2-0,4
2.1-2.3
1.1-1.2
3.0
3.0
3.1

2010C
1.7
3.6
0.3
3.9
1.4-1.5
5.0
5.5
5.5
                      ^Average Annual  =» cumulative divided by 33.

                                   1988 Net Present Value of emissions reannuallzed over  1988-2020 to a stream of constant values.
                      GEm1ssion reduction estimates In the year 2010.                        .

                      dftange of values represents the range of efficiencies found between a program! of minimal enforcement and an
                       active (annual) enforcement program.  For nationwide strategies,  the range Is from minimal enforcement
                       (7-year phase-in) to annual enforcement (3-year phase-In).  For nonattalnment area strategies, the range
                       Is  from minimal enforcement, high-difficulty phase-In to annual enforcement, low-difficulty phase-In.  If
                       no  range Is Indicated, the upper and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average Is
                       presented.                  •           .        .',,.-

                      Includes excess evaporative emission reduction  benefits.

                      'Excess evaporative emissions controllable by enlarging the existing carbon canister.

-------
     To further illustrate the comparison of Stage II and onboard
emission reductions, Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 depict the emissions
associated with these strategies with time.  All of these figures are
based on the 10/50 exemption level discussed in Section 2.3.3.5.
In each figure, emissions are compared with a projection of baseline or
no further controls, and a percentage of emissions reduced is indicated.
Figure 2-4 Illustrates the information for refueling emissions only.
Figure 2-5 includes emptying losses (most of which Stage II will control)
in the baseline.  Figure 2-6 includes emptying losses and spillage
emissions in the baseline.  Spillage emissions occur during refueling;
however, neither Stage II nor onboard controls will reduce spillage
emissions, so no spillage emission reduction was assumed for either
Stage II or onboard.
2.4.2  Fuel Savings
     In addition to the emission reduction impacts, the fuel savings
impacts were revised in the new analysis.  The largest impact on the
fuel savings calculations came from the adjustment of the emission
factors.  In addition, the July 1984 analysis had no fuel savings
credits associated with the onboard strategy.  Under the new analysis,
recovery credits are included for onboard; therefore, fuel savings
credits are also included.  Table 2-15 presents the fuel savings
associated with the gasoline marketing regulatory strategies calculated
under the new analysis.  Included in Table 2-15 are the fuel savings
impacts that correspond to the excess evaporative strategy and those
strategies Tn combination with excess evaporative controls.
2.5  COST ANALYSIS
     The basic methodology for estimating costs did not vary signifi-
cantly between the 1984 analysis and the new analysis.  However, changes
or adjustments were added to reflect the changes to the analysis.  For
instance, recovery credits were changed to reflect the updated emission
estimates, and service station costs were updated to reflect service
station facility projections and updated per-facility costs.  The
purpose of this section is to outline all the changes made to the gaso-
line marketing cost analysis.
                                 2-38

-------
      Figure 2-4.   VOC-EMISSIONS  1985-2020
      600
      §00 -
~     400 H

5.
8|
j 8
I «   300 -
*
      200 -
      100 -
        1985      1990
                                         BASELINE (Refueling Emissions Only)
                                         STAGE II {Notional. Minimal Enforcement)
                                          STAGE II (National, Annual Enforcement)
                                                       ONBOARD (49 State*}
                           1995      2000      2005


                                 Beginning of Year
2010      2015
2020
 §

 I


I
 o
ID
     100%
          PERCENT EMISSION  REDUCTION 1985-2020

                              Of Refueling Emirafona Only '
     90% -



     80% -



     70%-



     60% -



     50% -



     40% -



     30%-


1
§    20%-

o.

     10% J
      0%
                                                       ONBOARD (49 States)
                                          STAGE II (National, Annual Enforcement)
                                         STAGE II (National, Minimal Enforcement)
                                                                           88%
                                                                           69%
                                                                           46X
         1985      1990      1995      2000      2005      2010     2015     2020


                                  Beginning of Year
                                     2-39

-------
       Figure  2-5.   VOC  EMISSIONS 1985-2020
      600
      SOD-
'S    40°-

      200-
      100 -
                                        BASELINE (Refueling It Emptying Emi salons)
                                           STAGE II (Notional. Minimal Enforcement)
                                           STAGE II (Notional, Annual Enforcement)
                                                    ONBOARD (48 State*}
         19SS      1990       1995      2000      2005

                                   Beginning of Year
                                                   2010
2015
2020
u
1
£

I
o
I
K
100%


 90X


 80%


 70»


 60%


 50%


 40%


 30% '


 20% •


 10%'
          PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTION  1985-2020
                            Of Rafuallng & Emptying Emission*
                                                         ONBOARD (4§ State*)
                                           STAGE II (National. Annual Enforcement)
                                           STAGE II (National, Minimal Enforcement)
                                                                             81%
        1985      1990      1995      2000      2005

                                  Beginning of Year
                                                   2010
2015
2020
                                     2-40

-------
       Figure 2-6.   VOC                   1 985-2020

      600
      500-
^    400-

fl
      300H
      200 H
      100-
                                     BASELJNE (Refueling it Spiling* & Emptying Emissions)
                                            STAGE II (Notional, Minimal Enforcement)
                                       STAGE II (National, Annual Enforcement)
                                                           ONBOARD (49 State*)
            1  *  «  •  i  *  •  •  •  i  »  •  •  •  i ' • >"I  «  •  "«  I  «  •  •  *  I  •  •  • r
         1985      1990      199S      2000      2005      2010      2015      2020
                                    Beginning of Year
 o
I
100%

 90%

 8058

 70%

 •OX -

 50%

 40%

 3QX

 20%

 10%
           PERCENT  EMISSION REDUCTION  1985-2020
                            Of R«fu*itng;» SptUeg* ft Emptying Em.
       OX
    1985       1990
                                                           ONBOARD (49 States)
                                             STAGE H (National, Annual Enforcsmont)
                                            STAGE I! (National. Minimal Enforcement)
                                                                                77X
                                                                                61%
                                                                                44%
                            199S      2000      2005

                                    Beginning of Year
2010      2015
2020
                                       2-41

-------
           Table 2-15.  FUEL SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH GASOLINE
                ••   MARKETING REGULATORY STRATEGIES
Regulatory Strategy
Stage I
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas3
Stage 11-27 Areas3, plus
Evaporative Controls
Stage II-Nationwide3
Stage II-Nationwidea
plus Evaporative Controls
Onboard Nationwide
Average Annual
106 Liters
150
320
60-90
370-410
230-330
550-650
610
Gasoline Savings
106 Gallons
4(3
80
15-20
100-110
60-90
150-170
160
  (Including Evaporative
  Controls)

Stage 11-27 Areas3, plus
  Onboard Nationwide
620
160
3Range of values represents the range of efficiencies found between a
 program of minimal enforcement (62 percent) and an active (annual)
 enforcement program (86 percent).  If no range is indicated, the upper
 and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average is
 presented.
                                  2-42

-------
2.&-1  Recovery Credits
     In general, all recovery credit values for each industry sector
were adjusted for the new analysis to reflect the change in RVP used in
the emission estimates.  In most cases the emission estimates increased;
therefore, the associated recovery credits increased.  A change in the
calculation of recovery credits for service stations using Stage II
systems was made based on a revised view of tank emptying losses.  In
the 1984 analysis, it was assumed that 5U percent of the potential
underground tank breathing losses, or 60 mg/liter, would be recovered.
It is assumed in the new analysis that all of these losses, or 12U mg/
liter, can be considered emptying losses and are controlled at the
efficiency of the Stage II system.
     A change has also been made in the gasoline recovery credit attri-
buted to the Stage II regulatory strategies to account for an energy
penalty.  This penalty represented the decreased energy content of
gasoline stored at a station with a Stage II system, since the Stage II
system reduces evaporation in the underground tank, causing the product
to retain "light ends."  A gallon of product with the light ends retained
has about 14 percent less energy content than a gallon of gasoline
composed predominantly of heavier ends ("weathered product").  The
recovery credit for Stage II, therefore, was reduced by 14 percent
since-,more product is required in order for the customer to realize the
same total energy content.  Stage II recovery credits were also changed
to reflect the latest in-use efficiencies discussed in Section 2.2.2
and Appendix A.
     Under the new analysis, gasoline excise taxes were analyzed to
determine if these taxes should be included in the value assigned for
recovery credit calculations.  Gasoline excise taxes are, in part, pay-
ments to factors of production, since some of the tax receipts are
spent to facilitate the production, distribution, and consumption of
gasoline.  Gasoline taxes also are, in part, transfer payments, since
some of the tax receipts are spent in areas that have no direct effect
on the production, distribution, and consumption of gasoline.  The cost
to society of an EPA regulation is composed of payments to factors of
production; the cost to society does not include transfer payments.
Similarly, regulatory benefits—in this case recovery credits—should

                                  2-43

-------
 reflect  savings  in the payments to factors of production, but not
 savings  in transfer  payments.  Thus, only a portion of gasoline excise
 taxes  should enter into  recovery credits.
     Unfortunately,  there is no accepted procedure to divide excise
 taxes  into the two unambiguous and non-overlapping categories of factor
 payments and transfer payments.  For this reason, EPA has elected to
 treat  the taxes  as transfer payments for calculating the costs and
 benefits of the  regulatory strategies to society.  This has the effect
 of reducing recovery credits, which increases the computed costs of
 the regulatory strategies.
     Costs and benefits  to society usually are not computed the same
 way as costs and benefits to individual firms.  Firms do not consider
 changes  in tax-supported services when they make productions, pricing,
 employment, and  related  decisions.  Firms look at their own balance
 sheets—not society's.   For this reason, EPA's analysis of price arid
•quantity changes includes full consideration of excise taxes.  Specific-
 ally,  excise taxes are included in the recovery credits that ,are considered
 by service stations  in raising gasoline prices, because station owners
 pay these taxes  when they buy gasoline.
     Given that  there are two ways of treating gasoline excise taxes,
 the unit price for recovery credits at the various gasoline marketing
 facilities was estimated.  These estimates are discussed below and
 the prices used  in the analysis are shown in Table 2-16.  Table 2-17
 gives  the data sources for and derivation of these estimates.
     For the onboard control system analysis, the recovery credits
 are realized by  the  vehicle owner.  Refueling vapors, normally lost
 to the atmosphere, are collected in the carbon canister and later
 burned in the engine.  The vehicle owner is getting the energy benefit
 of these vapors  and  saving money by purchasing less fuel.  The price of
 gasoline used in the market adjustment analysis for onboard control
 is therefore the price of the fuel that the vehicle owner would have to
 pay, or the full retail  price.  The analysis of costs to society uses
 the retail price less taxes (transfers).
     For the Stage II control system analysis, the recovery credits
 are realized by  the  service station owner.  Refueling vapors, which
 are nearly saturated, are captured and returned to the vapor space of

                                  2-44

-------
        Table 2-16.  FACILITY RECOVERY CREDIT GASOLINE PRICES
                   Recovery Credit Gasoline Price ($_/_ga1) used In:
   Facility

Vehicle Refueling

     - Onboard Controls
Social or
Economic
AnaTysis*
 0.98
     - Stage II Controls     0.91
  Market
Adjustment
Analysis
  1.20

  1.13
Bulk Plants
 0.87
  1.09
Bulk Terminals
 0.81
  1.03
*Does not Include $0.22/gal  taxes ($0.13/gal  State excise tax and
 $0.09/gal Federal tax).
                                  2-45

-------
            Table 2-17.
  DERIVATION OF RECOVERY CREDIT UASOLINE PRICES
     (3rd Quarter 1984 Dollars)
    Item
 Price/Cost
         Reference
Retail Gasoline
  Price
Taxes
$1.20/gal
Service Station
  Margin
Bulk Plant Margin
Transportation Costs
Bulk Terminal
  Margin
22 cents/gal
[Net Gasoline
  Price $0.98/gal]
7 cents/gal
CNet Gasoline
  Price $0.91/gal]
4 cents/gal
[Net Gasoline
  Price $0.87/gal]
2 cents/gal
[Net Gasoline
  Price $0.85/gal]
4 cents/gal
[Net Gasoline
  Price $0.81/gal]
Department of Energy Monthly
Energy Review, March 1985, as
reported in the 1985 NPN
Factbook, Mid-June 1985, p. 101
(I-F-133).

State tax of 13 cents per gallon
from EPA model that consumption-
weights State excise and sales
tax by State, plus 9 cents Federal
tax.

Average of 1979 through 1982
margins.  From Table 5-4,
Preliminary Economic Impact
Assessment of Regulatory
Strategies to Control Emissions
from Gasoline Marketing Industry,
August 1984 (I-A-57). ":

Derived from recent survey of
bulk plant operators conducted
for EPA under Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage standard
development, March 1984.

$U.OU4/Liter from Table 8-55,
Bulk Terminal BID Vol. I,
December 1980 (I-A-34), and
updated to current costs by
ratio of 1984/1979 wholesale
gasoline prices (78/57) from
p. 101, 1985 NPN Factbook.

4.5% before-tax profit margin
from Table 8-55, Bulk Terminal
BID Vol. I, December 1980.
Multiplied by reported wholesale
cost and updated to 1984 by
using wholesale price ratio
(78/57).
                                       2-46

-------
the underground storage tank.  By returning saturated vapors to the
vapor space (instead of the normal situation where air is drawn into
the tank through vent lines), product evaporation in the tank is
reduced and, therefore, the station owner has to purchase less product.
Consequently, the price of gasoline used in the Stage II analysis is
based on the price the service station operator pays for gasoline, or
the retail price minus the owner's mark-up or margin.
     For Stage I, the recovery credits for bulk plant and storage tank
operations are based on the same evaporation principles as those dis-
cussed for service stations (the reduction in product loss due to
evaporation).  However, at bulk terminals there is control equipment
available that captures vapors from the trucks being loaded and recovers
the vapors as liquid product.  For bulk terminals, bulk plants, and
storage tanks the price of gasoline must exclude not only the service
station dealer markup, but also .their delivery and facility mark-ups.
     As a check on the estimated margins, the final terminal cost
($0.81/gal) was compared to published refinery gasoline prices for
1984.  However, before the price can be compared directly with refinery
prices, an additional transportation cost (2 cents/gal) must be included
for the transportation costs from the refinery to the terminal.  Backing
this value out yields a refinery price, of $U.79/gal.  This compares
very closely to a published 1984 refinery price of $0.81/gal (I-F-133).
2.5.2  Model Plant Costs
     In addition to the value of recovery credits, several revisions
were made to the individual facility cost estimates to correct errors
and to respond to comments.  All costs in the 1984 analysis were based
on a base year of 1982.  Unless specifically corrected, these costs
were updated to a 1984 base year by the use of cost indices (I-F-79,
I-F-112).  The tables presenting the model plant costs used in the new
analysis are presented in Appendices B and J for direct comparison to
the 1984 analysis.  The following paragraphs discuss the major changes
in the model plant costs.
     2.5.2.1  Bulk Terminals.  In response to comments, changes were
made to the assumptions concerning top loading of tank trucks at existing
bulk gasoline terminals.  One commenter felt that many additional
top-to-bottom loading conversions would be required under a nationwide

                                  2-47

-------
Stage I requirement.   In the July 1984 analysis, it was assumed that 10
percent of the uncontrolled terminals currently practiced top loading
and would convert to bottom loading.  After re-evaluating data received
by the Agency under the development of New Source Performance Standards
for bulk gasoline terminals, the assumed percentage of terminals that
would convert from top to bottom loading was changed from 1U percent to
60 percent.  This increased the estimated capital costs associated with
controlling terminals by about 25 percent.
     Also changed for the bulk terminal model plants were the capital
costs associated with carbon adsorption vapor recovery systems.  These
costs were changed to reflect current capital costs supplied by one equip-
ment vendor (I-H-27).  This new cost represented a 20 percent decrease
for this vendor's equipment from the value shown in the 1984 analysis.
     2.S.2.2  Buik PI ants.  In the new analysis, an error was corrected
in the calculation of product recovery credits applied to bulk plants.
The recovery credit associated with the reduction of bulk plant storage
tank emptying losses was not considered in the 1984 analysis.  However,
the recovery credits for bulk plant operations are based on the same
principles as those applying to service stations (reduced evaporation
and loss of stored product due to vapor transfer).  Since recovery
credits were taken for reduction in underground storage tank emptying
losses at service stations, they should also apply for bulk plants9 and
they have been included in the new analysis.
     2.5.2.3  Servi ce jit at i ons.  Considerable changes were made in the
per-facility cost analysis for the service station industry sector.
A much more detailed per-facility cost analysis was added to the new
calculations.  The analysis was based on systems currently certified
in California and contains specific costs for dispenser modification
hardware, trenching costs, piping costs, and labor costs.  Appendix B
describes, in detail, the methodology used in estimating the Stage II
per-facility costs.  These updated per-facility costs also reflect
the changes made to the fuel RVP, dispenser configurations, emission
factors, fuel  costs, and inuse efficiencies discussed earlier.  Table
2-18 presents a comparison of capital and annual  costs between the July
1984 analysis and the new analysis.  In addition, revised Stage II
capital  cost estimates  are presented for a 35,000 gal/month service
station in Table 2-19.   The selection of the above "typical" station

                                  2-48

-------
                 Table 2-18.  WEIGHTED AVERAGE STAGE II COSTS9
                        (Retrofit of Existing Stations)

Model
Plant5
1
2
3
4
5
Previous
Capital
Cost, $
5,700
6,100
6,600
9,800
14,800
Analysis
Annual
Cost, $
1,400
1,300
1,300
1,400
500
New Analysis
Capi tal
Cost, $
5,700
7,300
12,200
16,100
23,200

Annual c
Cost, $
l,300d
1,400
2,500
3,200
3,100
aWeighted average - 80 percent balance systems, 15 percent hybrid systems,
 5 percent vacuum assist systems.

bSee Section 2.3.1 for a description,,of the model plant parameters.

cAnnual  costs reflect annual enforcement.

dFor purposes of comparing previous and new analysis, table based on same
 Model  Plant 1 throughput.                     •                  ;


      Table 2-19.  COMPARISON OF STAGE II COST ESTIMATES FOR NEW AND EXISTING
                        MODEL PLANT 3a SERVICE STATIONS ($)
Type of
System
Balance
Hybri d
Vacuum Assist
Weighted Avg.
Existing
Capital
Cost,$
11,900
12,600
15,400
12,200
Facility
Annual15
Cost , $
2,470
2,690
3,470
2,550
New Facility
Capi tal
Cost, $
6,540
6,940
10,190
6,780
Annual5
Cost, $
1,740
1,880
2,760
1,810
aModel Plant 3 has a throughput range of 25,000 to 50,000 gallons per month.

^Annual costs reflect installation and vapor recovery cost under an annual
 enforcement program.
                                 2-49

-------
was based upon a throughput weighted average of stations that would
require controls with a 10/50 exemption level.  Again, a complete
description of the costs associated with each major type of Stage II
system is contained in Appendices B and J.
     The service station Model Plant 1 was divided into two categories,
one to represent public service stations (6,000 gal/month) and one to
represent private service stations (2,000 gal/month) (see more detailed
discussion in Section 2.3.1).  Costing for each of these model plants
was handled separately.  The physical equipment was considered the same
at each facility, but the annualized cost differed because the through-
puts and resultant recovery credits differed for each model plant.
     2.5.2.4  Onboard Unit Costs.  The new J-tube onboard technology
also affected the per-vehicle costs.  Table 2-20 contains a breakdown
of the per-vehicle onboard hardware costs used in the July 1984 document
and the per-vehicle costs used in the new analysis.  The new analysis
costs are derived and explained in detail in Chapter 2 of the document,
"Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline Market-
Ing Industry — Response to Public Comments," referenced in Chapter 1
of this document.  The costs in Table 2-20 include the control of excess
evaporative emissions and represent the initial onboard system costs.
In the July 1984 analysis, the costs throughout the study period did
not change from the initial $13.32 for light-duty vehicles (LDV) and
$18.19 for light-duty trucks (LOT).  For the new analysis., the costs
change with time to reflect lower costs after recovering initial
engineering, research, and development costs, and to reflect the smaller
carbon canisters needed for smaller fuel tanks on future higher mileage
vehicles projected by the MOBILES model (see footnote e in Table 2-20).
In addition, the new analysis expands onboard coverage to include
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDSV) and, therefore, incorporates costs
for onboard controls on heavy-duty vehicles.
     Projections of cost impacts for the onboard strategy in the new
analysis were based on revised projections of new vehicle registration
and of vehicle miles traveled by vehicles equipped with onboard controls.
Table 2-12 contained the projections for vehicle miles traveled;
Table 2-21 contains the projections for vehicle registrations*  All
vehicle-related projections were obtained from EPA's MOBILES fuel
consumption model.

                                  2-50

-------
                     Table 2-20.  COMPARISON OF         VAPOR
                             CONTROL HARDWARE COSTS*
                         (Included Excess Evap Control)
Component
or Assembly
Charcoal Canister
Purge Control Valve
Liquid/Vapor Separator
Fill pipe Seal
"d-Tube" Assembly
Pressure Relief Valve
Rollover/Vent Valve
Hoses /Tubing
Miscellaneous Hardware
Vehicle Assembly
Systems Engineering/
Certification
Modification/Packaging
July 1984
(1983 dol
LDVb
$b.07
0.94
0.91
1.42
•-
0.56 ,
-
2.41
0.61
1.00
0.50
_
Total ( 1990-1994) e $13.32
Analysis
lars)
LDTC
$9.94
0.94
0.91
1.42
-
0.56
-
2.41
0.51
1.00
0.50
_
$18.19
LDVb
$ 5.74
-
0.92
-
1.52
-
b.BQ
1.96
1,03
0.11
1.20
1.72
$20.00
New Analysis
{1984 dollars
LDTC
$ 7.43
-
0.92
-
1.52
-
5.80
1.96
1.03
0.11
1.68
1.75
$22.20
HDGVd
$12.79
-
1.10
0.44
1.82
0.92
6.94
4.10
1.24
0.14
3.73
1.58
$34.30
aRetail Price Equivalents on all costs.
bLDV = Light-duty vehicles.
CLOT = Light-duty trucks (with single tanks),
dHUtiV = Heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (weighted averages for Classes lib and VI
 single- and dual-tank trucks).
eOther total onboard costs in the new analysis are:
                   LDV      LOT      HDGV
   1995-1999:    $17.70    $19.60   $29.80
     2000 on:    $16.30    $18.10   $29.40
                                      2-51

-------
Table 2-21. NEW VEHICLE REGISTRATION  PROJECTIONS
NEW VEHICLES 
July 1984 Analysis New Analysis
Year
1988
1989
199O
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
20O5
2006
20O7
20O8
2009
2010
2011
2012
2O13
2014
2O15
2016
2O17
2018
2019
2020
€ Total V©hiclea>
13.35
13. 3O
13.13
13.48
13.68
13.60
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
•13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
13.76
Total
O
O
15.29
15.26
15.22
15. 04
14.35
14i53
14.69
14.82
14.84
14.86
14.88
14.88
14.38
14.38
14.33
14.83
14.88
14.88
14.88
14.33
14.33
14.33
14.38
14.33
14.88
14.38
14.83
14.33
14.83
14.33
14.83
LDV
0
O
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.1
11. 0
10.8
1O.9
11. 0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11. O
11. O
11. O
11. O
11. 0
11.0
11.0
11. 0
11. O
11. 0
11.0
11. O
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
LDT
0
0
3.71
3.68
3.64
' 3.56
3.47
3.35 ':
3.4O
3.43'
3.45
3.46
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48.. '
3.43
3.48
3.48
3.48 .
3.43
3.43
3.48
3.48
3.43
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
HDGV
0
O
0.384
0.381
0 . 379
0.381
0.383
0.334
0.385
O.38S
0.392
0.396
0 . 4OO
O.4OO
0.4OO
;O.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
0.40O
0.40O
O.4OO
0 . 4OO
O.4OO
0 . 4OO
0.40O
O.4OO
0.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
O.4OO
                          2-52

-------
     The analysis also incorporates recovery credits for the onboard
system.  In the July 1984 analysis, it was assumed that the added weight
of the onboard system would offset any potential recovery credits.
Since the amount available for recovery (higher emissions due to
increased RVP) increased, the new analysis considers the net fuel
savings, taking into account the weight penalty of the onboard system,
obtained over the life of the vehicle.  Table 2-22 contains the
refueling recovery credit factors used in the onboard cost analysis.
     2.5.2.b  Costs of Excess Evaporative Controls.  For purposes of
evaluating the excess evaporative strategy, the cost, emissions, and
risk impacts were analyzed.  Table 2-23 summarizes the per-vehicle
costs, emission factors, and recovery credits associated with excess
evaporative controls.  Since the emission factors consist of only the
"excess" evaporative emissions not being collected by the current
canister system, a properly designed evaporative canister would elimi-
nate all "excess" emissions.  Therefore, it is assumed that the strategy
will provide 100 percent control of the excess evaporative emissions.
Projections for the nationwide impacts of this strategy are based on
the same vehicle miles traveled and vehicle registration data used in
the onboard projections.
     The costs presented in Table 2-23 decrease in 1994 because the
initial engineering costs are assumed to be recouped in the first
5 years (1990-1994).  Unlike onboard, excess evaporative control costs
are constant after 1995 since future increased fuel economy and the
resultant smaller fuel tank do not affect excess evaporative emissions
and, therefore, excess evaporative hardware.
2.5.3  Control Options
     Nationwide cost impacts for the regulatory strategies were calcu-
lated in a manner similar to that used in the July 1984 analysis.  For
non-service station sectors, per-facility costs were multiplied by the
number of controlled facilities (see Table 2-9) to establish a cost in
the base year.  Costs then varied with time based on recovery credits
changing proportional to the changes in gasoline consumption.  Several
new concepts were added to the nationwide analysis of service station
costs.  The greatest impacts resulted from the inclusion of service
station facility projections in each year (see Section 2.3.2).  In the
                                    2-53

-------
         Table 2-22.  REFUELING RECOVERY CREDITS USED IN THE
                           ONBOARD ANALYSIS
Vehicle
Type
LDVb
LDTC
LDT(2)d
HUGVe
1990
6.6
8.6
4.4
21
Recovery Credits
1995
6.0
8.3
4.2
20
(10~5 gallon/mil
2000
5.5
7.6
3.9
19
e)a
2010
5.0
6.9
3.6
18
aApplies to well-maintained (nontampered with) onboard systems.
bLDV « Light-duty vehicle.
CLUT = Light-duty truck.
dLUT(2) - Light-duty trucks with dual fuel tanks.
eHDGV s Heavy-duty gasoline vehicle.
                                 2-54

-------
      Table 2-23.  SUMMARY OF EXCESS EVAPORATIVE CONTROL STRATEGY
                       COSTS AND RECOVERY CREDITS
Excess Evaporative Emission Recovery Credits (10"5 gal/mile)

     LDV&              6.3
     LDTC              9.1
     HDGVd            15
Per-Vehicle Cost for Excess Evaporative Emission Controls($)

                       1990           1995          2000

     LDV°              2.90           2.00          2.00
     LDTC              3.80           2.60          2.60
     HDGVd             4.20           3.50          3.50
aThat portion of the excess evaporative emissions that can be
 controlled by enlarging the existing carbon canister or by using a
 combined refueling and evap canister.

bLDV » Light-duty vehicle.

CLDT - Light-duty truck.

dHD6V = Heavy-duty gasoline vehicle.

6Weighted by VMT for the year 2010.
                                   2-55

-------
new analysis, projected declines in gasoline consumption yield fewer
public facilities over time rather than a constant number of smaller
public facilities.  (The nuiriber of private facilities is still assumed
to be constant.)  The projection method and the detailed per-facility
costs allowed for the cost distinction to be made between Stage II
installations at new facilities and at retrofit facilities.  The
projection method kept track of new and existing facilities separately,
and the detailed per-facility cost model enabled the distinction to be
made in piping and trenching costs between new construction and retrofit
installations.  The detailed per-facility cost model also separated
the aboveground, or dispenser, equipment from the underground piping.
This allowed the calculation of annualized costs using a capital recovery
factor based on the different expected lives of the underground and
aboveground equipment (35 years and 8 years, respectively).           —
     Other modifications to the cost analysis, similar to emissions and
risk, were as follows:
     o onboard per-vehicle costs were increased; however, .this was off-
       set by the inclusion of recovery credits (Section 2.5.2);
     o excess evaporative control costs, including recovery credits,
       were added in considering these controls as a separate strategy
       (Section 2.3.3);
     o onboard and evaporative controls were considered for only 49
       States (California excluded because Stage II and RVP controls
       already implemented) (Section 2.3.3);
     o Stage II controls would be required for the rest of the State of
       California under the 49-State onboard strategy (Section 2.3.3);
     o heavy-duty vehicle controls were included for both the onboard
       and excess evaporative regulatory strategies (Section 2.3.3);
     o net present value streams were adjusted to reflect the new
       start dates for the regulatory strategies (Section 2.3.3);
     o bulk terminal carbon adsorber costs were adjusted to respond
       to comments (Section 2.5.2); and
     o recovery credits for all facilities were adjusted to reflect
       new emission factors, updated gasoline costs, and revised
       gasoline consumption projections (Section 2.5.1).
                                   2-56

-------
     Table 2-24 summarizes the revised annual costs for the control
options and Table 2-25 summarizes the annual costs for the regulatory
strategies.  As with the emission tables, the ranges shown for Stage
II nationwide costs are from minimal enforcement (7-year phase-in) to
annual enforcement (3-year phase-in).  For Stage II in nonattainment
areas the range is from minimal enforcement, high-difficulty phase-in
to annual enforcement, low-difficulty phase-in.  Enforcement costs,
discussed in Section 2.8, are included in these cost estimates.
     Stage II non-installations associated with minimal enforcement
were handled differently in the new analysis.  In the July 1984
analysis, all non-installations were considered equivalent to no equip-
ment installed, and the facilities were completely excluded from the
cost analysis.  In evaluating the new in-use data it was determined
that most of the non-installations (TO of the 14 percent) were at
stations with at least some equipment installed.  For these cases it
was assumed the facility had installed all underground piping, and had
simply not installed all the aboveground equipment.  The cost of the
aboveground equipment not installed was excluded from the analysis.
For the other 4 percent of the non-installations, it was assumed that
no vapor recovery equipment, above- or belowground, had been installed.
These facilities were, therefore, completely excluded from the cost
analysis.  Appendix 0 discusses in-use efficiencies and non-install-
ations in greater detail.
2.6  RISK ANALYSIS
     The general methodology employed in the July 1984 analysis for
assessing risk was not changed.  Several adjustments were made, how-
ever, for the sake of consistency and to correct errors.  In the list
of adjustments shown below, the first two affect only the baseline
risk estimates while all of the adjustments affect the projected risk
reductions due to the regulatory strategies.  Adjustments include"
the:
     o incorporation of revised gasoline consumption and VMT projec-
       tions (Section 2.3.2);
     o reassessment of the original baseline control levels based on new
       input data (Section 2.4.1);
     o incorporation of new emission factors (Section 2.1);
                                    2-57

-------
               Table 2-24.  NATIONWIDE COSTS OF 0ASULINE MARKETING OPTIONS
                                       (1988-2020}
 Facility Type
 (with Size
Exemptions and
-Use Efficiencies)
                               Annualized Costs (Millions of Third Quarter 1984 Dollars)
                                   Avepagg
                                   Annual3            Annual izedb         2010C
USE I
 Bulk'Terminals
   -  Loading Racks
   -  Storage Tanks
 BulkPlants
 For-Hire Tank Trucks
   -  Terminal Trucks
   -  Bulk Plant Trucks
 Service Stations (Stage I)
   -  Nationwide
HXCLE REFUELING
 Service Stations**
(7)*-
 9
                                    10
                                    17
                                    16
                                                         30
                                                         (6)
 9
15
Ib
                  IB
                  (7)
                  10
                                       11
                                      .18
* Nationwide
- 61 Areas
- 27 Areas
« 11 Areas
Onboard6
CESS EVAPORATIVE
190-200
«9-84
45-55
30-36
180
(46)
170-190
58-92
38-60
25-39
150
(28)
,210
79
52
34
200
(66)
verage Annual * cumulative divided by 33.
nnualized * 1988 Net Present Value of costs reannualized over 1988-2020 to a stream of.
onstant values.
osts estimated in the year 2010.
ange of values represents the range of efficiencies found between a Stage II program of
iniraal enforcement and an active (annual) enforcement program.  For nationwide strategies,
hi range is minimal enforcement (7-yr phase-in) to annual enforcement (3-yr phase-in).
or nonattainment area strategies, the range is from minimal enforcement (high-difficulty
hase-1n) to annual"enforcement (low-difficulty phase-in).  If no range is Indicated, the
pptr and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average is presented.
ncludes excess evaporative cost benefits.             ,,.---
                                  *                                       ,
arentheses indicate negative costs,  or a net cost savings.
                                        .   2-58

-------
                         Table 2-25.  NATIONWIDE COSTS OF CiASOLINE
                              MARKETING REGULATORY STRATEGIES
                                        (1988-2020)
Regulatory Strategy
(with Size
Exemptions and
In-Use Efficiencies)
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areasd
Stage 11-27 Areas ,d Plus
Evaporative Controls
Stage II - Nationwided
Stage II - Nationwide,^
Plus Evaporative
Controls
Onboard Nationwide6
Stage 11-27 Areas, d Plus
Onboard Nationwide6
Annuali zed Costs
Average
Annual3
73
(46)9
45-55
(D-9
190-200
14U-15Q
180
210
(Millions of Third
Annual ized*3
74
(28)
38-60
10-32
170-190
140-160
150
180-200
Quarter 1984 Dollars)
201UC
68
(66)
52
(14)
210
140
200
220
aAverage Annual * cumulative divided by 33.

bAnnualized =1988 Net Present Value of costs reannualized over 1988-2020 to a stream of
 constant values.

cCosts estimated in the year 2010.

dRange of values represents the range of efficiencies found between a Stage II program of
 minimal enforcement and an active (annual) enforcement program.  For nationwide strategies
 the range is minimal enforcement (7-yr phase-in) to annual enforcement (3-yr phase-in).
 For nonattainsn6.it area strategies, the range is from minimal enforcement (high-difficulty
 phase-in) to annual enforcement (low-difficulty phase-in).  If no range is Indicated, the
 upper and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average is presented.

elncludes excess evaporative cost benefits.

^Parentheses indicate negative costs, or a net cost savings.
                                            2-59

-------
     o revision of start dates for the regulatory strategies (Sec-
       tion 2.3.3);
     o incorporation of the 49-State onboard and excess evaporative
       strategies (Section 2.3.3);
     o addition of the 7-year phase-in for minimal enforcement nation-
       wide Stage II strategies (Section 2.3.3);
     o incorporation of revised nonattainment area groupings (Section
       2.3.3);
     o addition of heavy-duty vehicle control impacts to the onboard
       and evaporative strategies (Section 2.3.3); and
     o change from a 16-year to an 8-year implementation of Stage
       II when in combination with onboard (Section 2.3.3).
2.6.1  Risk Factors
     Several comments were received concerning the benzene and gasoline
vapor risk factors.  One commenter brought to the Agency's attention
new information on benzene exposure from a California study (I-F-103).
This new information on benzene was evaluated along with the previous
available information by EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG).  The
CAS also re-evaluated the API data used to develop the gasoline vapor
risk factors as a result of comments from the Science Advisory Board
(SAB), in which a correction to the API data was provided.  On the
basis of the re-evaluation of the benzene studies, including the new
California study, CAG provided a new benzene risk factor that is about
17 percent higher than the one used in the original  analysis.  The
CAG's re-evaluation of the API data resulted in a decrease of about 11
percent in the gasoline vapor risk factors.  Table 2-26 summarizes the
revised risk factors used in the new analysis.
2.6.2  Occupational  Exposure
     A significant addition to the risk analysis was the inclusion of
the evaluation of occupational exposure reductions associated with the
vehicle refueling strategies.  Both Stage II and onboard controls would
reduce not only community and self-service exposures, but also exposures
to the service station attendants.  The base year occupational  incidence
and lifetime risk from high exposure were calculated for benzene and
gasoline vapors based on time-weighted average concentrations reported in
an industrial  hygiene study conducted by Shell Oil (I-F-14I),  Several

                                   2-60

-------
                  Table 2-26.  COMPARISON OF BtNZENE AND
                     GASOLINE VAPOR UNIT RISK FACTORS
                                      Risk Factors3
                             July 1984                New
Pollutant                    Analysisb              Analysis
Benzene                     2.2 x 10'2             2.6 x 10'2

Gasoline Vapors

  -  Rat Studies
     o  PULC                3.5 x 10-3             3.! x 10-3
     o  MLEd                2.0 x lO-3             2.0 x 10'3

  -  Mice Studies
     o  PULC                2.1 x 10-3             2.1 x 10-3
     o  MLEd .               1.4 x 10-3             1.4 x 1U-3
Probability of a cancer incidence for 1 ppm over a 70-year lifetime.
Original EPA analysis published in July 1984 (EPA-450/3-84-012a).
CPUL = Plausible Upper Limit.
dMLE = Maximum Likelihood Estimate.
eRisk factor used as basis for gasoline vapor risk estimates in revised
 analysis.
                                  2-61

-------
assumptions had to be made to project occupational incidences into the
future, because little data were available.  The assumptions for projecting
occupational exposures included:
     o assuming the changes in baseline occupational incidence with
       time are proportional to the changes in total service station
       gasoline throughput;
     o assuming that reductions in occupational incidence would be
       equal to 75 percent of the combined reduction achieved under
       each strategy for service station and self-service incidence
       (i.e., some occupational exposures from garage or cleaning
       activities will not be reduced by vehicle refueling controls);
       and
     o assuming service station Stage I controls have no effect on
       occupational incidence;,
Appendix H contains a detailed discussion of the methodology used to
estimate incidence associated with occupational exposure.
2.6.3  Baseline Risks
     Table 2-27 contains the baseline average annual incidence and life-
time risk from high exposure calculated under the new analysis.  Ranges
of values, used in the July 1984 analysis, have been eliminated to
simplify the data presentation and calculations.  The gasoline vapor
risk values are based on the plausible upper limit of the API rat
studies.  Table 2-28 presents the incidence reductions for the regula-
tory strategies calculated in the new analysis.  Values in Table 2-28
represent the sum of the benzene and gasoline vapor incidence reductions.
Since the benzene and gasoline vapor studies indicate that tumor sites
occur in separate body systems (kidney or liver cancer for gasoline
vapors, leukemia for benzene), it is assumed that reduction of refueling
emissions would reduce risk by the sum of the benzene and gasoline
vapor incidence reductions.  Figure 2-7 illustrates the incidence
reduction that occurs with time for the onboard and Stage II strategies.
2.6.4  Hazardous Fraction of Sasoline Vapors
     Several commenters stated that the incidence due to gasoline
vapors is due only to the fraction of the vapors containing primarily
branched chain aliphatic hydrocarbons having 6-9 carbon atoms.  A

                                   2-62

-------
                  Table 2-27.  SUMMARY UF BASELINE RISKS9
Facility
Category
Bulk Terminals
Bulk Plants
Lifetime Risk
From High
Exposure
5.7 x 10-3
2 x 10~4
Average
Annual
Incidence
Benzene Gasol

0.1
0.05
ine Vapors

3.5
1.4
Service Stations

   o  Community Exposure

      - Stage I
      - Stage II
        (Total)

   o  Self-Service
 6.7 x 10-5
 1   x 10-4
(1.6 x 10-4)

 8   x 10~5
                    0.1
                    0.4
                   (0.5)

                    4.4
  3
 10
(13)

 33
              Total  Public Incidence
Occupational
   (Service Stations)
4  x  10-3
                    5.1
 51


 17"
              Total  Incidence for
              Gasoline Marketing
              Source Category
                    6.8
 68
Controllable Excess Evap Emissions
                    0.4
aBaseline risks are those projected throughout the study period (1988-2020)
 with no additional controls.

^Values differ from those on page H-4 of Appendix H.  Values in Appendix H are
 for the base year (1984), while values in this table are the average annual
 values for the study period of 1988-2020.
                                    2-63

-------
                                      iable E-Z8.          OF INCIDENCE IMPACTS
                                         REVISED ANALYSIS FOR GASOLINE
                                                  REGULATORY STRATEGIES
                                                       (1988-2020)
Regulatory
Strategy
(with Size
Exemptions)
Baseline
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas
Stage 11-27 Areas
Evaporative Controls
Stage II - Nationwidec
Stage II - Nationwide,0
Evaporative Controls
Onboard Nationwide
Stage 11-27 Areas
Onboard Nationwide
Bulk
Terminals
0.1/4
0.09/2
0.1/4
0.1/4
0.1/4
0.1/4
0.1/4
0.1/4
0.1/4
Average Annual
•Bulk
Plants
0.05/1
0.02/0.5
0.05/1
0.05/1
0.05/1
0.05/1
0.05/1
0.05/1
0.05/1
Residual
Service
Stations
0.5/13
0.4/11
0.5/13
0.4/11
0.4/11
0.3/8-9
0.3/8-9
0.2/7
0.2/7
Incidence (Benzene/Gas Vapors)
Self-
Service Occupational
4/33
4/33
4/33
4/29
4/29
2-3/14-20
2-3/14-20
1/10
1/9
2/17
2/17
2/17
2/15
2/15
1/10-12
1/10-12
0.8/9
0.8/8
Total3
7/68
7/64
7/68
6/58
6/58
3.4/36-46
3-4/36-46
3/30
2/29
Reduction
From
Baseline9
—
0.1/4
0.4/6b
1/10
i/u-ieb
4-4/22-32
4-4/28-38
' 5/43b
5/45b
N>
I
    aResults  may  not  add up exactly due to rounding.

    ^Evaporative  controls yield  incidence reductions from vehicle operations and not from gasoline marketing.

    cRange  of values  represents  the range of efficiencies found between a program of minimal enforcement (62 percent)
     and  an active  (annual) enforcement program  (86 percent) and the range of equipment phase-in schedules (3-7
     years).   If  no range is indicated, the upper and lower values vary by less than 10 percent and the average is
     presented.

-------
ro
i
en
01
    o
    o
    o
u

9
2
*u
          100
                                      Figure 2-7.

              BENZENE  AND  GASOLINE VAPOR  INCIDENCES

                               (Impacts of Onboard and Stage II)
90 -



80



70



60



50



40



30



20 -



10 -



 0
            1985
                 1990
                               Baseline (Gasoline Marketing & Excess Evap.)
                                      Stage II (Nationwide, Minimal Enforcement)
                                          Stage I! (Nationwide, Annual Enforcement)
                                                       Onboard (49 State)
                        » I  1  • '
                                            • •  I  I  ft i 1  I  I  I  •  I 1  I  1
                    1995      2000      2005


                           Beginning of Year
2010
2015
2020

-------
conservative estimate based on data from API (I-D-51), HEI (I-A-66),
and EPA (I-A-67) indicates that the ratio of Cg-Cg compounds in the
liquid to Cg-Cg compounds in the vapors is a factor of about 4 to 1.
Using this assumption, the gasoline vapor risks would be reduced by a
factor of 4.  Table 2-29 illustrates the impacts these revisions would
have on the average annual baseline incidence for the gasoline marketing
category.
2.7  ECONOMIC IMPACTS
   ' In order to respond to comments concerning the economic impacts
of controls, the Agency re-evaluated several facility cost estimates
and all costs were updated to third-quarter 1984 dollars.  Also, the
number of service stations in each size class was projected for each
year of the analysis.  Finally, two alternative exemption options were
considered.
   •  The estimated gasoline retail price increases expected from the
nationwide regulatory strategies range from O.lQ^/yallon for Staye I
with exemptions, to 0.62^/gallon for Stage,,II with no exemptions.
The national reduction in gasoline consumption predicted to result
ranges from 33 million to 217 million gallons per year.  Under onboard
and excess evaporative control, vehicle prices would increase by about
0.2 percent.  Vehicle sales could decrease by a similar percentage, or
the decrease could be less if purchasers were aware of the cost savings
resulting from fuel recovery by the system.
     Reductions in gasoline consumption attributable to higher gasoline
prices would result in the closure of some service stations.  The new
analysis estimates that, under Stage II nationwide, between 150 and
560 public service stations would close (0.09 to 0.33 percent of the
1990 station population).  Under Stage II in 61 nonattainment areas„
between 50 and 250 stations would close (0.03 to 0.15 percent of the
1990 population).
     Appendix E discusses the methodologies and more detailed results
of the reanalysis of economic impacts.
2.8  ENFORCEMENT COST IMPACTS
2.8.1  Stage II'Enforcement Costs
     In the July 1984 analysis,-calculations were presented for
minimal, bi-annual, annual, and quarterly enforcement scenarios.  In

                                  2-66

-------
  Table 2-29.  COMPARISON OF BASELINE HIGH AND LOW INCIDENCE .ESTIMATES
Risk
Factor Estimate
Using;
EPA Analysis
C6 and Higher3
Gasoline Vapors
Only
Total Average Annual Incidence for the
Gasoline Marketing Source Category
Benzene Gasoline Vapors Bz + GV
6.8 68 75
6.8 17 24
aFor purposes of this analysis, an average factor of 4.0 to 1 was used
 for the ratio of >CQ (Liquid) to _>Cg (Vapor)
                                  2-67

-------
the revised analysis, calculations were performed only for minimal  and
annual enforcement.  Minimal enforcement represented the low end of
the range of actual enforcement practice, while annual enforcement
represented the high end of the range of actual enforcement.  These
enforcement levels define the range for the calculation of Stage II
impacts.
     The calculation methodology used in the new analysis is identical
to that used in the July 1984 analysis.  Enforcement is determined  on a
per-facility basis and then multiplied by the number of .affected
facilities.  However, three changes have been incorporated into the new
analysis.  First, since the number of service stations changes with time
and since the enforcement costs are based on the number of facilities,
the enforcement costs associated with Stage II change with time.
Second, the average salary figure for a field inspector was increased
to respond to comments.  The yearly wage was adjusted from the 1982
base year value of $3U,000 per year to the 1984 base year value of
$38,200 per year.  Third, enforcement impacts were considered negligible
for the onboard and evaporative control scenarios.  It was assumed  that
these programs could be absorbed into the existing vehicle certification
program at no additional cost.  However, enforcement costs were
associated with the 49-State onboard scenario to account for the
additional enforcement of Stage II controls required in the current
uncontrolled areas of California.  All other inspection times, frequen-
cies, and legal and clerical assumptions remained the same as in the
July 1984 analysis.  Table 2-30 summarizes the enforcement costs asso-
ciated with the regulatory strategies under the new analysis.
2.8.2  Onboard Enforcement Costs
     In the July 1984 analysis, enforcement costs were estimated at an
additional $150,000/year.  This cost was based on the inclusion of
onboard system inspections in the existing vehicle certification programs,
In the new analysis, it was assumed that the onboard inspections would be
incorporated into the existing vehicle certification program at no
additional cost.  The only enforcement costs associated with the new
onboard strategy are the costs of enforcing requirements for the new
Stage II systems that would be required in the areas of California  that
are currently uncontrolled.

                                   2-68

-------
                Table 2-30.   SUMMARY  OF ANNUAL  ENFORCEMENT  IMPACTS
                    ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGULATORY STRATEGIES
                                   (1988-2020)
Enforcement
Regulatory
Strategy
(with Size
Exemptions)
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas6
Stage II - 27 Areas, ePl us
Evaporative Controls
Stage II - Nationwide6
Stage II - Nationwide,6
Evaporative Controls
Onboardd
Stage 11-27 Areas,6
Plus Onboard
Resources
(Person-Years)
Average
Cumulative Annual
1,800
0
1,600
1S600
6,400
6,400
80
460
56
0
50
50
190
190
2
14
Costs
(Millions of 1984 Dol"
Averagea
Annual Annual ized^
2
0
2
2
7
7
0.1
0.5
2
0
2
2
7
7
0.1
1
lars)
2010C
2
0
2
2
8
8
0.1
0.1
aAverage Annual  = cumulative divided  by 33.

bAnnua1ized = 1988 Net Present  Value  of costs  reannualized  over 1988-2020 to a
 stream of constant values.

cCosts estimated in the year 2010.

Reflects enforcement costs  associated  with  Stage II  requirements  in California
 under a 49-State onboard strategy.   Enforcement  costs  for  onboard systems can be
 included in existing inspection programs; therefore, the enforcement costs under
 this study are negligible.

6Reflects exemption level of <109000  gal/mo. for  all  facilities and <50-,000 gal/mo,
 for independents.
                                        2-69

-------
2.9  REFERENCES

I-A-3     Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  Second
          Edition.  Publication AP-42, Part A.  U.S. Environmental
          Protection Agency (EPA).  Research Triangle Park, NC.
          August 1977.

I-A-34    Bulk Gasoline Terminals - Background Information for Proposed
          Standards.  EPA-45Q/3-80-038a.  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle
          Park, NC.  December 1980.

I-A-40    Motor Vehicle Tampering Survey - 1982, 1983, and 1984.
          EPA-330/1-83-001.  U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and
          Legal Counsel/Air and Radiation.  April 1983, July 1984,
          and September 1985.

I-A-43    VOC Emissions from Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks -
          Background Information for Proposed Standards.  U.S. EPA.
          Research Triangle Park, NC.  June 1983.

I-A-45    Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
          Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed-Roof
          Tanks.  CT6 Series.  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
          August 1983.

i-A-55    Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gaso-
          line Marketing Industry.  EPA-45>0/3-84-Q12a (Executive
          Summary - EPA-450/3-84-012b).  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle
          Park, NC.  July 1984.

I-A-57    Preliminary Economic Impact Assessment of Regulatory Strate-
          gies to Control Emissions from Gasoline Marketing Industry.
          U.S. EPA.  Prepared by Center for Economics Research,
          Research Triangle Institute.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  :
          August 1984.

I-A-61    D.C. Gasoline Station Inspections to Assure Compliance with
          Stage II VOC Vapor Recovery Requirements.  U.S. EPA,,  Prepared
          by Engineering-Science.  Fairfax, VA.  January 1985,,

l-A-65    Gasoline Vapor Exposure and Human Cancer:  Evaluation of
          Existing Scientific Information and Recommendations for
          Future Research.  U.S. EPA.  Prepared by the Health Effects
          Institute.  Cambridge., MA.  September 1985.

I-A-66    Study of Volatility and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Motor
          Vehicles.  EPA-AA-SDSB-85-5.  U.S. EPA, Office of Mobile
          Sources,  November 1985.

I-A-67    Self-Service Station Vehicle Refueling Exposure Study.
          Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. EPA.
          Research Triangle Park, NC.  Undated.

I-A-69    Refueling Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles.  EPA-AA-
          SDSB-85-6.  Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA.  Ann Arbor,
          MI.  June 1985.

                                 2-70

-------
I-A-99    MOBILES Fuel  Consumption Model.   EPA-AA-TEB-EF-85-2.  Office of
          Mobile Sources,  U.S.  EPA.  Ann Arbor,  MI.   February 1965.

I-B-24    Memorandum from  Passavant,  G.W.,  U.S.  EPA,  SSDB, to Shedd,
          S.A.,  U.S. EPA,  ESED.   October 7,  1985.  Cost and emission
          information to assure  consistency  between gas marketing and
          EVAP/RVP studies.

I-B-37    Memorandum from  Passavant,  G.W.,  U.S.  EPA,  OMS, to Shedd,
          S.A.,  U.S. EPA,  OAQPS.  January  28,  1987.   Updated computer
          outputs for Stage  II  and onboard  analyses.

I-D-51    Letter from Grayson,  H.6.,  Mobil  Oil Corporation, to Cleverly,
          0., U.S. EPA. March  25, 1985.  Mobil  Oil's conclusions
          regarding Mobil/EPA meeting,  February  26, 1985, on hydrocarbon
          exposures in gasoline  marketing.

I-F-16    Motor  Gasolines, Winter 1977-78.   BETC/PPS-78/3.  Bartlesville
          Energy Technology  Center, U.S. Department of Energy.  E.M.
          Shelton.  July 1978.

I-F-20    Motor  Gasolines, Summer 1978.  BETC/PPS-79/1.  Bartlesville
          Energy Technology  Center, U.S. Department of Energy,  E.M.
          Shelton.  February 1979.

I-F-28    Motor  Gasolines, Summer 1979.  OQE/PPS-8U/1.  Bartlesville
          Energy Technology  Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.  February
          1980.

I-F-31    Motor  Gasolines, Winter 1979-80.   DOE/BETC/PPS-80/3.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.
          July 1980.                         .   .  _.

I-F-34    Motor  Gasolines, Summer 1980.  DOE/BETC/PPS-81/1.  Bartlesville
          Energy Technology  Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.  February
          1981.

I-F-35    Motor  Gasolines, Winter 1980-81.   DOE/BETC/PPS-81/3.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.
          July 1981.

I-F-45    Motor  Gasolines, Summer 1981.  DOE/BETC/PPS-82/1.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.
          April  1982.

I-F-50    Trends in Motor  Gasolines:   1942-1981.   DOE/BETC/RI-82/4.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton
          et al.  June 1982,

I-F-52    Motor  Gasolines, Winter 1981-82.   DOE/BETC/PPS-82/3.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.
          July 1982.

I-F-76    Motor  Gasolines, Summer 1982.  DOE/BETC/PPS-83/1.
       •   Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DOE.  E.M. Shelton.
          March  1983.

                                   2-71

-------
I-F-79    Economic Indicators:  CE plant cost index.  Chemical  Engineering
          90(6):7.  McGraw-Hill, Inc.  March 21, 1983.

I-F-88    Motor Gasolines, Winter 1982-83.  DOE/BETC/PPS-83/3.
          Bartlesville Energy Technology Center, U.S. DUE.   E.M. Shelton.
          July 1983.

I-F-1UU   Refueling Emissions Control - Onboard vs. Service Station
          Controls.  Prepared for Ford Motor Company by Sierra  Research.
          Sacramento, CA.  March 1984.

I-F-103   Health Effects of Benzene.  Part B.  State of California
          Department of Health Services/Epidemiological Studies Section.
          July 1984,

I-F-112.  Economic Indicators:  CE plant cost index.  Chemical  Engineering
          91(26):7.  McGraw-Hill, Inc.  December 24, 1984.

I-F-114   State of California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Order
          G-70-7-AA - Recertification of the Hasstech Model VCP-2 and
          VCP-2A Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems.  Sacramento,  California.
          December 3, 1982.

I-F-118   Chass, R.U, Holmes, R.G., Fudurich, A.P., and Burlin, R^M.
          Emissions from Underground Gasoline Storage Tanks, JAPCA,
          Vol. 13, No. 11.  November 1963.

I-F-124   Service Station Shakeout Continues.  1984 National Petroleum
          News Factbook Issue.  76(6a):103.

I-F-133   1985 National Petroleum News (NPN) Factbook Annual Issue.
          Des Plaines, IL.

I-F-141   Service Station Attendants' Exposure to Benzene and Gasoline
          Vapors.  American Industrial Hygiene Association  Journal
          (40):315-321.  April 1979.  H.J. McDermott and G.A. Vos,  Shell
          Oil Company, San Ramon, California.

I-H-27    Letter from Buxton, D.,- McGill, Incorporated, to  Docket No.
          A-84-07, U.S. EPA.  October 4, 1984.  Capital cost of carbon
          adsorption recovery units.

I-H-114   Letter from Buist, D.R., Ford Motor Company, to Weigold,  J.B.,
          U.S. EPA, QAQPS.  November 8, 1984.  Ford Motor Company's
          contents on July 1984 published analysis.
                                   2-72

-------
                     3.0  SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS

     The impacts of the changes made to the analysis,  which are
summarized in Chapter 2, are presented in this chapter.  Results are
presented for the regulatory strategies calculated under the new
analysis (Section 3.1); the cost effectiveness for cancer cases
avoided (Section 3.2); the incremental cost effectiveness for
increasingly stringent levels of control and for various baselines
(Section 3.3); impacts given certain assumptions concerning other
benefits and other exemption levels (Section 3.4); a comparison of
impacts of several control strategies in selected areas (Section 3.5);
and sensitivity analyses on costs, RVP of dispensed gasoline, and  -
regulatory coverage for onboard (Section 3.6).
3.1  REGULATORY STRATEGIES
     Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the impacts of the regulatory
strategies calculated under the new analysis.  Table 3-1 presents the
impacts as analyzed over the entire 33-year analysis period (1988-
2020).  Values for emission and risk reductions are shown for both  the
average annual values (33-year cumulative total divided by 33) and  the
annual!zed values (1988 net present value of all years to 2020 reannual-
ized to represent a constant stream of values).  Cost effectiveness is
shown as both net present value dollars per net present value megagram
of VOC reduced, and as net present value dollars per net present value
cancer case avoided*  The dollars per case avoided does not consider
any other benefit value for reducing VUC emissions.  Table 3-2 contains
values similar to those in Table 3-1, except that the values in Table
3-2 represent the impacts of the regulatory strategies in the future
after full imp lenient at ion of the strategies is complete (the year 201U
was selected to represent this steady state condition).
3.2  COST EFFECTIVENESS
     Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 further evaluate the cost per cancer
case avoided analysis.  These three tables, indicating benzene only
impacts, benzene plus EPA estimate of gasoline vapor impacts, and
benzene plus Cg and greater gasoline vapor impacts, respectively,
analyze the cost per cancer case avoided assuming that various dollar
values are assigned as additional benefits for reducing VOC emissions.

                                 3-1

-------
                                    Table 3-1.              OF  IMPACTS  OF REGULATORY STRATEGIES  (33-YEAR ANALYSIS)'
GO

no
Regulatory
Strategy
Baseline
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls6
Stage 11-27 Areas
Stage I 1-27 Areas, plus
Evaporative Controls6
Stage 11 - Nationwide
Stage II - Nationwide,
Plus Evaporative Controls6
Onboard Nationwide6
Stage H-27 Areas, plus
Onboard Nationwide6
Incidence
Reduction
(tiz + UV)b
Average
Annual Annual 1 zed
[84] C93]
3.8 3.3
6.4 4.4
7-11 6-12
14 - 18 10 - 16
2b - 3b 21 - 32
31-42 26-36
48 3b
49 36 - 39
VOC Emission Annual! zed Cost;
Reduction, Including
W3 Hg/yr Enforcement
Average (J10*>)
Annual Annual Ized

310 280 74
250 180 (28)f
43 - 67 3b - 70 38 - 60
290 - 320 210 - 250 10 - 32
180 - 260 160 - 230 170 - 190
430 - 510 330 - 410 140 - 160
b30 380 IbO
540 400 190
>, Cost Effectiveness
$/Hg VOC $
Removed0

260
(160)f
850 - 1,080
50 - 130
810 - 1,060
400 - 420
380
460 - 480
Million/Case
Avoided*1

22
(0)f
b - 7
1-2
6-8
4-5
4
5
                      aRanges of values represent the range  of efficiencies found  between a Stage II program of minimal  enforcement and an active
                       (annual) enforcement program.   For nationwide strategies, the  range is from minimal enforcement  (7-year phase-In), to annual
                       enforcement (3-year phase-in).  For nonattalnment area strategies, the range 1s from minimal  enforcement, high-difficulty
                       phase-in to annual enforcement, low-difficulty phase-in.  If no  range 1s indicated, the upper and lower values vary by less
                       than  10 percent and the average is presented.

                      bftV =  gasoline vapors (plausible upper limit rat data only). Benzene Incidence alone would be about
                       Hi percent of the total incidence  reduction.  Includes incidence reduction from service station  attendant        :
                       occupational exposure.

                      cCost  effectiveness per emission reduction 1s the net present value of costs divided by the net present value of
                       emissions, both discounted at  10 percent.
                           effectiveness per incidence  reduction 1s the net present  value of costs divided by the net  present value
                      of  incidence reduction, both discounted at 10 percent, with no VOC benefits.

                      elncludes expected level of tampering and impacts associated with  the reduction in excess evaporative emissions.

                           savings,

-------
                    Table  3-2.   SUMMARY  OF  IMPACTS OF REGULATORY STRATEGIES  (AFTER  FULL  IMPLEMENTATION IN YEAR  2010)'
OJ
 i
OJ
Kegulatory
Strategy
Baseline
Stage I - Nationwide
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-2? Areas
Staye 11-27 Areas, plus
Evaporative .Controls
Staye II - Nationwide
Staye II - Nationwide, plus
Evaporative Controls
Onboard Nationwide ^
Staye 1 1-27 Areas, plus
Onboard Nationwide^ "
Incidence
Reduction
(Hz + 
-------
             Table 3-3.   BENZENE REGULATORY COSTS PER CANCER  INCIDENCE  AVOIDED
                                          (33-YEAR  ANALYSIS)
Regulatory Strategy
(with size cutoffs4)
(1n-use efficiency;
Phase-In Schedule)
Stage I (AH Sectors)
- Bulk Terminals
- Bulk Plants
- Service Stations
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas
- (Annual, Lo Uiff,}
- (Minimal, H1 Dlffj
Stage 11-27 Areas
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual, Lo Olff.)
V11niraal, H1 Uiff,)
Stage II - Nationwide
- (Annual)
- (Minimal)
Stage 11 - Nationwide
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual )
- (Minimal)
Onboard Nationwide (955S)
Stage 11-27 Areas
Plus Onboard Nationwide
- (Annual, Lo Uiff.)
- (Hinlmal, HI D1ff.)
Annual 1 zed
Cost,
Including
Enforcement
($ Millions)
74
34
24
16
(28)»

60
38

32
10


190
170


160
140
150


2UU
180
Average Annual
Benzene
Incidence
Reduction
0.12
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.44

1.0
0.6

1.5
1.1


3.5
2.5


4.0
Z.9
4.6


4.8
4-7,
Cost ($ Millions per 8z
Assuming a Nationwide
$0/Mg
680
1,080
920
310
(0)

57
72

24
12


60
78


46
57
44


52
51
$250/Mg
Z7
320
200
(0}
(0)

40
56

(0)
(0)


41
60


17
22
15


26
23
Cancer Incidence Avoided),
VOC Benefit Value of:
$500/Mg
(0)*»
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

24
39

(0)
(0)


23
41


(0)
(0) ;
(0)

1
(0)
(0)
$l,000/Mg
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
5

(0)
(0)


(0)
5


(0)
(0)
(0)


(0)
(0)
aS1ze cutoffs for Stage 11 - Nationwide and  for Stage 11-27  Areas, exempt all facilities smaller than 10,000 gal/ao
 and Independent facilities smaller than 50,000 gal/mo.

^Numbers 1n parentheses denote net cost savings.
                                            3-4

-------
               Table  3-4.   BENZENE  AND  GASOLINE  VAPORS COSTS PER CANCER
                          INCIDENCE AVOIDED (33-YEAR ANALYSIS)

Regulatory Strategy
(with size cutoffs3)

(In-use efficiency;
Phase-in Schedule)
Stage I (All Sectors)
- Bulk terminals
- Bulk Plants
- Service Stations
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas
- (Annual, Lo D1ff.)
- {Minimal, H1 D1ff.)
Stage 11-27 Areas
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual, Lo 01 ff.)
- (Minimal, Hi U1ff.) "
Stage II - Nationwide
- (Annual )
- (Minimal)
Stage II - Nationwide
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual )
- (Minimal)
Annual! zed
Costs,
Including
Enforcement

($ Millions)
74
34
24
16
W

60
38


32
10

190
170


160
140





Average Cost ($ Millions per Bz + 6V Cancer Incidence Avoided),
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz+SV)b
3.8
1.0
U.9
1.8
6.4

11
7


18
14

3S
25


42
31
Assuming a


$0/Mg
22
37
31
10
(0)

S
7


2
1

6
8


4
5
Nationwide


$250/Mg
0.9
11
7
(0)
(0)

4
5


(0)
(0)

4
6


2
2,
VOC Benefit


$500/Mg
(O)e
(0)
(0)
(0)
W

2
4


(U)
(0)

2
4


(0)
(0)
Value of:


$l,000/Mg
IS!
(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
0.6


(0)
(0)

(0)
0.6


(0)
(0)
Onboard Nationwide,
150
48
(0)
Stage 11-27
Areas





Plus Onboard Nationwide
- (Annual ,
- (Minimal
Lo 01ff.)
, Hi Uiff.)
200
180
50
49
5
S
2 (I
2 (I
» (0)
»l (0)
aS1ze cutoffs  for Stage II - Nationwide and for Stage 11-27 Areas  exempt all  facilities smaller than 10,000
 gal/mo and Independent service stations smaller than 50,000 gal/mo.
bGV « gasoline vapors (plausible upper limit rat data only).
cNumbers in parentheses denote net cost savings.
                                                 3-5

-------
     Table 3-5.   BENZENE AND GASOLINE VAPORS COSTS PER CANCER INCIDENCE AVOIDED
                                      (33-YEAR  ANALYSIS)
                (ASSUMING INCIDENCE FROM Cg  AND GREATER GASOLINE VAPORS)

Regulatory Strategy
(with size cutoffs")

(In-use efficiency;
Phase-In Schedule)
Stage 1 (All Sectors)
- Bulk terminals
- Bulk Plants
- Service Stations
Evaporative Controls
Stage 11-27 Areas
- (Annual, Lo Dlff.)
- (Minima!, H1 Dlff.)
Stags 11-27 Areas
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual, Lo 01 ff.)
- (Minimal, HI D1ff.)
Stage II - Nationwide
- (Annual)
- (Minimal }
Stage II - Nationwide
Plus Evaporative Controls
- (Annual)
- (Minimal)
Annuallzed
Costs,
Including
Enforcement

($ Millions)
74
34
24
16
(28}C

60
38


32
10

190
170


16 U
140
Average

Annual Cost ($M1ll1ons
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz+6V)b

1.0
0.3
U.2
O.S
1.9

3.5
2.2


5.5
4.2

12
8.0


13
10
Assuming a


$0/Mg
81
130
11U
36
(U)

16
- 21


6
3

- 18
24


14
17



per Bz + BV Cancer Incidence Avoided),
Nationwide


$250/Mg
3
39
24
(0)
(U)

12
16


(0)
(0)

13 -
18


5
7
VOC Benefit


$500/Mg
(0)c
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

7
11


(0)
(0)

7
13


(0)
(0)
Value of;


$l,OOU/Mg
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

(U)
2


(0)
(0)

(U)
1


(0)
(U)
Onboard nationwide
150
16
13
(0)
(0)
Stage 11-27 Areas
Plus Onboard Nationwide
- (Annual, Lo U1ff.)
- (Minimal, HI D1ff.)


200
180


16
16


15
15


7
7


(0)
(0)


(0)
(0)
aS1ze cutoffs for Stage II -  Nationwide and for Stage 11-27 Areas exempt all facilities smaller than 10,000
 gal/mo and Independent service stations smaller than 50,000 gal/mo.

"By • Cg and greater gasoline vapors  (plausible upper limit rat data only).

cNumbers 1n parentheses denote net cost savings.
                                             3-6

-------
Zeros In parentheses indicate that in those cases the benefits  outweigh
the costs.
     Table 3-6 summarizes the impacts associated with nationwide
Stage I controls.  Values are shown for each segment  of the industry
that is included in the Stage I regulatory strategy.
3.3  INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS
     An incremental cost effectiveness analysis  was performed to  deter-
mine the cost effectiveness (both in $/Mg of VOC reduced and in
I/incidence avoided) of moving from one level  of control to the next
level.  This serves as input to determine whether it  is prudent to  go
the "extra step" in controlling emissions or incidence.  Two analyses
are presented.  In the first, regulatory strategies are evaluated
incremental to each other.  In the second, regulatory strategies  are
compared incremental to different baselines.
     Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present the analysis of  strategies  incremental
to each other.  The analysis starts with the assumption that a  decision
had been made to implement evaporative controls, since this strategy
was the most cost effective.  Then the costs to  go the "extra step" to
the next strategy, Stage II in 27 nonattaintnent  areas plus  evaporative
controls, are calculated.  Finally., given the assumption that it  was
prudent to go the extra step to Stage II in 27 areas  plus evaporative
controls, the costs to go the next step to either Stage II-nationwide
plus evaporative or onboard are calculated.  Table 3-7 presents the
incremental cost effectiveness on a $/Mg of VOC  reduced basis and Table
3-8 presents the incremental cost effectiveness  on a  I/incidence
avoided basis.
     Tables 3-9 and 3-10 present the analysis of strategies incremental
to different baselines.  For Table 3-9, it was assumed that a decision
to implement evaporative controls had been made.  Table 3-9 then  illus-
trates the impacts of taking the "extra step" from evap to  implement
either Stage II in 27 areas or onboard in 49 States.   For Table 3-10,
it was assumed that a decision had been made to  implement Stage II  in
27 areas in addition to evaporative controls. Table  3-10 then  illus-
trates the impacts of taking the "extra step" to either Stage II  or
onboard controls nationwide.
                                  3-7

-------
Table 3-6.  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF STAGE I CONTROLS NATIONWIDE
Source
Category
Bulk Terminals
Bulk Plants
Service Station
Underground
Tanks
(•>
i
00
Total Stage I
Average Annual
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz & GV)
1.0
0.9
1.8
4
Average Annual
VOC Emission
Reduction,
1Q3 Mg
100
83
120
310
Annuali zed
Costs, Including
Enforcement ,
$ Million
34
24
16
74
Cost Effectiveness
$/Mg $/ Incidence
@ $0/Mg VOC
360 37
320 31
140 10
260 22
$/ Incidence
@
$250/Mg VOC
11
7
(0)
0.9

-------
                                Table 3-7.  INCREMENTAL  COST EFFECTIVENESS
                                    OF SELECTED REGULATORY  STRATEGIES -
                                        VOC EMISSION REDUCTION BASIS

Regulatory
Strategy
EVAP CONTROLS
STAGE 11-27 AREAS,
EVAP CONTROLS
ONBOARD NATIONWIDE
STAGE II-NATIONWIDE,
EVAP CONTROLS

NPV of VOC Emission
Reduction (1988-2020),
103 Mg :
1,680
2,020 - 2,350
3,660
3,170 - 3,920
NPV of Costs
(1988-2020) ,
Including Enforcement,
$ Million
(270)
94 - 300
1,410
1,310 - 1,550

Cost Effect!
Average
(160)
50 - 130
380
400 - 420

veness3 ,

$/Mg
Incremental
—
850 -
800 -
790 -

1,080
840&
1.06QC
aCost effectiveness per emission reduction  is  the  net present  value  of  costs  divided  by the  net  present
 value of emissions, both discounted at  10  percent.

^Increment from Stage 11-27 Areas Plus Evap. to Onboard.

clncrement from Stage 11-27 Areas Plus Evap. to Stage II-Nationwide  Plus  Evap.

-------
         Regulatory
          Strategy
                                          Table 3-8.  INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS
                                             OF SELECTED REGULATORY STRATEGIES-
                                                  INCIDENCE REDUCTION BASIS
   NPV of Incidence
Reduction (1988-2020)
    (Bz + GVa)
   NPV of Costs
    (1988-2020),
Including Enforcement,
    $ Million
    Cost Effectiveness'5,
$ Million/Incidence Avoided
 AverageIncremental
      EVAP CONTROLS
       STAGE  II-27 AREAS,
       EVAP CONTROLS
       42
     97 - 150
      (270)


     94 - 300
   (0)
  1 - 2
5-7
,L
o
      ONBOARD NATIONWIDE
       STAGE  II-NATIONWIDE,
       EVAP CONTROLS
       340
    250 - 350
      1,410


    1,310 - 1,550
  4-5
                  5 -
6 -
       aGV  =  gasoline  vapors  (plausible upper limit rat data only).  Benzene incidence reduction alone would be
        about  10 percent of the total incidence reduction.  Includes incidence reduction from service station
        attendant occupational exposure.
            effectiveness per incidence reduction is the net present value of costs divided by the net present
        value  of  incidence reduction, both discounted at 10 percent, with no VOC benefits.

       c Increment from Stage  11-27 Areas Plus Evap. to Onboard.

       ^Increment from Stage  11-27 Areas Plus Evap. to Stage 1 1 -Nationwide Plus Evap.

-------
                                   Table 3-Sa.  IMPACTS OF STAGE II IN 27 NA AREAS PLUS
                                             EXCESS EVAP CONTROLS NATIONWIDE*
                                                 (INCREMENTAL FROM EVAP)


Pollutant
Considered'5
Total vapors
>_ Cg fraction
Benzene only


Annual
Incidence
Reduction
7-11
2-4
1
Annual
VOC
Emission
Reduction,
1U3 Mg/yr
43 - 67
43 - 67
43 - 67


An Dualized
Cost,
$MM/yr
38 - 60
38 - 60
m - eu


$/Mg
Reduced
1,080 - 8SO
1,080 - 85U
1,080 - 850


IHM/
Incidence
@ $SOO/Mg VOC
4-2
11-7
39 - 24


$MM/
Incidence
0 $l,000/Mg VOC
0.5 - (0)
2 - (0)
S - (0)


$MM/
Incidence
8 $l,SOO/Mg VOC
(0)
(0)
(U)
aThe ranges of values shown are from minimal  enforcement, high-difficulty implementation phase-in to annual  enforcement
 low-difficulty implementation phase-in.

bTotal vapors represents benzene plus gasoline vapors (Bz +• UV)S while the ^C6 fraction represents benzene plus  >C6
                                      Table  3-9b.   IMPACTS OF ONBOARD  IN  49 STATES
                                                 (INCREMENTAL FROM EVAP)


Pollutant
Considered*
Total vapors
>_ Cg fraction
Benzene only

Annual
Incidence
Reduction
42
14
4
Annual
VOC
Emission
Reduction,
103 Mg/yr
280
280
280

Annual 1 zed
Cost,
180
180
180


$/Mg
Reduced
850
850
850

$MM/
. Incidence
S $0/Mg VOC
6
18
57

$W/
Incidence
<» $250/Hg VOC
4
12
40

$MM/
Incidence
i $SOO/Mg VOC
2
7
23
aTotal vapors represents benzene plus gasoline vapors (Bz + GV), while the >C6 fraction represents benzene plus >C6
 SV.
                                                     3-11

-------
                               Table 3-10a.  IMPACTS OF STAGE II AND EVAP CONTROLS NATIONWIDE3
                                     (INCREMENTAL FROM STAiE II IN 27 NA AREAS + EVAP)
Annual
VOC
Annual
Pollutant
Considered"
Total vapors
>__ Cg fraction
Benzene only
Incidence
Reduction
18
6
2
- 24
- 8
•• 3
Emission
Reduction,
103 Mg/yr
140
140
140
- 190
- 190
- 190
Annual! zed
Cost,
JMM/yr
130
130
130
$MM/ IHM/
$/Mg
Reduced
1,060 - 790
1,060 - 790
1,060 - 790
Incidence
9 $0/Mg VOC
8-6
2b - 19
83-63
Incidence-
13 $2i>0/Mg VOC
6
19
6S>
. 4
- 13
. 4ti
$MM/
Incidence
& $bOO/Mg VUC
4
13
47
•" 2
- 7
- 27
  aKanges  of values  represent  the  range of efficiencies  achieved  between a program of minimal enforcement and an active
   (annual)  enforcement  program.   For nationwide  strategies, the  range 1s from minimal enforcement (7-year phase-In) to
   annual  enforcement  (3-year  phase-In).   For nonattainment area  strategies, the  range is from minimal enforcement,
   high-difficulty Implementation  phase-In to annual  enforcement, low-difficulty  Implementation phase-in.  If no range 1s
   shown,  upper and  lower values In the range differ  by  less than 10 percent.

  bTocal  vapors represents benzene plus gasoline  vapors  (Bz +  BV), while the >C6  fraction represents benzene plus >C6
   UV.
                                      Table 3-10b.  IMPACTS OF ONBOARD IN 49 STATES*
                                    {INCREMENTAL FROM STASE II IN 27 NA AREAS * EVAP)
Pollutant
Considered"
Total vapors
>. Cg fraction
Benzene only
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
35-30
11 - 10
3-4
Annual
VOC
Emission
Reduction,
103 Mg/yr
240 - 210
240 - 210
240 - 210
Annual 1 zed
Cost,
$MM/yr
140 - 120
140 - 120
140 - 120
$/Mg
Reduced
800 - 840
800 - 840
800 - 840
$MM/
Incidence
@ $0/Mg VOC
6
17 - 18
50 - 54
$MM/
Incidence
§ $250/Mg VOC
4
12 - 13
34 - 38
$MM/
Incidence
§ $500/Mg VOC
2
6-7
18 - 22
aTht ranges of values shown represent the range of efficiencies achieved between a program of minimal  enforcement
 (7-year phase-In) to annual enforcement (3-year phase-in).

"Total vapors represents benzene plus gasoline vapors (Bz + 6V), while the >Cg fraction represents benzene plus  >Cg
 GV.
                                                      3-12

-------
3.4  STAGE II AND ONBUARD IMPACTS CONSIDERING OTHER BENEFITS
     Table 3-11 summarizes the benefits associated with each regulatory
scenario, given values for cancer incidences avoided (due to benzene and
gasoline vapors) and for reduction of VOC emissions.  The cost
effectiveness values in this table assume that onboard costs are borne
nationally, but VOC emission reductions are credited only in the designated
nonattainment areas (27 or 61 areas).  The calculations first show the
cost effectiveness of the regulatory scenario for VOC emission reductions
in various nonattainment area groupings with no additional  benefits.
Then the benefits associated with reducing cancer incidences due to
benzene, if a cancer incidence is worth $7.5 million, are shown.  Next,
the benefit of reducing VOC emissions in attainment areas is added
(assuming $2bO/Mg).  Then the benefit associated with reducing incidences
due to Cg gasoline vapors is added.  Finally, the benefit associated
with reducing incidences from total gasoline vapors is presented.  The
resultant cost effectiveness values shown in the table indicate the
$/Mg benefit required for VOC emissions in nonattainment areas in order
for all benefits to equal costs.
     In earlier analyses in this document, an exemption level  of 10,000
gallons per month for non-independents and less than 50,000 gallons per
month for independents was shown on all tables.  The 50,000 gallon per
month exemption was based on the requirements set on EPA under Section
325(a) of the Clean Air Act.  However, Section 325(b) indicates States
are not limited by this exemption level and can require controls for
independents less than 50,000 gallons per month through their State
Implementation Plans.  Therefore, this part'of the analysis also shows
the impacts of other exemption levels (<2S000 and <10,000 gallons per
month for all stations).
3.5  STAGE II AND ONBOARD IMPACTS IN SELECTED AREAS   .
     Several analyses were conducted to focus on the impacts of Stage II
and onboard refueling control strategies in different selected areas.
The areas evaluated were nationwide and two of the nonattainment area
groupings described in Section 2.3.3 of Chapter 2 (27 and 61 areas).
     As discussed in Section 2.3.3.1 of Chapter 2, the assumptions
concerning the start dates and the schedule to complete equipment
installation for nonattainment strategies were evaluated, and
three potential start date/phase-in scenarios (low, moderate, and

                              '   3-13

-------
             Table 3-11.  COST EFFECTIVENESS OF VOC REDUCTIONS IN
                     NA AREAS CONSIDERING OTHER BENEFITS
                                    ($/Mg)
Onboard(Incremental to Evap)a

NA area VOC reduction
only

In NA areas, if benzene
  incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if $250/Mg
  benefit for AA reduction
  and benzene incidence
  reduction is valued at
  $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if $250/Mg
  benefit for AA reduction,
  and benzene and > C-6
  incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if $250/Mg benefit
  for AA reduction and benzene
  and total vapors incidence
  reductions are valued at
  $7.6 MM
                                    27 Areas
  3,470
  3,020
  2,240
  1,210
             61 Areas
2,170
1,880
1,490
 850
[Benefit]13   [Benefit]b
Stage II (Exempt <2,000)c

NA area VOC reduction
only

In NA areas, if benzene
  incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if benzene and
  >_ C~6 incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if benzene
  and total vapors incidence
  reductions are valued at
  $7.5 MM
   In 27 or 61 Areas
       1,670-1,350
       1,560-1,240
       1,280-960
         440-120
                                     3-14

-------
                     NA AREAS CONSIDERING UTHER BENEFITS
                                    ($/Mg)
                                 (concluded)
Stage II (Exempt <10,QOO)c

NA area VUC reduction only

In NA areas, if benzene
  incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if
  benzene and _>_ C-6
  incidence reductions
  are valued  at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if benzene
  and total  vapors incidence
  reductions are valued at
  $7.5 MM
In 27 or 61 Areas
   1,140 - 910
   1,030 - 800
     750 - 520
     [Benefit]5
Stage IT(Exempt <10, <50)c

NA area VOC reduction
only

In NA areas, if benzene
  incidence reductions-
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if
  benzene and >_ C-6
  incidence reductions
  are valued at $7.5 MM

In NA areas, if benzene
  and total vapors incidence
  reductions are valued at
  $7.5 MM
In 27 or 61 Areas
   1,080 - 850
     970 - 740
     640 - 460
     [Benefit]13
aCost effectiveness values for onboard in selected nonattainraent areas (27 or
 61 areas) assumes onboard costs borne nationally but VOC emission reductions
 credited only in the selected areas.

^[Benefit] = Benefits outweigh the costs.

cRange from minimal enforcement with high difficulty implementation phase-in
 to annual enforcement with low difficulty implementation phase-in.

NA = nonattainment.  AA = attainment area.
                                     3-15

-------
high difficulty) were examined.  The low difficulty scenario maintains
the 3-year equipment phase-in used in the 1984 analysis.  The
moderate difficulty scenario has the same Federal Register announcement
date, but assumes that the implementation of the regulation would take
about 6 months longer than the low difficulty scenario.  The moderate
difficulty scenario also assumes a 3-1/2-year equipment phase-in.
The high difficulty scenario assumes a start date 1 year later than the
moderate difficulty scenario and includes a 5-1/2-year equipment phase-
in.  In addition, as noted in Section 3.4, three service station size
exemptions are shown on the tables, instead of just one, to provide
information on more stringent exemption levels.
3.5,1  Onboard and StageII in Selected Nonattainment Areas
     Table 3-12 illustrates the emission reduction, cost, and cost
effectiveness impacts for onboard and Stage II strategies.  The table
also shows the impacts of various exemption levels for Stage II.  As
indicated in the table, lower exemption levels can achieve higher emis-
sion reductions and incidence reductions but at a higher cost effective-
ness.  In addition, the costs for service stations on the margin become
significantly higher as the exemption level becomes smaller.  For
example, the cost effectiveness for Stage II controls at a 2,000 yallon-
per-month station is $13,OOU-$10,5UU/Mg while the cost effectiveness
for a 80,UOO gallon-per-month station is $1,400-$!,OUO/Mg.  Figures 3-1
and 3-H illustrate the percent emission reduction with time for onboard
in nonattainment areas compared to two Stage II exemption levels.
Figures are shown for percent reduction of refuel ing-only emissions
and percent reduction of refuelihg-plus-emptying emissions.
3.5.2  Combination of Onboard and Stage II in Selected Nonattatnment Areas
     Figure 3-3 illustrates the emission reduction impacts of combining
Stage II and onboard control strategies.  The example shown in the
figure is for Stage II and onboard emission reductions in nonattainment
areas.t  Stage II is assumed installed for one 8 year equipment cycle
since, at the end of this first cycle, onboard emission reductions are
nearly equal to Stage II.  At that time, it is assumed that the Stage
II equipment is not replaced.  Table, 3-13 summarizes the impacts of a
Stage II requirement incremental to onboard controls.  Emission reductions
and incidence reductions are shown for the 8-year cycle analyzed.
Costs, however, are annualized over the entire 33-year analysis.

                                  3-16

-------
                        Table 3-12.    SUMMARY OF ONBOARD  AND STAGE II
                                    IMPACTS  IN  SELECTED  AREAS
Onboard (Incremental
  to Evap)

  - 49-State
  - 61 Areas
  - 27 Areas

Stage IIb

o Nationwide0

  - Exempt < 2,000
  - Exempt <10,000
  - Exempt <10,<50

o 61 Areas'1

  - Exempt < 2.UOO
  - Exempt <10,DUO
  - Exempt <10,<50

o 27 Areas4*

  - Exempt < 2,000
  - Exempt <10,000
  - Exempt <1U,<50
                              Incidence
                              Reduction
                              (Bz + SV)
                         Average
                         Annual   Annuallzed
   42
   16
   10
31-4b
29-42
2i-35
14-22
13-20
11-17
9-14
8-13
7-11
  31
  12
   8
26-41
25-38
21-32
11-23
10-21
 9-18
 7-15
 7-14
 6-11
                         Average
                         Annual
                         Emission
                         Reduction,
                         103 Mg/yr
  280
  110
   68
230-330
220-310
180-260
 83-130
 78-120
 66-100
 54-a6
 51-81
 43-67
                        Annuallzed
                        Emission
                        Reduction,
                       Annual1 zed
                         Cost,
                          Cost
                     Effectiveness,
                         1U3 Hg/yr      SHUHon
210
 81
 50
210-300
200-280
160-230
 68-140
 64-130
 54-110
 44-91
 42-8S
 36-70
 180
 180
 180
  850
2,170a
3,4703
320-390  1.66U-1.30U
200-240  1,110-  860
170-190  1,060-  810
110-190  1,670-1,350
 73-120  1,140-  910
 58-92   1,080-  850
 74-120  1,670-1,350
 48-77   1,140-  910
 38-80   1,080-  850
aCost effectiveness values  for onboard in selected nonattalnment areas (27 or 61  areas}  assumes
 onboard costs borne nationally but YUC emission reductions credited only in the  selected areas.

^In-use cost effectiveness  for service stations on the margin of exemption levels 1s  as  follows:
 2,000 gat/mon - $13,600-$10,800/Mg,  10,000 gal/mon - $3,200-$2,300/Mg, 50,000 gal/mon -
 $l,400-$l,100/Mg

cRange of values for Stage  II  - Nationwide 1s from minimal enforcement, 7-year phase-in  to
 annual enforcement, 3-year phase-In.

dRange of values for Stage  II  1n nqnattainment areas 1s from minimal enforcement,, high difficulty
 phase-in to annual enforcement, low  difficulty phase-In.
                                                     3-17

-------
 Figure 3-1.   PERCENT VOC  EMISSION REDUCTION
                        For NA Areas. <10.000 Station Exemption
I
1
I
o
90S


808


70%


60%


50%


4OK


30%


2JO%
        1985
                                                               Onboard
Staga II (Ann. Enf.. Low DIf.)
                                                  Stags II (Mln. Emf.. High DIf.)
               1990
               1995         2000

               Beginning of Year
2005
                                                                        7QX
                                                                        57%
2010
I
i
    100%
     90%-
        1985
               PERCENT VOC  EMISSION  REDUCTION
                        For NA Anon. <10.000 Station Exemption
                 Stag* II (Ann. Enf.. Low DIf.)
                                                               Onboard
                                                  Stag* II (Mln. Enf.. High DIf.)
                                                                   B3»
                                                                   79*
                                                                        57%
                                                                2010

-------
  Figure 3-2

    100%
o
II
o

O
3!
o

I
        1385
PERCENT VOC  EMISSION REDUCTION
         For NA Areas, < 10/50 Station Exemption
                 Stage li (Ann. Enf.. Low Dif.)
                                                  Stage H (Mln. Enf.. High Off.)
                                                                       89%
                                                                       66%
                                                                       48%
      1990
1995        2000

Beginning of Year
2005
2010
I
v
I
a
i
9

i
u
I
K
    100%
        1985
              PERCENT VOC EMISSION  REDUCTION
                        Far MA Areas, <10/50 Station Exemption
   Stage U (Ann. Enf.. Low Dif.)
                                                  Stage U (Mfn. Enf.. High Dif.)
                                                         83%
                                                         66%
                                                                       48%
      1990
 1995         2000

Beginning of Year

   3-19
2005
2010

-------
ro
o
    £
    III
    Q.

    I
C

"5
3
«*-
0
    C
    0
    !p
    u
    3
    TJ
         Figure 3-3.   PERCENT  VOC  EMISSION  REDUCTION
100%



 90%



 80%



 70%



 60%



 50%



 40%



 30%



 20%
          0%
            1985
                            Selected Nonatt. Areas (Ex. <10K, <50K)
                         Onboard & Stage II (Annnual, Low Dif.)
                                 Onboard & Stage II (Minimal, High Dif.)
                                                                  Onboard
               83%
                     1990
                             1995         2000

                             Beginning of Year
2005
2010

-------
               Table 3-13.  INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS OF STAGE II
                                IN NA AREAS
                          (INCREMENTAL TO ONBOARD)

Number of
No n attainment
Areas Covered
by Stage II
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
Over 8 Yrs.
(Bz + CIV)
Annual VOC
Emission
Reduction
Over 8 Yrs,
103 Mg/yr


Annuali zed
Cost,
$MM/yp



$/My
Reduced


$MM/
Incidence
tf $0/Mg VOC
11 Areas

  - Exempt <2S000       2-6
  - Exempt <10,000      2-6
  - Exempt <10,<50      2-5

27 Areas

  - Exempt <2,000       3-9
  - Exempt <10,000      3-9
  - Exempt <10,<50      2-7

61 Areas

  - Exempt <2S000       5-14
  - Exempt <10,000      5-14
  - Exempt <10,<50      4-11
14-37
13-35
11-28
21-58
20-54
17-43
32-89
30-83
25-67
36-62
25-41
20-32
56-95
38-63
31-49
85-150
59-97
47-75
5,570-2,700
4,080-1,920
3,920-1,860
5,510-2,660
4,040-1,900
3,880-1,840
5,510-2,660
4,040-1,900
3,880-1,840
41-18
30-13
29-12
41-18
30-13
29-12
41-18
30-13
29-12
aRanges reflect minimal enforcement with high-difficulty implementation phase-in to
 annual enforcement with low-difficulty implementation phase-in.
                                    3-21

-------
Aboveground equipment is amortized over the 8-year equipment cycle
but underground piping, purchased at the installation period, is amortized
over the 35-year lifetime of the piping.  The example shown in Figure
3-3 and Table 3-13 indicates the costs associated with this combination,
and how the combination of the two strategies may increase emission
reduction in the initial years of the analysis.
3.6  SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
3.6.1  Sensitivity to Various Cost Assumptions for Stage II and Onboard
     A sensitivity analysis for Stage II and onboard costs was conducted
to determine the impacts on the results of the analysis of using the
high and low ends of the cost range.  For Stage II costs, ranges were
developed that reflected the high and low cost estimates for system
components (e.g., nozzles, swivels, coaxial hoses, etc.) and variations
in the distances from the underground tanks to the dispensers (affects
underground piping and trenching costs).  These high, low, and best
per-facility cost estimates were then run through the analysis.
Table 3-14 summarizes the results of the cost sensitivity analysis for
Stage II systems.
     Table 3-15 summarizes the cost sensitivity analysis for onboard.
The onboard cost range was developed from the onboard hardware costs
and the range of onboard recovery credits.  The low end of the onboard
cost range reflected the low onboard hardware costs (based on a small
variation in costs) and the high end of the recovery credits.  The
best estimate costs were based on the high end of both the hardware
costs and the recovery credits.  The high cost estimate was based on
the high hardware cost and the low recovery credit value.
     Table 3-16 summarizes the cost sensitivity result's for Stage II
in nonattainment areas incremental to a nationwide onboard decision.
     Table 3-17 summarizes the benefits, in a similar fashion to
Table 3-11, for the best cost estimates for a nationwide Stage II or
onboard decision.  [See Section 3.4 for more discussion of this Table.]
3.6.2  Inconvenience Cost Sensitivity Analysis
     In addition to the facility cost sensitivity analysis, Stage II costs
were further evaluated to consider "inconvenience" costs.  Inconvenience
costs are those additional  consumer costs associated with handling the
heavier, bulkier and different Stage II vapor recovery nozzles compared

                                  3-22

-------
                                                            Table  3-14.    STAGE II COST  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS3
ro
CO
Regulatory Strategy/
Risk Estimate/Cost Estimate
STAGE II-NA (11 Areas)
Total Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
>C-6 Fraction
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Benzene Only
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
STAGE II-NA (27 Areas)
Total Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
K-6 Fraction
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Benzene Only
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
STAGE Il-Nationwtde
Total Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
>C-6 Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Benzene Only
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Annual
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz + 6V)


5-7
5-7
5-7

1.5-2.3
1.5-2.3
1.5-2.3

0.4-0.7
0.4-0.7
0.4-0.7


7-11
7-11
7-11

2-4
2-4
2-4

0.6-1
0.6-1
0.6-1


25-35
25-35
25-35

8-1?
8-12
8-12

3-4
3-4
3-4
Annual VOC
Emission
Reduction
(103 Mg/yr)


28-44
28-44
28-44

28-44
28-44
28-44

28-44
28-44
28-44


43-67
43-67
43-67

43-67
43-67
43-67

43-67
43-67
43-67


180-260
180-260
180-260

180-260
160-260
180-260

180-260
180-260
180-260
Annual) zed
Costb
($HH/yr)


21-33
25-39
29-46

21-33
25-39
29-46

21-33
25-39
29-46


32-51
38-60
45-70

32-51
38-50
45-70

32-51
38-60
45-70


140-160
170-190
190-220

140-160
170-190
190-220

140-160
170-190
190-220
$/Kg
Reduced


930-730
1,100-870
1,290-1,020

930-730
1,100-870
1,290-1,020

930-730
1,100-870
1,290-1,020


910-720
1,080-850
1.270-1,000

910-720
1,080-850
1,270-1,000

910-720
1,080-850
1,270-1,000


900-680
1,060-810
1,250-950

900-680
1,060-810
1,250-950

900-680
1,060-810
1,250-950
IMM/
Incidence
@$0/Hg VOC


6-4
7-5
• 8-6

18-14
21-16
24-19

62-48
73-57
86-67


6-4 .
7-5
8-6

17-14
21-16
24-19

62-48
72-57
86-67


7-5
8-6
9-7

20-15
24-18
28-21

66-iO
78-60
92-70
$HH/
Incidence
e$25Q/Mg VOC


4-3
5-4
6-5

13-9
16-12
20-14

45-32
56-41
69-50


4-3
5-4
6-5

13-9
16-12
20-14

45-31
56-40
69-50


5-3 ,
6-4
7-5

15-10
18-13
23-16

47-32
60-41
74-52
$MH/
Incidence
8$500/Hg VOC

,
3-1
4-2
5-3

8-4
11-7
15-10

29-15
40-24
53-34


3-1
4-2
5-3

8-4
11-7
15-10

28-15
39-24
52-34


3-1
4-2
6-3

9-4
13-7
17-10

29-13
41-23
55-33
$MM/
Incidence
e$l,000/Hg VOC


(0)
0.6-(0)
2-0.1

(0)
2-(0)
5-0.4

(0)
7-(0)
19-1


(0)
0.5-(0)
2-0

(0)
MO)
5-0

(0)
5-(0)
' 18-2


O.l-(O)
0.5-(0)
MO)

(0)
1-05
MO)

(0)
19~(°S

$MH/
Incidence
9$l,500/Mg VOC


(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
(0)
(0)


(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
(0)
(0)


(0)
(0)
(0)

(0)
(81

(o)
(0
(0)
                       'Ranges of values represent the  range of efficiencies achieved between a program of minimal  enforcement and an active
                        (annual) enforcement program.   For nationwide strategies,  the range is from minimal enforcement  {7-year phase-in), to
                        annual enforcement (3-year phase-In).  For nonattainment area strategies,  the range Is from minimal enforcement, high-
                        difficulty phase-in to annual enforcement, low-difficulty  phase-In.

                       DIf an inconvenience cost of 0.3^/gal is assumed, the Stage II costs would  double, resulting in a doubling of all
                        cost effectiveness values (see  Section 3.6.2).

-------
                   Table 3-15.   ONBOARD COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (INCREMENTAL  FROM EVAP)
Regulatory Strategy/
Risk Estimate/Cost Estimate
ONBOARD
TOTAL VAPORS*
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
>C-6 FRACTION*
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
BENZENE ONLY
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Annual
Incidence
Reduction


42
42
42

14
14
14

4
4
4
Annual VOC
Emission
Reduction
(103 Hg/yr)


280
280
280

280
280
280

280
280
280
Annual i zed
Cost
($MH/yr)


140
180
190

140
180
190

140
180
190
$/Hg
Reduced


670
8SO
920

670
850
920

670
850
920
$W
Incidence
e$0/Mg VOC


4
6
6

14
18
19

44
56
61
wv
Incidence
i$2iO/Hg VOC


3
4
4

9
12
14

28
40
45
$w
Incidence
8$500/Mg VOC


1
2
3

3
7
9

11
23
28
$HH/
Incidence
@$l,000/Hg VOC


(0)
(0)
CO)

(0)
°)
(of

(0)
(0)
(0)
aTotal vapors represents benzene plus gasoline vapors (Bz •*• GV), while the >C6 fraction represents benzene plus
>C6 GV.                                                           -                    .

-------
                                     Table  3-16.  ONBOARD PLUS STAGE  II-NA INCREMENTAL TO ONBOARD:
                                                            COST  SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS3
CO
1
in
Annual0
Replatory Strategy/ Incidence
Risk Estimate/Cost Estimate" Reduction
STAGE II-NA (11 Areas)
Total Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
>C-6 Fraction
"~ Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Benzene Only
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
STAGE II-NA (27 Areas)
Total Vapors
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
>C-6 Fraction
Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
Benzene Only
• Low Cost Estimate
Best Cost Estimate
High Cost Estimate
& ONBOARD

2-5
2-5
2-5

0.6-1
0.5-1
0.5-1

0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
£ ONBOARD

2-7
2-7
2-7

fl.8-2
0.8-2
0.8-2

0.2-0.7
0.2-0.7
0.2-0.7
Annual c VOC
Emission
Reduction
{lO3 Mg/yr)


11-28
11-28
11-28

11-28
11-28
11-28

11-28
11-28
11-28


17-43
17-43
17-43

17-43
17-43
17-43

17-43
17-43
17-43
Annual 1 zed
Cost
($KM/yr)


17-28
20-32
26-39

17-28
20-32
25-39

17-28
20-32
25-39


26-42
31-49
33-60

• 26-42
31-49
38-60

26-42
31-49
33-60
$MH/
$/Hg Incidence
Reduced 8$SOQ/Mg VOC


3,380-1,620
3,920-1.860
4,790-2,280

3,380-1,620
3,920-1,860
4,790-2,280

3,380-1,620
3,920-1,860
4,790-2,280


3,330-1,600
4,040-1,900
4,730-2,250

3,330-1,600
4,040-1,900
,4,730-2,250

3,330-1,600
4,040-1,900
4,730-2,260


19-10
23-13
29-17

59-21
71-26
88-34

180-71
220-88
280-110


19-7
23-8
29-11

59-21
71-26
88-33

190-71
230-87
280-110
$MM/
Incidence
8$l,000/Mp VOC


16-6
20-8
25-12

49-12
61-17
78-24

150-39
190-56
240-81


16-4
20-5
2i-8

49-11
61-16
78-24

150-39
190-55
250-81
$MM/
Incidence
@$l»500/Mg VOC


12-1
16-4
22-7

38-2
60-7
67-15

120-8
160-24
210-50


12-0.6
16-2
22-5

38-2
60-7
67-14

120-6
160-23
210-49
              attanges of values represent the range from minimal enforcement, high-difficulty Implementation phase-In to annual
               enforcement,  low-difficulty Implementation phase-In.

              "Total vapors  represents benzene plus gasoline vapors (Bz + 6V), while  >Cfi fraction represents benzene plus
               >C6 GV.

              cAnnual averages are over 8-year Stage II Implementation period.

-------
       Table  3-17.   COST SENSITIVITY IMPACTS ON COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
                   VOC REDUCTIONS IN -NA AREAS CONSIDERING
                               OTHER BENEFITS
                                   27  Areas
                    61 Areas
 ONBOARD  (INCREMENTAL TO EVAP)

 NA area  VOC reduction
 only
   *
 In NA areas.  If  benzene
   Incidence reductions
   are valued  at  $7.5 MM

 In NA areas,  if  $250/Mg
   benefit  for AA reduction
   and benzene incidence
   reduction is valued at
   $7.5 MM

 In NA areas,  if  $250/Mg
   benefit  for AA reduction
   and benzene and >C-6
   incidence reductions  are
   valued at $7.5 MM

 In NA areas,  if  $250/Mg benefit
   for AA reduction and  benzene
   and total  vapors incidence
   reductions  are valued at
   $7.5 MM
     3,470
(3,770-2,730)
     3,020
(3,310-2,270)
     2,240
(2,540-1,500)
       1,210
  (1,510-470)
   2,170
(2,350-1,700)
   1,880
(2,070-1,420)
   1,490
(1,580-930)
    850
 (940-290)
  [Benef1t]b
 [Benefit]13
 STAGE  II  (<10,000 Exemption  Level)

 NA  area VOC  reduction
 only

,In  NA  areas, if benzene
  Incidence  reductions
  are  valued at $7.5 MM

 In  NA  areas, if benzene
  and  >C-6 incidence
  reductions are valued
  at $7.5 MM

 In  NA  areas, if benzene
  and  total  vapors incidence
  reductions, are valued  at $7.5 MM
        In 27 or 61 Areas

          1,140-910
         (1,350-760)
          1,030-800
         (1,240-640)
            750-520
           (960-370)
             [Benefit]
           (120-CBenefit])
aBest estimate  (High  estimate -  Low  estimate).

^Benefit] « Benefits outweigh the costs.

                                   3-26

-------
to conventional  refueling equipment.  Rather than attempt to quantify
this inconvenience cost^ an analysis was performed to determine how
much inconvenience cost (on a per-gallon basis)  would be needed to
double the cost effectiveness of the Stage II strategy.
     To double the cost effectiveness (assuming  a constant emission
reduction), the costs associated with the strategy would have to double.
The annualized cost of the nationwide Stage II strategy (without evapor-
ative controls) was calculated as $170-$190 million (Table 3-1).  The
average gasoline consumption in the new analysis was about 80 billion
gallons per year (see Table 2-4 in Chapter 2) and a Stage II strategy
that exempts nonindependents less than 10,UOO gallons/month and indepen-
dents less than 50,000 gal Ions/month .would control about 75 percent of
the throughput after full implementation.  Therefore, an inconvenience
cost of approximately 0.3 | per gallon would double the cost effective-
ness of the nationwide Stage II strategy.
3-6.3  Sensitivity to Gasoline RVP Change
     In calculating the gasoline vapor emissions from handling opera-
tions at bulk terminals, bulk plants, and service stations, the
national average value for gasoline RVP of 12.6  psi was used in the
emission equations (see Section 2.1 of Chapter 2),  The EPA is currently
investigating the impacts of a nationwide reduction in RVP during the
summer months (ozone season).  For purposes of this sensitivity analysis
it was assumed that the RVP would be reduced to  9 psi during the five
ozone season months (May-September).  This case  gives a consumption-
weighted nationwide (excluding California, which currently controls
RVP) annual average RVP of 11.3 psi.
     Impacts have been summarized for both RVP assumptions (12.6 and
11.3 psi) and are presented side-by-side for comparison.  .Table 3-18
presents annual  baseline emission estimates for  1984, the 33-year
analysis period, and the year 2010.  Table 3-19  presents emission
reductions, annual!zed costs, and cost effectiveness figures for onboard,
Stage II, and Stage I.  In some cases, such as the annualized costs for
Stage II, there appears to be no difference between costs for an RVP of
12.6 or 11.3.  There is, however, a slight difference that is lost when
rounding the values for presentation in the table.  Table 3-20 summarizes
the cost effectiveness of onboard and Stage II strategies under the two
RVP assumptions, considering the benefit value of cancer incidence

                                  3-27

-------
               Table 3-18.  BASELINE  EMISSIONS  SENSITIVITY
                               TO R'VP  CHANGE
0
0

0

0

0

Bulk Terminals
1984
33- Year Analysis
In 2010
Bulk Plants
1984
33- Year Analysis
In 2010
Service Station Stage I
1984
33- Year Analysis
In 2010
Service Station Stage II
1984
33- Year Analysis
In 2010
Total Baseline
1984
33- Year Analysis
In 2010
Emissions
RVP - 12. 6a
240
200
190

170
140
140

240
200
190

530
440
430

1,200
980
950
(1,000 Mg/Yp)
RVP = 11.33
220
180
170

160
130
130

220
180
180

470
390
380

1,100
880
860
aNational average.
                                    3-28

-------
                   Table 3-19.   COMPARISON OF STAGE II AND ONBOARD IMPACTS
                               UNDER TWO AVERAGE GASOLINE RVP's
                                      (33-YEAR ANALYSIS)
egulatory
trategy
riboard (Incremental
to Evap
49 -State
61 Areas
tage IIa
Nationwide13
- Exempt <2,000
- Exempt <10,000
- Exempt <10, 
-------
                                                                                       MAY  13 1987
Table  3-20.
RVP IMPACTS ON COST  EFFECTIVENESS  OF VOC  REDUCTIONS
    NA  AREAS CONSIDERING  OTHER BENEFITS
                        ($/Mg)
                IN
        Onboard (Incremental to
        EvapJ	;	

        KA area VOC  reduction
        only

        In HA areas,  1f benzene
          Incidence  reductions
          are valued  at $7.5 W

        In HA areas,  if $250/Mg
          benefit for AA reduction
          and benzene Incidence
          reduction Is valued at
          $7.5 m

        In MA areas,  if $250/Mg
          benefit for AA reduction,
          and benzene and £ C-6
          Incidence reductions
          are valued  at $7.5 MM

        In NA areas,  if $2SO/Hg benefit
          for AA reduction and benzene
          and total vapors Incidence
          reductions  are valued at
          $7.5 MM
                                           61 Areas    61 Areas

                                           12.6 RVP    11.3 RVP
                           2,170       2,690
                           1,880       2,370
                           1,490       1,980
                             850       1,260
                         [Benefit]3   [Benefit]3
           Stage II  (Exempt <10,000)

        NA area VOC  reduction
        only

        In HA areas, if benzene
          Incidence  reductions
          are valued at $7.5 MM

        In NA areas, if benzene
          and _>_ C-6  Incidence
          reductions are
          valued at  $7.5 MM

        In HA areas, if benzene
          and total  vapors incidence
          reductions are valued at
          $7.5 MM
                                High-low Dlfficultyb

                         In  27 or 61 Areas      In  27 or 61 Areas
                             12.6 RVP

                            1,140-910
                            1,030-800
                              750-120
                             [Benefit]3
11.3 RVP

1,340-1,060
1,210-940
  890-620
 [Benefit]3
        a[Benef1t] - Benefits outweigh  the costs.

        bRange from minimal enforcement with high difficulty  implementation phase-in
        to annual enforcement with low  difficulty implementation phase-in.
                                         3-30

-------
reductions.  The change in impacts due to this RVP change would be
quite small; the cost effectiveness is slightly worse for all strategies
under the lower RVP assumption.
3.6.4  Comparison of49-State and 50-State Onboard Strategy
     As a further sensitivity analysis, a comparison was made between an
onboard strategy for 49 States (all States except California) and for
all 5U States.  Table 3-21 contains a summary of the assumptions included
in both the 49-State and 50-State onboard analyses.  Table 3-22 summarizes
the results of the comparison of these two strategies incremental from
an excess evaporative strategy.  The costs, emission reductions, and
cost effectiveness are essentially the same for each strategy.  On the
surface, it would appear that the 50-State onboard costs should be
higher.  However, the added cost of onboard on cars in California is
offset by the cost benefits associated with removing existing Stage II
in California (i.e., elimination of Stage II maintenance and enforcement
costs).
     For emissions, the 50-State onboard strategy would achieve somewhat
more emission reduction than the 49-State strategy after full implementation
is achieved, because of onboard's greater in-use efficiency.  However,
when the emission reduction is calculated on an average annual or
annualized basis, the additional  long-term emission reduction associated
with onboard is offset by the longer phase-in associated with onboard
controls.
3.6.5  Impact of Onboard Start-Date
     Table 3-23 presents the impacts of delaying the implementation of
the onboard strategy by 1 year, from the 1989 to the 1990 model year.
The table indicates that the emissions and incidence reductions and
costs differ only slightly between these two assumptions.  Furthermore,
the difference in cost effectiveness is small enough to be lost in the
rounding off process.
                                 3-31

-------
      Table 3-21.
SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED IN 49-STATE and bU-STATE
            ONBOARD ANALYSES
       49-State Onboard

   Onboard required on cars in
   49 States (California excluded),
   Stage II is expanded in California
   to areas now uncontrolled

   Only incremental emission reduction
   assigned to areas covered by D.C.
   Stage II (93 vs. 62 in-use efficien-
   cies)
o  Exemptions of <1U, <50 are granted
   for "New" Stage II

o  Enforcement costs for strategy based
   only on inspections required for new
   Stage II

o  Stage II in D.C. phases out after
   one equipment life (8 years)
o  Cost credit realized for elimination
   1n D.C. Stage II maintenance costs
 ,  and enforcement costs after phase-out
o  Initial cost penalty to D.C. Stage II
   for decreased recovery credits as
   onboard phase-in
o  Emission reduction penalty for loss
   of underground tank emptying emissions
   captured by D.C. Stage II
                               50-State Onboard

                          o  Onboard required on  cars  in  50
                             States
                             Only incremental  emission  reduction
                             assigned to areas covered  by
                             California (93 vs. 86 in-use  effi-
                             ciency)  and D.C.  (93 vs. 62 in-use
                             efficiency) Stage II
                             Stage 11-in California  and  D.C.
                             phases out after  one  equipment
                             life (8 years)

                             Cost credit realized  for  elimina-
                             tion of California and  D.C.  Stage
                             II maintenance  costs  and
                             enforcement costs after phase out

                             Initial cost penalty  to California
                             and D.C. Stage  II for decreased
                             recovery credits  as onboard  phase-
                             in

                             Emission production penalty  floor
                             loss of underground tank  emptying
                             emissions captured by California
                             and D.C. Stage  II
                                      3-32

-------
                           Table 3-22.  COMPARISON OF COVERAGE FOR ONBOARD STRATEGIES
                                            (INCREMENTAL FROM EVAP)
                   Nationwide Costs ($Millions)   VOC Emission Reductions
                                                         (103 Mg)
         Onboard                   Average                          Average
         Strategy     Annualized   Annual          Annual ized       Annual
                                                       Cost  Effectiveness
                                                               $/Mg
CO

GO
CO
         49-State
         50-State
17 b
178
225
216
2U7
207
277
277
850
860

-------
                                             Table 3-23.   SENSITIVITY OF IMPACTS TO
                                                       ONBOARD START-DATE
CO
i,
Onboard (Incremental
to Evap)
o 1989 Start -Date
- 49 -State
- 61 Areas
- 27 Areas
o 1990 Start-Date
- 49 -State
- 61 Areas
- 27 Areas
Incidence
Reduction
(Bz + GV)
Average
Annual Annual 1 zed

44 3b
17 14
11 9

42 31
16 12
11 8
Average
Annual
Emission
Reduction,
103 Mg/yr

290
110
70

280
110
68
Annual 1 zed
Emission
Reduction,
103 Mg/yr

230
90
66

210
81
bl
Annual i zed
Cost,
$ Million

200
200
200

180
180
180
Cost
Effectiveness
$/Mg

850
2,200
3,480

8bO
2,200
3,480

-------
           APPENDIX A
ESTIMATION OF IN-USE EFFICIENCY
     FOR VEHICLE REFUELING

-------
                               APPENDIX A
         ESTIMATION OF IN-USE EFFICIENCY FOR VEHICLE REFUELING

     In the analysis published by EPA in July of 1984, a methodology
was outlined that estimated the in-use control  efficiency of Stage II
and onboard control systems.  The in-use efficiency estimate for
Stage II systems was based on 1978-79 survey data on California and
Washington, D.C., Stage II installations.  Data were obtained on types
and frequencies of malfunctions, defects, and tampering, and estimates
were made of the decrease in efficiency that could be expected due to
each malfunction or defect.  The in-use efficiency estimate for onboard
control systems was based on the latest vehicle tampering surveys.  The
in-use efficiencies assumed in the 1984 EPA analysis were as follows:
Stage II (minimal enforcement) - 56 percent, Stage II (annual enforcement)
- 86 percent, and onboard - 92 percent.
     Many comments were received during the comment period regarding
in-use efficiencies.  Most comments centered around the Stage II
system and the fact that EPA's in-use efficiency estimate did not
reflect the latest Stage II technology.  Therefore, a search was made
to determine if new data existed for updating the estimated in-use
efficiency of Stage II and onboard vehicle refueling technologies.  The
following sections summarize the findings of the new EPA in-use
analysis. .
A.I  ONBOARD
     The July 1984 EPA analysis was based upon the use of an onboard
system that incorporated a rigidly installed nozzle/fill neck seal (see
Figure A-l).  This type of seal is subject to complete failure whenever
tampering motivated by fuel switching occurs.  This occurs rather fre-
quently as a result of motorists' attempts to remove the fillpipe res-
trictor that limits loading to unleaded gasoline.  As discussed in
Section 2.1 of this document, EPA's Office of Mobile Sources has evalu-
ated a new design concept for the onboard control system.  The new
onboard design, shown in Figure A-2, uses a "J-tube" which forms a
liquid seal to contain the vapors during refueling and eliminate any
efficiency decrease associated with fuel switching-motivated tampering.
The EPA now believes that most manufacturers will utilize the liquid trap

                                  A-2

-------
TRAPDOOR
                     SPOUT
           Figure A-l,  Mechanical Ff11 neck Seal
            FUEL FILL
             NOZZLE
                     A,!   LIQUID SEAL

                         r^fe"
                               e*
VEHICLE
               m/
                                   DESIGNED
                  FUEL TANK '      SLOW LEAK
           Figure A-2.  "J-Tube" Ffllneck Seal
                        A-3

-------
approach, rather than an elastomer seal, which would virtually eliminate
fillpipe tampering as a source of control performance degradation.
Therefore, only the charcoal canister and hose tampering rates plus
malmaintenance and defects in these areas were used in calculating the
revised in-use efficiencies.
     Assuming average lifetime periods of 100,000 miles for LDV's,
120,000 miles for LDT's, and 110,000 miles for HDGV's, the average
(midpoint) tampering rate for vehicles in each class would be 2.67,
3.29, and 3.12 percent, respectively.  On a fleet-weighted basis, this
averages to about 2.8 percent.
     For purposes of emissions modeling, it was assumed that tampering
would completely disable the control system and that control efficiency
would be zero.  This would happen if the canister were removed or if
the feed or purge lines were cut completely.  This is clearly conserva-
tive, since less severe forms of tampering would not reduce system
efficiency as completely.
     Tampering has been estimated to reduce the in-use efficiency
of onboard controls by about 3,7 percent over the long term (I-B-18).
This is not equivalent to a doubling of the 2.8 percent mentioned
above, primarily because more fuel is consumed early in the fleet life
when tampering rates are low.
     To reflect the impacts due to less frequent tampering, the new
analysis incorporates an in-use onboard efficiency of 93 percent
rather than the 92 percent used in the 1984 EPA analysis.
A.2  STAGE II - ANNUAL ENFORCEMENT
     Data were requested from the State of California to update the
estimate of Stage II efficiency under an annual enforcement scenario
(considered as the upper end of the Stage II in-use efficiency range).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) had recently completed a sur-
vey of'Stage II systems wherein over 11,000 nozzles at over 1,200
service stations were inspected (I-F-78).  Based on this survey, CARB
estimated an average in-use efficiency ranging between 80 and 92 per-
cent.  However, the data collected could not be separated sufficiently
to estimate the -in-use efficiency of only third-generation, or
                                  A-4

-------
latest technology. Stage II control systems.  This separation of data
would be necessary to satisfy the commenters who felt the in-use
efficiency estimate should reflect only the latest technology.
     Limited additional data were obtained concerning Stage II inspec-
tions in the Bay Area and Ventura County portions of California.  These
data were considered too limited to form a basis for changing the esti-
mated frequency of defects used to represent the entire State of
California.
     The GARB also made its own estimates of the decrease in efficiency
expected with specific defects.  A copy of these estimates was requested
to compare or update the estimated efficiency decreases assumed by EPA
in its original analysis (I-C-48).  The CARB did not use specific values
of efficiency decrease associated with defects, but rather used ranges of
values.  However, the ranges used were so broad (i.e., 0-100, 1U-1UO,
etc.) that the calculated efficiency decreases used in the original  EPA
analysis were still considered to be reasonable estimates.
     Since data on the frequency of defects and the efficiency decrease
associated with each defect could not be updated, and 86 percent is  the
midpoint of the CARB range (80 to 92 percent), the revised analysis
continues to estimate the upper end of the Stage II in-use efficiency
range at 86 percent.
     In the July 1984 analysis, the Stage II annual enforcement in-
use efficiency was estimated under a "State" enforcement program (88
percent) and under a "Federal" program of enforcement (86 percent).
The Federal program in-use efficiency was slightly less because it was
assumed the Federal program was a less direct form of inspections
(i.e., NOV sent rather than tag out-of-order).  Since EPA could not
predict the actual mode of enforcement, the analysis is based on the
Federal approach (assumed to be the approach used by EPA).
A.3  STAGE II - MINIMAL ENFORCEMENT
     Minimal enforcement, or the lower end of the Stage II efficiency
range, is based on defects and tampering frequency information gathered
in Washington, D.C.  In the summer of 1984, EPA completed an inspection
program (I-A-61) of every active service station in the Washington,
D.C., area.  During these inspections, a record was made of the types
                                  A-5

-------
of defects or tampering found at each station.  A total of about 170
service stations were visited and data were gathered on over 1,850
nozzles.  It should be noted that since all but one station inspected
had balance systems, the data from the Washington, D.C., inspection
program could only be used to update the information on balance systems.
In addition, difficulties arose in trying to use the published summary
data for in-use efficiency calculation purposes.  For example* data
were summarized separately for instances when the nozzle boot was not
installed and when the nozzle face seal was not installed.  It could
not be determined whether these two defects occurred on one nozzle or two
separate nozzles, or how the efficiency decreases of these defects
should be combined to determine impacts on all systems.  Therefore, the
raw data sheets were reanalyzed to produce more useful data summaries
for the calculation of in-use efficiencies.
     Table A-l presents the revised summary of defects based on the raw
data from the Washington, D.C., inspection program.  Also presented in
Table A-l are the estimated efficiency decreases_that can be csxpected
with each defect.  The following sections describe the categories of
defects used in the table.
     o  Vapor Recovery Equipment'Not Installed.  Instances where
        equipment was not installed fell into two categories at the
        facilities inspected: 1} facilities that had not installed any
        vapor recovery equipment, and 2) facilities that had installed
        recovery equipment on some nozzles but not on others.   The
        facilities that .had not installed any vapor recovery equipment
        constituted about 4 percent of all nozzles surveyed.  About 9,9
        percent of the nozzles surveyed remained uncontrolled  even
        though other nozzles at the same station were controlled.  In
        both cases, an efficiency decrease of 100 percent was  assigned
        to an occurrence of non-installation since no vapor recovery
        equipment is installed and no capture takes place.
     o  Nozzle Damage.  Twenty-four cases of nozzle damage (1.3 percent
        of all  nozzles) were reported on the raw data sheets.   No par-
        ticulars were given as to the extent of damage or even the type
        of damage.  Since no further data could be obtained from the
                                  A-6

-------
Table A-l.  BALANCE SYSTEM DEFECTS BASED ON REANALYSIS OF
       •  RAW DATA FROM THE WASHINGTON, D.C. STUDY
No. of Efficiency
Defective Nozzles Percent Decrease
per total Nozzles of all Assigned
Defect Inspected Nozzles (percent)
No Vapor Recovery Equipment
Installed (non-compliance)
- Facilities with no
equipment on any nozzles
- Facilities with at least
some vapor recovery
Nozzle Damage
Retractor Not Installed
(all other V.R. equipment
installed)
Retractor Broken
Boot and Face Seal or
Boot Only, Not Installed
(V.R. nozzle installed)
Torn Boot
Face Seal Only, Not
Installed (remainder of
V.R. equipment installed)
Torn Seal
Vapor Hose Not Installed
Torn Vapor Hose
No Seal -No Flow Broken
Insufficient Hose Drainage
255/1,847

73/1,847

182/1,847

24/1,847
331/1,847


296/1,847
77/1,847


783/1,847
12/1,847


440/1,847
21/1,847
189/1,847
100/1,847
72/1,847
13.8 .

4.0

9.9

1.3
17.9


16.0
4.2


42.4
0.6


23.8
1.1
10.2.
5.4
3.9
100

100

100

22
5


5
100


30
22


10
100
10
22
100
                           A-7

-------
   inspection report, it was assumed that the decrease ini effi-
   ciency attributed to this defect (22 percent) would be the same
   as used in the 1984 EPA analysis for improper nozzle maintenance.
o  High Hose Retractor Not Installed.  The inspection report docu-
   mented that 331 nozzles (17.9 percent of the nozzles inspected)
   did not have high-hang hose retractors installed, even though
   the remainder of the vapor recovery equipment was in place.
   The retractors provide counterweight to the nozzle and hose
   assembly during vehicle refueling and hold the vapor hose
   upward after completion of refueling to allow proper drainage
   of any entrained liquid.  They were added to the latest Stage
   II system designs in order to minimize liquid blockage in the
   vapor hoses.  These retractors were installed to enhance emission
   capture; however, the reduction in efficiency due to the lack
   of retractors could not be estimated.  It was assumed that the
   efficiency decrease would be similar to that estimated for
   misinstallation in the 1984 EPA analysis (5 percent).  Mis-
   Installations were defined in that analysis as improperly laid
   vapor piping which resulted in increased backpressure in the
   vapor line.  The backpressure is due to liquid blockage caused
   by a lack of proper drainbaek of condensed vapors.  It was,
   therefore, considered appropriate to apply a 5 percent: efficiency
   reduction to the case of non-installation of high-hang hose
   retractors since the same problem (possible increased backpressure
   due to liquid blockage in the vapor hose) could occur.
o  Retractor Broken.  There were a reported 296 cases (16 percent
   of all nozzles) where the high-hang hose retractor was broken.
   This defect was assumed to have the same effect on efficiency
   as the non-installation of the retractor.  Therefore, a
   5 percent efficiency, decrease was assigned to this defect.
o  Boot and Face Seal,'orBoot Only, Not Insial1ed.  The data
   indicated 77 cases (4 percent of all nozzles) where the vapor
   recovery nozzle was installed but there was no nozzle boot
   and face seal installed or, at least, no nozzle boot in place.
   The nozzle boot surrounds the nozzle spout and acts as,the
   collector of displaced gasoline vapors at the nozzle/fill-
                             A-8

-------
   neck interface.  Without the nozzle boot, no collection can
   take place.  Therefore, an efficiency decrease of 1UO percent
   was attributed to this defect,
o  Face Seal Only, NotInstalled.  The raw data indicated 12 cases
   (0.6 percent of all nozzles) where the nozzle face seal was
   missing, but all other vapor recovery equipment, including the
   nozzle boot, was installed.  The face seal is located at the
   end of the nozzle boot and provides the primary seal  when the
   nozzle is pushed against the vehicle.  Without the face seal, a
   good seal cannot be made at the nozzle/fillneck interface and
   some vapors can escape, thus decreasing the efficiency.  Since
   the nozzle boot itself is installed and still functioning, it
   was assumed that a significant portion of the vapors would
   still be collected.  No quantitative information was  available
   concerning the actual  loss in efficiency.  It was estimated that
   the lack of a face seal should cause an even larger decrease in
   efficiency than the 10 percent decrease in efficiency asso-
   ciated with significant tears in the face seal.  Therefore, it
   was assumed that the efficiency decrease associated with a
   missing face .seal would be the same as that used in the previous
   analysis for a combination of nozzle boot and face seal tears
   (22 percent decrease in efficiency).
o  Torn NozzleBoot.  The inspection report indicated that 783
   cases (42 percent of the nozzles) had some sort of tear in the
   nozzle boot.  There was no additional information on  the raw
   data sheets that specified the length or size of the  boot
   tears.  To estimate the efficiency decrease due to this defect,
   the assumptions used in the previous analysis were maintained.
   In that analysis, it was assumed that the average nozzle tear
   was 1.3 inches in length and that the resulting efficiency
   decrease would be 30 percent.
o  Torn Nozzle Face'Sea1.  The raw data from the inspection
   program documented 440 cases (24 percent of all nozzles) where
   tears occurred in the nozzle face seal.  Again, no quantitative
   data were available with respect to the average size  of a face
   seal tear.  Using the assumptions of the past analysis, an
   efficiency decrease of 10 percent was attributed to this defect.
                             A-9

-------
o  Vapor Hose Not Installed.  The raw data from the inspection
   survey indicated 21 instances (1 percent of all nozzles) where
   the vapor hose was missing, but all other vapor recovery equip-
   ment was installed.  Obviously, if the vapor hose is not
   installed there can be no recovery of vapors.  Accordingly, an
   efficiency decrease of 100 percent was assumed.
o  Torn Vapor Hose.  During the inspection program a total  of 189
   cases (10 percent of the nozzles) were found to have torn vapor
   hoses.  As before, no quantitative information was presented on
   the data sheets to indicate the extent of the hose tears.
   Therefore, the assumptions used in the 1984 EPA analysis to
   estimate the efficiency decrease for this defect again had to
   be assumed.  These assumptions led to an efficiency decrease of
   10 percent being attributed to this defect.
o  No Seal-No Flow Mechanism Broken.  A total of 100 cases
   (5 percent of the nozzles) were reported where the no seal-no
   flow mechanism was broken.  This mechanism,forces the user to
   make a good seal at the nozzle/filIneck interface or no
   gasoline will flow through the nozzle for dispensing into the
   vehicle.  The seal is accomplished by pushing the nozzle boot
   firmly against the vehicle.  Without the no seal-no flow mech-
   anism, an operator could pump gasoline regardless of whether a
   proper seal had been made.  The decrease in efficiency for this
   defect could be anywhere from 0 to 100 percent, depending on
   how hard the operator, pushed the nozzle.  For calculation
   purposes, .it was assumed that the decrease in efficiency would
   be the same as that associated with no face seal installed, or
   22 percent.
o   Insufficient Hose Draining.  A total  of 72 cases (4 percent of
    all  nozzles) were reported with insufficient hose draining.  A
    clarification from the contractor who performed these tests
    indicated that insufficient hose draining meant that, in the
    inspector's judgment, there was sufficient liquid in the vapor
    return hose to block essentially all  vapor passage.  The effi-
    ciency decrease associated with this  defect was, therefore,
    estimated as 100 percent.

                             A-10

-------
     There were several items summarized in the inspection report that
were not included in the estimation of in-use efficiency because they
were not considered to have a direct effect on efficiency.  These items
included:
     1)  Nozzle hangup bracket damaged or not installed - Problems with
         the hangup bracket may lead indirectly to nozzle or hose
         damage, but cannot be cited as directly causing decreases in
         efficiency;
     2)  Pressure shut-off broken - The pressure shut-off will
         deactivate the nozzle due to excessive backpressure in the
         vapor line and, if broken, will continue to pump gasoline.
         This only becomes a problem when this backpressure failure
         occurs simultaneously with a liquid blockage problem in the
         vapor line.  Since the causes of liquid blockage were already
         accounted for in the items included in the calculations, it
         was felt that the inclusion of this item would cause duplica-
         tion;
     3)  Circulation shut-off broken - This pertains to the case when
         the anti-recirculation mechanism is broken.  This failure
         may allow the recirculation of liquid through the vapor line
         (given a nozzle shut-off failure).  Although gasoline may be
         inadvertently recirculated through the system, this failure
         would not, in itself, result in a decrease in the system vapor
         recovery efficiency;
     4)  Improper hose placement - The local control agency has a
         requirement that hoses be placed in such a manner as to
         minimize the possibility of being run over or damaged by
         vehicles.  Although improperly placing hoses may eventually
         result in damage to the hoses, the act of improper hose
         placement by itself does not result in lower efficiency.  (The
         results of improper placement would show up in the hose defect
         category);
     5)  Inadequate nozzle removal delay - The local agency also has
         a requirement that the nozzle be held in the vehicle for
         10 seconds after completing refueling.  The purpose of this
         is to balance pressure between the vehicle tank and the

                                  A-ll

-------
         service station tank, thereby minimizing spills and spit-back.
         The inspectors noted on their inspection sheets instances
         when the consumer or the attendant failed to wait for the
         required 10 seconds.  Failure to comply with this requirement
         would not affect the vapor control or collection efficiency
         of the vapor recovery system.

A.4  CALCULATION OF EFFICIENCY (Minimal Enforcement Case)

     Given the frequency of defects and the corresponding efficiency
decreases, the in-use efficiency could be calculated for the
minimal enforcement case.  The following equation was used to
estimate the in-use efficiency:

          Average
          In-use
          Efficiency «  ET (100 - (Fi)(EDi)) (100 - (F2) (EU2))...
                           (100 - (FX)(EDX))
where:

            ET = Theoretical  efficiency (95 percent for balance systems),
            Fx - Frequency of occurrence of defect x (percent).
           EDX = Efficiency decrease associated with defect x (percent).


The actual in-use efficiency for a balance system (assuming ill
equipment installed) was calculated using the equation above and the
values in Table A-l as follows:

          Average
          In-use
          Efficiency - (0.95) [(1.00-(.013)(.22) )(1.00-(.179)(.05))
                                1.00-(.424)(.30))(1.00-(.006)(.22))
                                l.QO-(.238)(.10))(1.00-(
                                1.QO-(.102)(.10))(1.00-(
                                1.00- (.039) (1.00))]
                     = 0.7057
                     a 7U.6 percent (for balance systems).


     The in-use efficiencies for hybrid systems (78 percent) and for

vacuum assist systems (69 percent) were taken from the 1984 EPA analysis

since there were insufficient data available from the inspection program
                                  A-12

-------
to revise these estimates.  Given the same relative percentages of systems
(80% balance, 15% hybrid, and 5% vacuum assist), the nationwide weighted
average in-use efficiency for facilities that have vapor recovery
equipment installed on all nozzles would be:
       Weighted Average = (0.8)(7U.6) + (O.lb)(78) + (0.05)(69)
                        = 71.6 percent.
     The last step in the in-use efficiency calculation procedure
was to include the non-compliance or non-installations in the calcula-
tions.  The data indicated that at facilities with at least some vapor
recovery equipment installed, 9.9 percent of the nozzles had no vapor
recovery.  Assuming this would apply equally to all system types, the
in-use efficiency for those facilities with at least some equipment
instal led would be:
          In-use Efficiency
          For Facilities
         -With At Least Some
          Vapor Recovery
       ,  Equipment Installed  = (0.716) (1.00 - (.099)(1.00))
                               =64.5 percent.

The total nationwide in-use efficiency for the minimal  enforcement
scenario must also take into account ;the facilities that have no
vapor recovery equipment installed at all.  Therefore, the nationwide
in-use efficiency for all service stations under a minimal enforcement
scenario would be:
           Nationwide
           In-use
           Efficiency
           (Minimal
           Enforcement) = (0.645) (1.00 - (.04)(1.00))
	           =62 percent.-.                      	
                                  A-13

-------
A.5  REFERENCES
I-A-61     D.C. Gasoline Station Inspections  To  Assure  Compliance With
           Stage II VOC Vapor Recovery Requirements.  U.S. Environmental
           Protection Agency, Region III.   Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania.
           Prepared by Engineering-Science.  January  1985.

I-B-18     Qlenn W. Passavant, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
           SDSB, to Stephen Shedd,  U.S. Environmental Protection
           Agency, ESED.  Cost and  Emission Information to Assure
           Consistency Between Gas  Marketing  and Evap/RVP Studies.
           October 7, 1985.

I-C-48     Letter from Norton, Robert, Pacific Environmental Services,
           Inc., to Morgester, Jim, California Air Resources Board.
           Request for data on the  frequency  of  Stage II  defects.
           April 5, 1985.

I-F-78     California Air Resources Board.  A Report to the Legislature
           on Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems for  Vehicle Fueling at
           Service Stations.  Sacramento, California.   March 1983.
                                A-14

-------
         APPENDIX B



STAGE II PER-FACILITY COSTS
            8-1

-------
                               APPENDIX B
                      STAGE II PER-FACILITY GUSTS

B.I  INTRODUCTION
     Cost data were obtained and developed on a per-facility basis for
each model plant size.  These par-facility costs were then combined
with data on the number of facilities requiring controls within each
model plant category so that nationwide costs'could be determined.
     The Agency obtained cost data from numerous sources (vendors,
equipment suppliers, and construction contractors) in determining
reasonable estimates for the capital and annualized costs that would be
incurred by installation of Stage II vapor recovery systems, due either
to retrofit on an existing facility or to the incorporation of controls
during construction of a new facility.  All data were obtained during
the third and fourth quarters of 1984, and these values are taken to
represent third quarter 1984 costs.  Information for determining Stage
II costs was compiled based on vapor recovery systems currently available
and certified in California; i.e., the individual  balance system, the
manifolded balance system, the hybrid system, and two types of vacuum
assisted systems.  The reasons for using only the systems currently
certified in California are that these systems are in actual operation
and have been demonstrated to meet the control efficiencies assumed in
this analysis, and detailed information is available on the exact
components that make up each approved system.  The presented per-facility
cost estimates are based upon the 95 percent theoretical efficiency
since this is the efficiency at which the systems are certified.
However, when extrapolating these per-facility costs to nationwide or
nonattainment areas, in-use efficiencies are assumed.
     Both the individual and manifolded balance systems are considered
in this analysis because each is currently certified for use in California
and because when the analysis effort was begun the magnitude of the
cost difference between the two systems was not known.  The cost analysis
for the hybrid system is based solely on the Healy System,  because this
1s the only one for which accurate cost data were available.  Cost data
were not available from the other hybrid manufacturer, Red  Jacket,
since this company's system is not currently being manufactured.  The

                                  B-2

-------
costs shown for the vacuum assist systems are based on the  Hint  system
and the Hasstech system.  Throughout this appendixs the title Assist-
1 is used to denote the Hint Systems Assist-2 is used for the Hasstech
System, Hybrid is used for the Healy system,  Bal-I  is used  to indicate
an individual  balance system, and Bal-M is used for a manifolded
balance system.
     Several terms are used during the discussion of Stage  II capital
costs.  The "purchase cost" of an item represents the manufacturer's
quoted selling price for the item.  The "direct cost" of an item equals
the item's purchase cost plus the direct expenses incurred  during the
installation of the item (e.g., labor, materials, and site  preparation).
The "capital cost" of an item equals the sum of the item's  direct cost
and its indirect cost (e.g., model study, contingencies, startup).
However, since Stage II systems are relatively small and simple, no
indirect costs are incurred.  Therefore, in this case, the  capital cost
of an item is the same as its direct cost.  The cost components  that
comprise the "annualized cost" of a Stage II  system are defined  as they
appear later in this discussion.
     A summary of the aboveground and underground component cost analysis
is presented in Section B.2.  Section B.3 presents  the per-facility cost
results for retrofitting an existing facility, and  Section  B.4 presents
the costs for installation during the construction  of a new facility.
8.2  COMPONENT COSTS
     This section presents the capital and annualized costs of both the
aboveground (B.2.1) and underground (B.2.2) equipment components of a
Stage II system retrofitted to an existing service  station.  This
analysis incorporates the conclusion of Appendix I, which evaluated
Stage II dispenser configurations.  The analysis presented  here  assumes
that all existing and new facilities incorporate coaxial hose configurations
and that one—fourth of the existing and three-fourths of the new
facilities will incorporate multiproduct dispensers.
     The capital cost data for all Stage II vapor recovery  systems were
re-evaluated and broken down into aboveground costs, which  include
the costs for dispenser components, and underground costs,  which include
the installation cost of an underground piping system.  The capital

                                  B-3

-------
recovery cost factor used to calculate annualized costs was based on an
equipment life of 8 years for the dispenser and auxiliary equipment,
and 35 years for the underground piping system.
B.2.1.  Aboveground Costs
     To calculate aboveground costs, EPA obtained a list of the above-
ground components certified for use in California.  The vendors of the
components on this list were then contacted to obtain a current retail
price for each component.  Finally, the price range for each individual
component type was averaged to arrive at a single price for each compo-
nent type.
     Table B-l contains a component list of the equipment necessary to
modify an existing dispenser into a balance, or Hirt, Stage II vapor
recovery dispenser.  This equipment list was obtained from an Executive
Order issued by the State of California Air Resources Board (G-70-52-AE:
Exhibit 2) (I-F-113)* and represents the equipment certified for use in
the Stage II systems.  This table provides a list of manufacturers and
model numbers for each piece of equipment; other makes of the same
equipment are not certified and, thus, may not be used in California.
This Executive Order also presents exhibits (Exhibits 4-10) that depict
the dispenser configurations that may be used (see Figures B-l, through
B-7).  Exhibits 8 through 10 depict multi-product dispensers,.  Multi-
product dispensers, which are relatively new, offer three grades of
product on each side of the dispenser (six nozzles per dispenser).
     B.2.1.1  Pispenser'Modification'Equipment Costs (Not Including
              Nozzles)
     A specific subset of the component list shown in Table B-l is
applicable to each exhibit, thereby providing a different cost for each
exhibit.  The manufacturers of the components listed in Table B-l were
contacted to obtain current costs.  These costs for each dispenser
type are summarized by exhibit number in Table B-2.  This table lists
the lowest, highest, and average price of each component within each
exhibit configuration.  In this manner, an average cost has been
obtained for the exhibit configurations shown in Figures B-l through
B-7.  Based on the conclusions of Appendix I, the cost analysis
*Numbers indicated in this format are references (Section B.S)  and cor-
 respond to docket item numbers in Docket No. A-84-07.
                                  B-4

-------
  Table B-l.  COMPONENT LIST FOR BALANCE OR HIRT  STAGE  II VAPOR  RECOVERY  SYSTEMS
                             (from Reference  I-F-113)
Item/Manufacturer                                        Exhibit	
 and Model No.                         5    "T>~J     8      T     10*
Nozzles

Emco Wheaton A 3003                    X           XX
Emco Wheaton A 3005                          XX            XXX
Emco Wheaton A 3006                    X           XX
Emco Wheaton A 3007                          XX            XXX
OPW 7V-E (34,36,47,49)                 X           XX
OPW 7V-H (34,36,47,49,
          60-63)                       X           XX
OPW 11V-C (22,24,47,49)                X     X     X      X      X      X       X
OPW 11V-E (34,36,47,49)      •          X     X     X      X      X      X       X
  _,1-Re"tractor' _Hosei .Configura_tions
Ove rhead Hose Retracto rs        ~~
  Pomeco 100A, B, C                    XX
  Pomeco 102                           X     X
  Petro-Vend PV-8                      X     X
  CNI Series 9900,
   9910 and 9930                       X     X
  Dresser Wayne
   Model 390-IL                                     XXX
  Gasboy Model 90-750-2                X     X
  Gil barco
High-Retractor Dispensers
  Dresser Wayne
    Series 370/380                                  X
  Dresser Wayne Decade
    Marketer Series 310/320                               X
  Gasboy Series 50                     X     X
  Tokheim Series 162                   XX
  Dresser Wayne Series 390 MGD                                  X
  Tokheim Models 330A and 333A MMD                              X

          Hose
Dispensers     .    .. .
  Gilbarco MPD

Co ax i a1  Ho s e As s emb1y
B.£. Go odri ch Co-Ax

Liquid Removal  Jays terns
Gilbarco Venturi
(Table concluded on next page.)


                                        B-5

-------
                Table B-l.  COMPONENT LIST FOR BALANCE OR HIRT STAGE II
                               VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
                        (from Reference I-F-113)  (concluded)      ;
It em/Manu facturer
and Model No.
Swivel s
Nozzle
Pomeco Model 7
Husky I-VI
Emco Wheaton
A 4110-001(45°)
A 4113-001(90°)
OPW 43
OPW 43-C (45°)
OPW 43-T
OPW 33-CV
Island
Etnco Wheaton
A 93-001
OPW 36-C
Dispenser
Emco Wheaton
A 4113-001 (90°)
Emco Wheaton
A 92-001
Wedgon PS 3445 VRM
Retractor Swivel
Exhibit
45678


X XX
XV \f
A- ~ X

X . X
X
X XX
X X
X XX
X XX


X
X


X

X
X X

  Searle Leather
    & Packing B-1399
  or State Fire Marshal
  approved equivalent

Flow Limiter
  Eracb tfheaton A-10 or
  State Fire Marshal
  approved equivalent
                                                                           10
Recirculation Trapsa
Emco Wheaton
A 008-001
Emco Wheaton
A 94-001
Emco Wheaton
A 95-001
OPW 78, 789-S.,
78E, 78-ES

X

X
'
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
a
 Due to the law In California requiring all balance systems to have high-hang
 retractors by 1986, recirculation traps will no longer be required after 1986.

                                   B-6

-------
Figure  8-1.
     Exhibit-4,  Twin Hose  Side-Mount High-Retractor Configuration
                      (from reference  I-F-113)
                                           /
                                               Overhead Hose Retractor
                                              Nozzle
                                               Multi-plane swivel on vapor ana liquid Hose.
                                           7 Gasoline liquid  hose length stall  be  selected
                                           / ana hose Installs*  to avoid interference
                                         /    wltft vapor Hose  operation.
                                              5/8-1 ncn or larger I.O/ (3/4 inch or larger
                                              1.0. for Hire system and 12 gpra).  Vapor
                                              Hose, vapor hose  length as needed to permit
                                              natural  drainage  into vapor return piping
                                              when retractor Is In retracted position, ana
                                              still avala kinking when fully extended.
          Swivel  .
          State Fire Marshal approved
          0.4-95 Inches 1.0. minimum
          45* with stops
                                 Riser
                                 3/4-1 nca or  larger inside diameter
                                 galvanized pipe
    Motes:
• 1.
 2.
            3.
            4.
            5.
See Exhibit 2  for zfte component 11st.
A flow lliaiter 1s requires on  all  dispensers using Erneo Hheaton nozzles
except tfte Hire svstesi using Emco  Wheaton Model A3036 and  3/4-mcft vapor
hoses.
A reclrculatlon trap is not raqulrea.                            —
Use appropriate hose ties.
Vapor return piping my He Installed on the Inside or on the outside of
the dispenser  cabinet.
                                             B-7

-------
Figure  B-2.
 Exhibit-5, Coaxial  Hose Side-Mount  High-Retractor Configuration
                 (from reference  I-F-113)
                                         Overhead hose retractor
                                         Retractor swivel!
                                           Coaxial nose assembly
                                        Nozzle
                                        Nozzle swivel
                                        Gasoline  fluid Hose
                                        (or piping  Inslas dispenser)
                                     _-- assembly slowad  to permit natural
                                    drainage Into vapor return piping wnen
                                    retractor 1s 1n retracted position.
  Riser
  3/4-1ncn or larger Inside
  diameter galvanized pipe
                                                 Island Swivel
                                                 (axis of swivel may be rotated 90"' from
                                                 orientation  shown)
Notes;
            1.
            2.
            3.
            4.
See Exhibit 2  for tne component 11st.
A flow llaitsr 1s reoulrea an all dispensers using Emco Wneaton nozzles
except the Hfrt system using Emco Mheaton Model  A3Q96 ana 3/4»1ncfl  vapor
hoses.
A reclrculatlon trap Is not required. .
Vapor return piping may be Installed an tne Inside or on tne outsiae of
tfle dispenser  cabinet.
                              B-8

-------
Figure  B-3.
Exhibit-6,  Twin  Hose  or  Coaxial  Hose  Dispenser-Mount,  High-Retractor
                          Configuration
                    (from reference  I-F-113)
                                                            Retractor

                                                            01spenser




                                                            Uozzle
                                                         Gasoline liquid nose length shall  be
                                                         selected ana  hose Installed to avoid
                                                         Interference  with vapor hose operation.
                                                          Multl-plane swivels on vapor and liquid
                                                          hose.
                                                      5/8~inefl or larger 1.0.  (3/4-incft or
                                                      larger 1.0. for H1rt System ana 12 gpra)
                                                      vapor hose.  Vapor hose  lengtn 43 needed
                                                      to permit natural  drainage Into vapor
                                                      return piping wftan retractor 1$ in return
                                                      position and still avoid kinking wnen fully
                                                      extended.
                                                     Swivel
                                                     State F1rfc Marshal approved 0.495 Inert 1.0.
                                                     piping.   4S* vritn stops.
         Motes;   1.  See Exhibit Z for ttie component 11st.
                 2.  A  flow Hmlter 1s required on all  dispensers using Emco Mheaton nozzles
                    except the H1rt system using Eraeo  Wheaton Model A3096 and 3/4-inch vapor
                    hoses.
                 3.  A  redrculatlofl trap 1s not required.
                 4,  Use appropriate hose ties.
                 5.  Vapor return piping nay be Installed on  tlte Inside or on tne outside of
                    tiie dispenser cabinet.
                 S,  Riser, 3/4-lncn or larger Inside diameter galvanized pipe.
                                                   B-9

-------
Figure  B-4.
Exnibit-7,  Twin  Hose  Dispenser-Mount,  High-Retractor Configuration
                     (from reference  I-F-113)
               Dispenser
       S/8"  or larger LO.
       (3/4-tneft or larger
       1.0.  for Hlrt
       Systeo  and 12 gpat)
       vapor fios«.
                   Nozzle
                                      Retractor w1tn dual-nose
                                      clamp or single nose clamp.
                                       Hose tie raps applies approx-
                                       imately every foot to nold
                                       vapor and product hoses
                                       together.
                                       Multl-plane swivel required
                                       on nozzle end of ttie vapor
                                       ana liquid noses..
                                                              height above  Island.
           Notes:  1.  See Exhibit 2 for tlse component 11st.
                  2.  A flow Unrtter 1s required on all dispensers using Emco Wheaton nozzles
                      excapt tne Hlrt system using Eisco Mheaton Model A3096 and 3/4-ln«sh vapor
                      noses.
                  3.  A rtctrculatloit trap Is not required.
                  4.  Hose swivels not required at dispenser end  of noses.
                  5.  Riser must 6e 3/4-lnef» or larger Inside diameter galvanized pipe.
                                                    B-10

-------
Figure  B-5.  Exh1b1t-8, High  Retractor Dispenser-Coaxial  Configuration
               For  All  New  And  Existing  Installations  (from  Reference I-F-113)
                                                                        Retractor and
                                                                        Hose Clamp
                                                                       Coaxial Hose
f                                                                          Swivel  (Optional
                                                                       or Tokheim HMDs)
 Dispenser
  :as:
  1.
  2.
.-3.
       4.
       5.
       5.

       7.
       8.
. Use a 1  Inch or larger inside diameter galvanized pipe for r+ser
 A rectrailation trap is not requirtd.
-A flow limiter is required on dispensers that have a maximum flowrate in excess
 of 10 gpn.  A flow litirtter ray be required on all  gasoline dispensers at the
 option of the local air pollution control district.
 For d1spenseri§lanas greater than 4 feet in width, each vapor hose length,
 shall not be~T3nfer than the sum of one-half the  dispenser island width, in
 feet, plus  7 feat.
 For dispenser islands less than 4 feet, the maximum hose length is 9 feet.
 Coaxfal  hose stiffeners must be included and long enough to {wavent kinking
 or flattening of hose.
 Retractor must retftct coaxial hose to top of dispensers when not in use.
 Tension  on  retractor hosa clamp -must not be 1n excess of that requirtd to
 return hose to top .of dispenser.
 The Bnco Wheaton Model A4000 series nozzles and the OPW 11v Model F vapor
 recovery nozzles are permitted only when used in  conjunction with approved
 vapor check valves.
                                            B-ll

-------
    Figure B-6.  Exhibit  9, High-Hang  Hose Configuration With
                   Retractor For All  New And Existing Installations
                   (from Reference  I-F-113)
Location of.vapor
check valve; if
required.
                              ODD
Hose -Retractor

Swivel
                                                                  Coaxial Hose
                                                                  Assembly
                                                                 Nozzle
                                                                 90° and a 4S° nozzle
                                                                 swivel or a 4S° swivel
                                                                 and Z4" of stiff hose.
Notes:   1.   Use a 1 inch or larger inside diameter galvanized pipe for riser.
        E.   A ree1reulat1on trap is not required.
        3..   A flow linrftsr is required on dispensers that  have a maximum flowratai in excess
            of 10 gpnu  A flow Unrfter may at required on  all gasoline dispensers at the
            option of the local air pollution control  district.
        4   For dispensers islands greater than 4 fee's in  width, each vapor hose'length
            shall not be longer than the sum of one-half the dispenser island width, in
            feet plus 7 1/2 feet.
        S.   Far dispenser islands less than 4 feet, the maximum hose length is 9 1/2 feet.
        6.   Coaxial hosa stlffeners must be included and long enough to prevent kinking
            or flattening of hose.
        7.   Retractor must retract coaxial hose to top of  dispensers when.not in use.
        8.   Tension on retractor hose clamp must not be in  excess of that required to
            return hose ta top of dispenser.
        9.   90° swivel is not required if hose stiffener at nozzle is >24 inches in length.
       10.   Tht Quco Hheaton Model A4000 series nozzles and the OPW HIT Model F vapor
            recovery nozzles are permitted only when used  in conjunction with approved vapor
            check valves.  *  ,
                                          B-12

-------
   Figure B-7.
Exhibit 10,  High-Hang Coaxial  Hose Configuration
With Liquid  Removal  System For All New And Existing
Installations  (from  I-F-113)
                                                               Location of vapor chick
                                                               valve, if required.
                                                              Coaxial Hose Assembly
                                                  •fate—nr*S.  Venturl
Motes:   1.  Use a 1 inch or larger inside diameter galvanized pipe for riser.

        1.  A recirctilatlon trap 1s not required.

        3;  Hosa length * 10  1/2 ft. maximum.

        4," Coaxial hose sffffeners nwst ba included and lonf enough to prevent kinking
           or flattening of  hose.

        5.  An MIS certified  liquid removal system must be installed and tnaintained
           according to manufacturer's specifications.

        S.  A flow linrftar is required on all  dispensers that have a maximum flowrate
           1n excess of 10 gpn.  A flow limiter may be required on all gasoline
         •  dispensers at the.option of the local air pollution control district.

        7.  The  Sneo Wheaton'Hodal A4000 series nozzles and the QPW 11V Model f vapor
            recovery nozzles are permitted only when used in conjunction with approved
            vapor check valves.
                                          B-13

-------
        Table B-2.  BALANCE SYSTEM DISPENSER MODIFICATION  EQUIPMENT PURCHASE  COST3
                                         ($/Nozzle)
   EXHIBIT 4 - Twin Hose Side-Mount
                                          LOW
Cost of Component

  HIGH            AVERAGE
High Hose Retractor
Swivels for Nozzles
Swivels for Is! or Disp
Swivels for Retract
Flow Li miter
Hose
Disp-Hook & Handle
Total Purchase Cost
EXHIBIT 5 - Coaxial Hose Side-Mount
High Hose Retractor
Swivel s-Nozzles
Swivel s-Isl or Disp
Swivels-Retract
Flow Li miter
Hose
Disp-Hook & Handle
Total Purchase Cost
EXHIBIT 6 - Twin or Coaxial Hose
Dispenser-Mount (Average
High Hose Retractor
Swivels-Nozzles
Swivel s-Isl or Disp
Swi vel s-Retract
Flow Li miter
Hose
Disp-Hook & Handle
Total Purchase Cost
EXHIBIT 7 - Twin Hose Dispenser-
Mount
High Hose Retractor
Swivels- Nozzles
Swi vel s-Isl or Disp
Swivels-Retract
Flow Li miter
Hose
Disp-Hook & Handle
Total Purchase Cost
94.00
42.4U
21 .bO
0.00
20.00
" 13.50"
16.00
207.40

94.00
40.00
58.80
8.08
20.00
100.00
16.00
336.88

of twin
94.00
42.40
21.50
0.00
20.00
56.75
16.00
250.65

94.00
42.40
0.00
8.08
20.00
13.50
16.00
193.98
102.50
75.00
21.50
0.00
20.00
~35.28
38.00
292.28

102.50
58.80
82.10
8.08
20.00
100.00
38.00
409.48

and coaxial presented)
102.50
75.00
21.50
0.00
20.00
67.64
38.00
324.64

102.50
75.00
0.00
8.08
20.00
35.28
38.00
278.86
96.08
54.87
21.50
0.00
20.00
24.39
27.00
243.84

96.08
49.40
70.45
8.08
20.00
100.00
27.00
371.01


96.08
54.87
21.50
0.00
20.00
62.20
27.00
281.65

96.08
54.87
0.00
8.08
2U.OO
24.39
27.00
230.42
aSee docket entries I-E-18, I-E-19, I-E-20, I-E-22, I-E-26, I-E-27, I-E-28, I-E-31,
 I-E-32, I-E-58, I-E-62, I-E-63, I-E-64, I-E-65, I-E-66, I-E-67, I-F-11U, and I-F-111,
                                           B.I a

-------
        Table 8-2.  BALANCE SYSTEM DISPENSER MODIFICATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASE COST*
                                     (I/Nozzle)
                                    (concluded)
EXHIBIT 8 - Coaxial High Retractor
                                       LOW

Overhead Hose Retractor                94,00
Swivels for Nozzles                    80.00
Swivels for Isl. or Uisp.               0.00
Swivels for Retractor                  40.00
Flow Limiter                           20.00
Hose                                   90.00
Liquid Removal Venturi                  0.00
Dispenser Modification                 38.00

                                      362

EXHIBIT 9 - High-Hang Hose

Overhead Hose Retractor                85.84
Swivels for Nozzles                    80.00
Swivels for Isl. or Uisp.               0.00
Swivels for Retractor                  40.00
Flow Li miter                           20.00
Hose                                   95.00
Liquid Removal Venturi                  0.00
Dispenser Modification                 54.17

                                      375.01

EXHIBIT 10 - Coaxial High-Hang Hose with
             Liquid Removal  System
             Cost of Component

               HIGH            AVERAGE
Overhead Hose Retractor
Swivels for Nozzles
Swivels for Isl. or Disp.
Swivels for Retractor
Flow Li miter
Hose
Liquid Removal  Venturi
Dispenser Modification
  0.00
 40.00
  0.00
 40.00
 20.00
105.00
200.00
 54.17

459.17
              102.50
              117.60
                0.00
               58.80
               20.00
              112.50
                0.00
               55.00

              466.4
              100.00
              117.60
                0.00
               58.80
               20.00
              118.17
                0.00
               54.17

              469.32
  0.00
 58.80
  0.00
 58.80
 20.00
131.25
200.00
 54.17

523.02
                  96.08
                  98.80
                   0.00
                  49.40
                  20.00
                 103.45
                   0.00
                  46.50

                 414.23
                  92.92
                  98.80
                   0.00
                  49.40
                  20.00
                 108.92
                   0.00
                  54.17

                 424.21
  0.00
 49.40
  0.00
 49.40
 20.00
119.82
200.00
 54.17

492.79
 Average Total Purchase Cost*3
                               354.75
 bAverage cost analysis of 75 percent coaxial  single dispensers (Exhibits 5 and 6)
  and 25 percent coaxial  multiproduct dispensers (Exhibits 8 through 10).
                                        B-15

-------
is based on the use of all coaxial hoses and 75 percent single dispensers
(average of exhibits 5 and 6) and 25 percent multiproduct dispensers
(average of Exhibits 8-1U).  This weighted average cost was used as the
purchase cost incurred when modifying a standard dispenser to a vapor
recovery equipped dispenser utilizing a balance Stage II vapor recovery
system.
     The dispenser modification equipment list for the Hybrid system
was obtained directly from the manufacturer of the hybrid system    	  "
(I-E-25), and includes the Model 1UO jet pump. Model  CX-6 adapter.
Model S swivel, Model CX hose, Model 143 control valve, and an instal-
lation kit.  The total price is $435 per nozzle.
     The dispenser modification equipment cost (excluding nozzles) for
the Assist-! system is the same as that for the balance system: (i.e.,
about $355), plus the cost of a ball check valve ($16.95, I-E-23).
Thus, the total unit price for dispenser modification equipment for the
Assist-1 system was estimated to be $367 per nozzle.
     The dispenser modification cost for the Assist-2 system was obtained
directly from the manufacturer of the system (I-F-106), and includes
the Hasstech vapor hose, ITT flow control valve, A.Y. McDonald impact
valve, hose swivels, and Hasstech Model 1025 flame arrestor.  The unit
price is $205.
     Tables B-3 through B-7 present the aboveground direct costs that
would bi incurred for each model plant.  These tables include the
component costs for the balance system, the Hybrid System (Healy) and
the vacuum assist system (Hirt = Assist-1, Hasstech = Assist-2).  Table
B-8 outlines the information on nozzles and islands assumed in the cost
analysis for each model plant.  The data for single dispensers include
the same nozzle-per-station assumptions used in the 1984 EPA analysis
found in "Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline
Marketing Industry," EPA-450/3-84-012a (I-A-5S).  The assumptions for
the multiproduct dispensers (MPD's) include the installation of one
4-nozzle MPD to replace each 3-dispenser island.  An  uneven number of
nozzles results from the 75/25 weighting of the nozzles associated with
single/multiproduct dispensers.
                                  B-16

-------
            TABLE  B-3.   MODEL PLANT  1  STAGE  II  ABOVEGROUND  DIRECT COST
fiSQVEBROlM) COMPONENTS       UNIT COST                                 OF COMPONENTS
                                          BflL-I         BflL-M        HYBRID      fiSSlST-1      flSSIST-2
DISPENSER COMPONENTS
NOZZLE BfiLANCE (a)
HYBRID (b)
NOZZLE ftSS!ST-i (c)'
NOZZLE flSSIST-2 
-------
           TABLE B-4.   MODEL PLANT  2  STAGE  II  ABOVEGROUND  DIRECT  COST
flBW/EBROtKD COMPONENTS       UNIT COST
                                        JflL-I        BftL-M        HYBRID     flSSIST-l     flSSlST-2
DISPENSER COWONEMTS
NOZZLE BALANCE (a)
NOZZLE HYBRID 
MOD EQUIP BflLflNCE (e)
HOD EQUIP HYBRID (f )
HDD EQUIP flSSIST-l <|)
MOD EQUIP 8SSIST-2 (h)
fltlXILIffly ITE*S (i>
ftSSIST-1
ftSSIST-2
ItBTflLLflTIOH
(j)
HYBRID DISPENSER (ID
ftSSIST-1 DISPENSER (1)
ftSSIST-2 DISPENSER (•)
flSSIST-1 fiUXILIBHY (n)
mmm M
mmmR PURcmse COST
flUX ITEMS PURCHASE COST
DISP INSTftLAHOH COST
MX INSTALLATION COST
DISPEN^R DIRECT COST
flUX ITEMS DIRECT CUT
TOTft. DIRECT COST

197
215
178
124
355 - -
435
37£
205

3,975
3,90@

as
m
45
5@
I,4t8
1,2^8








3.25



- 3.25 ••







3.25





1,793
0
2E0
3
2,053
0
2,053

3.25



3.25







3.25





1,793
0
260
0
2,053
0
2,053


3.25



3.25







3.25




2,113
0
325
0
2,438
0
2,438



3.2S
3.15


3.23
3.25

i.m
l.iB



3.25
3.
-------
            TABLE  B-5.    MODEL PLANT  3  STAGE  II  ABOVEGROUND DIRECT COST
ABQVESROUND COMPONENTS      UNIT COST                          NUMBER OF COMPONENTS
                                         BflL-I         BflL-M        HYBRID      fiSSIST-i      ASSIST-2
DISPENSER COMPONENTS
NOZZLE BALANCE (a)
NOZZLE HYBRID (b)
NOZZLE ASSIST-! (c)
NOZZLE ASSIST-2 (d)
HOD EQUIP BALANCE (e)
ROD EQUIP HYBRID (f)
NOD EQUIP ASSIST-1 (g)
HOD EQUIP ASSIST-2 (h)
AUXILIARY ITEMS (i)
flSSIST-i
ASSIST-2
INSTALLATION
BALANCE DISPENSER 
HYBRID DISPENSER (k)
ASSIST-! DISPENSER U)
ASSIST-2 DISPENSER (a)
ASSIST-1 AUXILIARY (n)
ASSIST-2 AUXILIARY (o)
DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUX ITEHS PURCHASE COST
DISP INSTALLATION COST
AUX INSTALLATION COST
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUX ITEHS DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST

197
215
178
124
355
435
372
205

3,975
3,988

88
188
45
- 58
1,488
1,208








6.50 5.50



6.50 6.50







6.58 6.58





3,586 3,586
8 8
528 528
8 0
4,106 4,106
8 8
4,106 4,186


6.58



6.58







6.58




4,225
8
650
8
4,875
8
4,875



6.50



6.58


1.88




Da %Jw

1.80

3,570
3,975
293
1,408
3,863
5,375
9,238




6.58



6.58


1.08




6.58

1.39
2,139
3,908
325
1,209
2,464
5,108
7,564
* Weighted average costs assuming 75 percent single dispensers and
  25 percent nultiproduct dispensers.
                                            B-19

-------
           TABLE  B-6.    MODEL  PLANT  4 STAGE II ABOVEGROt'ND DIRECT COST
                       UNIT COST                              OF

DISPENSER COflPQNENTS
NOZZLE BftLflfCE (a)
NOZZLE HYBRID (h)
fiSSIST-1 (c)
NOZZLE fiSSIST-2 (d>
m EQUIP BfiLAHCE (e)
HOD EQUIP HYBRID (f)
NOD EHJIP ftSSIST-1 (|)
NOD EQUIP fiSSIST-2 (M
flUXIUftRY ITEMS (i)
. flSSIST-i
flSSIBT-2
WSTftlflTION
BftuwcE (j)
(k)
ftSSlST-1 DISPEHSER CD
fiSSIST-S DISPENSER (•)
fiSSIST-i AUXILIftRY (n)
ISS1ST-2 MJXILIflRY (o)
COST
fflJX ITEMS PURCHSSE COST
DISP INSTftlATIQH COST
MIX INSTflLLflTION COST
DIRECT COST
WJX ITEMS COST
TOTflL DIRECT COST


197
215
178
124
355
435
372
205

3,975
3,909

88
109
45
59
1,403
1,SN







BftL-I

9.75



9.75







i.75





5,380
0
788
0
6,1S0
0
MM
BflL-M

9.75



9.75







9.75





5,380
0
780
0
6,169
0
6,160
HYBRID


9.75
'9.75


9.75
9.75


1.WI



9.75
9.75

1.00

6,338
0 3,975
975 439
0 1,400
7,313 5,794
0 5j375
7,313 11,189
ftSSIST-2




9.75



9.75


1.0*




9.75

1.08
3, £28
3,900
4B8
1,296
3,695
5,108
8,795
f Weighted average costs assuming 75 percent single dispensers and
  85 percent aultiproduct dispensers.
                                        B-20

-------
           TABLE  B-7.    MODEL PLANT  5  STAGE II  ABOVEGROUND  DIRECT  COST
ABQVEEROUND COMPONENTS       UNIT COST                          NUMBER OF COMPONENTS
                                         BfiL-1         BAL-M       HYBRID      ASSIST-1      fiSSIST-£
DISPENSER COMPONENTS
NOZZLE BALANCE (a)
NOZZLE HYBRID (b)
NOZZLE ASSIST-1 (c)
NOZZLE ASSIST-2 (d)
MOD EQUIP BALANCE (e)
MOD EQUIP HYBRID (f)
HOD EQUIP ASSIST-1 (g)
MOD EQUIP ASSIST-2 (h)
AUXILIARY ITEMS (i)
ASSIST-1
ASSIST-2
INSTALLATION
BALANCE DISPENSER (j)
HYBRID DISPENSER (k)
ASSIST-1 DISPENSER (1)
ASSIST-2 DISPENSER to)
ASSIST-1 AUXILIARY (n)
ASSIST-2 AUXILIARY (o)
DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUX ITEMS PURCHASE COST
DISP INSTALLATION COST
AUX INSTALLATION COST
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUX ITEMS DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST

197
215
178
124
355
435
372
285

3,975
3,988

88
100
45
50
1,408
1,200








16.25



16.25







16.25





8,966
0
1,300
0
10,266
0
10,266

16.25
16.25


16.25
16.25






16.25
16.25




8,966 10,563
0 8
1,300 1,625
0 0
10,266 12,188
0 0
10,266 12,188



16.25



16.25


1.00



.
16.25

1.00

8,925
3,975
731
1,400
9,657
5,375
15,032




16.25



16.25


1.03




16.25

1.08
5,346
3,900
813
1,288
6,159
5,108
11,259
* Weighted average costs assuming 75 percent single dispensers and
  25 percent raultiproduct dispensers.
                                          B-21

-------
                  FOOTNOTES FOR TABLES 8-3 THROUGH B-7
aAverage cost of new nozzles certified by California for use with a
 balance system.  Costs for new nozzles range from $196 to $198
 (I-E-28, I-F-110,.ana I-F-111).

bActua! cost of a new Healy Model 200 nozzle (I-E-25).

cAverage costs of new nozzles certified by California for use with the
 H1rt system.  Costs of new nozzles range from $151 to $198 (I-E-28,
 I-F-110, and I-F-111 ).^

^Actual costs of a new Husky Model HP-2 nozzle.  Reference I-F-106
 states that eight of these nozzles cost $992.

Modification equipment includes the average cost of the high-hang
 retractor system, swivels, flow limiter, and hoses as certified by
 California (see Tables B-l and B-2).

^Modification equipment Includes the Model 100 jet pump, Model CX-6
 adapter, Model S swivel,  Model CX hose, Model 143 control valve, and
 an Installation kit (I-E-25).

9Mod1f1cation equipment includes the same equipment as listed for the
 balance system (footnote  "f") plus a $16.95 ball check valve (I-E-23
 and Tables B-l and B-2).

hMod1f1cation equipment includes the Hasstech vapor hose, ITT flow
 control valve, A.Y. McDonald impact valve, hose swivels, and Hasstech
 Model 1025 flame arrestor (I-F-106).

^Auxiliary equipment includes a P/V valve, collection unit, and pro-
 cessing unit (I-E-35 and  I-F-106).

^Reference I-E-46.

^Reference I-E-25.

^Reference I-E-35.

"^Reference I-F-106--states  installation for an 8-nozzle station costs
 $400.00.

"Reference I-E-35.

°Electr1cal Installation costs $500 and base unit installation costs
 $700 (I-F-106).
                                  B-22

-------
                                     Table  B-8.   MUuEL PLANT CONFIGURATIONS9
ro
to
Parameter
Average Monthly
Throughput (gal /mo)
Throughput Range (gal /mo)
No. of Islands
No. of Nozzles
- Single Dispensers
- Multiproduct dispensers
- Weighted averaged
No. of Dispensers
- Single Dispensers
- Multiproduct dispensers
1
5,000

0-10,000
1

2^
4
2.50
2c
2C
1
2
20,000

10,OUO-25,UOO
1

3
4
3.25
3
3
1
Model Plant
3
35,000

25,000-50,000
2

6
8
6.50
6
6
2
4
65,000

50,000-100,000
3

9
12
9.75
9
9
3
5
185,000

> 100,000
4

15b
20
16.25
12
12
5
        aA typical  island contains  three single  nozzle dispensers  for  each  gasoline type (i.e.,  leaded,
         unleaded,  and unleaded  premium).

        DThree islands have dual  nozzle  dispensers.

        c€ontains a single nozzle dispenser for  leaded and unleaded  only.

        ^Weighted average for existing facilities  =  75 percent  single  dispensers  and 25  percent  multiproduct
         dispensers.  (Weighted  average  for new  facilities =  25 percent  single  dispensers and 75 percent
         multiproduct dispensers).

-------
     B.2.1.2  Nozzle Costs
     The unit cost for each nozzle type shown In Tables B-3 through B-7
represents the cost of a new vapor recovery nozzle for each specific
system manufacturer.  The cost shown for a balance system nozzle is an
average of several prices obtained from manufacturers of the approved
nozzles listed in Table B-l (i.e., Emco Wheaton, OPW, References I-E-28,
I-F-110, and I-F-111).  The new vapor recovery nozzles cost from $196
to $198, and thus a price of $197 for both balance-individual  nozzles
and balance-manifolded nozzles was used.  These cost were later
verified by again contacting the equipment manufacturers (I-E-6b,
I-E-66) and reflect the costs of the newest light-weight certified
nozzles.
     The unit cost shown in Tables B-3 through B-7 for the Assist-1
nozzle 1s an average cost of new nozzles certified by California for use
with the Hirt system.  Costs were obtained from the manufacturers of
the nozzles used with this system (I-E-28, I-F-11U, and I-F-111).  The
prices ranged from $157 to $198, and thus the average unit price of
$178 was used.
     The Assist-2 nozzle unit cost shown in Tables B-3 through B-7 is
the actual cost of the Husky Model HP-2 nozzle (I-F-1U6).
     While rebuilt nozzles are available as replacement equipment,, new
nozzle prices were used in the estimation of costs because information
on the use and durability of rebuilt nozzles was not available to EPA
when these costs were being collected.
     B.2.1.3  Pispehser Instal1 at1 on'Costs
     The balance system costs were obtained from one contractor
(I-E-46) who estimated that it would take 2 man-days to install all
aboveground equipment at a two-island six-nozzle station.  The
following shows the information obtained and how the unit costs for a
balance system were calculated:
          2 man-days at $200/day          -  $400,
          Profit (20%)                    =  $ 80,
          Total  cost for 6-nozzle station =  $480,
          Unit cost for 1-nozzle station  =  $ 80.
     The Hybrid, Assist-1,- and Assist-2 dispenser installation costs,
obtained directly from the manufacturers of these systems, are $100,
$"4b, and $50 per nozzle, respectively (I-E-25, I-E-35, and I-F-106).

                                  B-24

-------
     8.2.1.4  Auxiliary Equipment and Installation
     The auxiliary items for the Asslst-1 and Assist-2 systems
Include a pressure/vacuum (P/V) valve, blower collection unit, and
processing unit.  The costs for these items and their installation were
obtained directly from the system manufacturers (I-E-35 and I-F-106).
The costs for auxiliary items for Assist-1 and Assist-2 systems are
$3»97b and $3,9UO, respectively, while the installation of these items
costs $1,400 and $1,200, respectively,
B.2.2  Underground Costs
     To estimate the costs of the underground piping systems, the lay-
out of each model plant had to be determined.  A representative equip-
ment configuration was then determined for each model plant and, for
each configuration, costs were estimated.
     B.2.2.1  Station Layout and EquipmentConf igurat 1 on
     A survey of about 40 service stations was performed around the
Research Triangle Park area in North Carolina.  No one specific layout
was a rule for a specific model plant, but general tendencies in design
and average distances between islands, storage tanks, and stations were
determined.  The general design guidelines chosen to establish the
layout of each model plant are as follows:
     1.  The storage tanks are approximately 50 feet away from the main
         service island.
     2.  There is approximately 24 feet between adjacent service
         islands and station building.
     3.  Vent risers were typically located on the side of the station
         building.
Figures B-8 through 8-12 incorporate these guidelines to provide a
"reasonable" service station layout for each model plant.  An infinite
number of layouts is possible; however, the layouts presented supply
the necessary means to calculate reasonable costs for the underground
piping systems.
     After the model plant layouts were determined, the underground
piping was designed.  Several guidelines were used:
     1.  Vapor recovery lines are located away from product lines as
         much as possible to avoid disruption of the existing product
         lines (I-E-39).
                                  B-25

-------
CO
1
no
  '
                 a.  Individual Balance and Hybrid Systems
                 litiri
 ILL- "'«  9 _1
 « I   luiulir  i    I f
 ! '        I   -* I
 J I   MuMI    I I
 4- *£  l-H
                   c. Assist-1 System
                   — -- »ut|af tocw«rr llm«
                   ——^»«*i« tl»M
n
Vtot
Hilirl
                               1" Ho,
.if-i^  i-f

 i^	—n
 »_J-_ «nl»«««*
  |   H«pl>r
                                                         «*!«*»
                                               Stnlu (iliM-
                                                           Stills,
                                                       -fc=-^Z- »M
                                                                  b. Manifolded Balance Systen
                                                                                      f r**Kt tUM
                                                                                      llfttt
                                                                                ti
                                                                                >Ml
                                                                                Ilitn
                                                                                111
                                                                                  -

                                                                   d.  Assist-2 System
                                                                                >.—^,ttir
                                                                                        tin if ru
                                                                                        ? «H —
                                                                                     MlttUr

                                                                                            	-,-E.IWZ,

                                                                                            i*nr1ct Island -HMJ  Tl
                                           Figure B-8.  Stage I! Underground Piping Layouts  for Model Plant 1

-------
              a.  Individual  Balance  and Hybrid  Systems
                S««tl««
                                      ---- (IMF iKinrir M
                                       - tntuct llHi
                                              10 hit >...-. ................... l
                                                               I»
                                                              »««
                                                              Hun
                        *~ Str""
                                                    !s ;x  HJ;J
                                                 I    II        I H
                                               ,., I  . J  MI tun —LJI
                                                 |    , ttgiMr    f  }
                                                       *li.
-------
ca
i
oo
a. Indi
Kill*.
?
1"
vidual Balance and Hybrid Systeras
~ — - - »«|w •KMKJ UNI
" II tat t^ 	 1
r"" r.
I"""1"



1 :
J
V
c. As
Stitlon
T "•!• m
|^— Jinrlc. HUM •• .j|(
	 	 }|J -|J"
	 1 > dnlir I ••
I »--!. 	 »::
I_L_ J «•!*• _L';
1 1 «H«lir 1 i
1 ' 	 1 — • 	 • !
I 1 	 ' Itel.^J 	 1 •

>sist-l System
	 	 »ipor IU"»tri LlMl

2- Pin )' "P« »m
	 .F-- •'• "I" 	 	 	 -• 	 ~ 	 1 »l««f«
ii!
6"
—




!

Kscrvtca Isltirf s 	 1 i *'•
1 Luiti - Jjll
	 i 	 ' 	 1 Mjalir | ••

i -•"-•• '"" -j || --
i Saoulir T i

!ltal,.dt4 i '
Prwluo 1
b.
*f&
1
•
JJbr
Manifolded Balance System
•H. w *•» *• f IMT l#ctti'4Jry liM'i
iir "'**d ~TJI
1 1 Oijulir 1 '
| . , i
I I Unltiltd I '
B ... .B .'.- __ &.«J
1 '«•!»• r
Ir- Smlu liluo • 	 1
         l_ U	J	
                        Figure B-1U.  Stage II Underground Piping Layouts for Model Plant 3

-------
a. Indiv
Stttlon

iduai Balance an
~ — — — tt|»f iMsvtfy If MI
10 F«t j i. 	 •• • nr |
ifir— —j^— -I — --------- --------J
• fl

d








...ML-..J J

CO
S c. ASJ
StltlM
L-S.rvlc. llUn4


VSW.IM MM

sist-1 System
- — - - Kinr lKi»lf> LlMl
id FMt » 	 •• 	 	 »
J- Mp, j. H|-
I]
t




1* Siralct IfM
L^ 	
i. 41 --I 	 1
U N
- -c

yoriu ays veins
'tj*-*— - Strtlei liMM
1
l
1
II
M
II
II
It
II '
HI
•M
JJJ r MH . w
!K 	 _ nit



-

I.jji i«<«< jj;j
• }i " 1 '!
a tfl
1 , \ ^I.« 	 i 1
" * 	 !::„;:„- * »
Ij MwM 1 j
frmtm J"

Stnrttt Itlnl
•*— - — « * Mtm


i "v"r I ,:
— . .. . •«
1... y****** I ,
fr»tnt f

1*1 • 1 ID
Station

[
11
	 uror Itonnr Km' II

*n


i




l




	 — -«i
l»— S«r»»M Ultwl III


f — >«r»f« tiling

d. A
SUtlOT
i
1
_ _ •»— Strvlc« Ijli
ni
1
1
1
1
J 3* Mpt
I// ¥Mt Kmltali Crw vi (
/\ / _/*v^^^rf'^ ** tr>
jfc* 1* Pip* ^JW
ttl
	 	 	 »««

4- j

j **
fr

ssist-2 System
U^*^-^
, tin of Int MMTI
*-C«11
-------
                a.  Individual  Balance  and Hybrid  Systems
             wsssss.s.sr:
             in
             1

             1..
                Snvtc* till*
             If
             II
             II

             !!*
                              ft
                                  f**«f »««
                                  W fit!
                              V
                              V
dHP
                              UllMlM

                             • itfiltr
                                                  b.  Manifolded Balance
ca
i .
CO
o
c. Asslst-1 System
                                                   d.  Ass 1st- 2  System
              fc a-
                           p
                                    Vt^fir
                              £
                                                        1 iuttt
                                                         MMdii

                                                         Itplir
                                                         IMuM

                                                         trmtm
                          Figure B-12.   Stage II  Underground Piping  Layouts  for Model  Plant  5

-------
     2.  One trench holds one or more vapor recovery lines.
     3.  Maximum pipe lengths equal 20 feet {for determination of the
         number of pipe couplings) (I-E-34).
     4.  Pipe sizes were obtained from applicable California Executive
         Orders (I-F-114, I-F-115, I-F-116, and I-F-117).
     B.2.2.2  Underground Equipment Costs
     Tables 8-9 through B-13 present the underground piping costs on a
model plant basis, as depicted by Figures B-8 through B-12.  All unit
costs for pipe (galvanized and fiberglass) were obtained from pipe
vendors in the Research Triangle Park area of North Carolina (I-E-33
and I-E-34).  In addition, one salesman stated that his company typi-
cally gives a 15 percent discount on all components purchased by major
plumbing contractors (I-E-33).  For estimating purposes, it was assumed
that the companies installing the underground piping would be major
contractors, so the unit costs shown have been discounted 15 percent.
     A complete breakdown of parts and prices is provided to enable
the costing of various piping layouts; however, the trench length of
the system is the overriding cost factor (about 70 percent of the total
costs of the underground system).
     The cost of the vent manifold drum for the manifolded balance sys-
tem is an engineering estimate; i.e., no specific quote could be
obtained at this- time.
     Information received from contractors (I-E-40 and I-E-44) also
indicated that approximately 20 percent (or fewer) of the tanks cur-
rently in use would need to be equipped with an extra bung to accept
the Stage II vapor recovery line.  The installed cost would be about
$3UO/bung (I-E-52).  Since all the model plants, except model  plant 1,
have three tanks, the cost of the bungs can be calculated as:  1 bung/
tank x $3UO/bung x .20 x 3 tanks/model plant ~ $18U/model plant.  For
model plant 1 the cost is:  1 bung/tank x $300/bung x .20 x 2 tanks/
model plant » $12U.
     8.2.2.3  Underground Instal1ation Costs
     Installation costs can be determined for the underground equip-
ment necessary for model plants 1 through 5 (Tables B-9 through B-13).
The cost of laying piping for an individual balance system is  the
same as for a manifolded balance system.  This is because the additional
time it takes to assemble the two extra lines to the storage tanks for

                                  B-31

-------
         TABLE B-9.  MODEL PLANT 1 STAGE  II UNDERGROUND DIRECT COST


8ftLVfiNnEB PIPE lal
1" PIPE (FT)
2" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
3/4" CLOSE NIPPLE
I" CLOSE NIPPLE
2" CLOSE NIPPLE
3" CLOSE NIPPLE
I" ELB0H
8" ELBOW
3* EUOH '
l» X 3/4" REDUCER
2" X 1* REDUCER
3" X 2»
2* X i* BUSHING
4" X 2* BUSHIN6
4" X 3'
1" UNION
2* TEE
FIBERSLftSS PIPE (bl
2" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
2" THREflDED ftBfiPTEB
3" THREflDED flDflPTER
2* ELBQH
3" ELBQH
2" TEE
3» TEE
2" CQUPUNS
3" GOUPLINe
3" X &* REDUCER
SLUED JUNCTIONS
MDITIOm ITEMS (c)
. 4" X 2" TftNK BUSHING
4' X 3' TfiNK
2" FLDftT CHECK VflLVE
VENT WNIFOLD DRUM Cd)
(e)
LMJR COMPONENTS
TRITONS (FT) (f)
fiSSOffllY (FT) i|)
TOTflL COST
TOTfiL INSTfiLLfiTION COST
TOTM. DIRECT COST
UNIT COST


0.89
1.88
3, K
0.46
0.70
1.42
5.41
1.51
4.48
28.11
1.73
3. 84
13.14
2.81
11.89
11.09
1.13
S.43

1.89
2.89
7.23
10.58
16.41
22.82
23.58
£6.61
4.58
7.23
11.14
3.25

2.61
S.S1
32.55
sea. ee
ig0.ee

30.00
S.00



OF COMPONENTS
BflL-I

4
1

3
5
2

5
4

3
3


£




152

5

4

0

5


11





1

85
85
640
3,060
3,700
BflL-M

4
1

3
5
£

5
4

3
3







98

5

2

2
0
2

0
9

2

2
1
1

65
85
1,863
3,060
4,125
HYBRID

4
J

3
5
2

5'
4

3
3


2




152

5

4

0

5


11





1

85
85
640
3,060
3,700
ftSSIST-i

4


3
5

2
5

2
3
3



1



10
73
3
I

. £

.£

'i
3
11

I



1

75
75
' 632
2,708
3,332
ftSSIST-2

65


3 '
7


a


3
4

1
t

i
i

70

5

4

3

2


13





i

120
128
580
4,328
4,900
See footnotes next nap.
                                     B-32

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE B-9

Reference I-£-33.
^Reference I-E-34,
cReference I-F-11Q.
dUnit cost is an estimated cost since no information on this was
 readily available.
References I-E-40 and I-E-44 (see text for discussion).
fReferences I-E-41 and I-E-46 (see text for discussion).
SReference I-E-46 (see text for discussion).
                                 B-33

-------
          "ABLE  B-10.   MODEL PLANT  2 STAGE  II  UNDERGROUND  DIRECT  COST
 IfifflERSRQtiffl OSSPONENTS     UNIT COST                       NUMBER OF COMPONENTS

GALVANIZED PIPE (a)
I" PIPE (FT)
E" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
3/4" CLOSE NIPPLE
1« OBSE MPPLE
I* CLOSE NIPPLE
3" CLOSE NIPPLE
1* ELBOW
S" ELBOH
3" ELBOH
1" X 3/4'
£" X 1"
3" X 8" REDUCER
£" X 1* BUSHIN6
4* X 8" BUSHIN6
4* X 3' BUSHIN6
1" UNION
8" TEE
F1BER6USS PIPE (b)
a* PIPE (FT) •
3* PIPE (FT)
2" TWfEfiBEO fiMPTER
3* THREflOL1) flDAPTER
S' ELBOH
3' ELBOH
"8" TEE
3' TEE
S* COtPUNB
3" COUPUN6
3" X 2" REDUCER
SLUED JUNCTIONS
WDITIONtt. ITEMS (c)
4* X 2' TWK BUSHINS
4" X 3" Tfltti BUSHING
8" FLOAT CHECK VflLVE
VENT HflNIFQLD DRUM (d)
BUNGS (e)
TREHCHIN6 (FT) (f)
ASSEMBLY (FT) (g)
TOTfiL COST
TQTflL INSTHlflTION COST
TQTflL DIRECT COST


0.89
1.88
3.81
0.46
0.70
1.42
5.41
1.51
4.48
20.11
1.73
3.B4
13,14
2.81
11.83
11.83
1.13
6.43

1.83
2.89
7.23
10.58
15.41
22.82
23.50
25.51
4.S8
'7.23
11.14
3.25

2,61
2.61
32.55
500.88
188.80
30.08
6.00



BflL-1

5
S.

3
7
3

7
6

3
3


3




271'

6

6

0

8


17





1
105
105
1,834
3,780
4,814
BflL-M

5 '
2

3
7
3

7
6

3
3







138

6

3
.
2
0
2

8
12

3

3
1
1
105
105
1,313
-3,788
5,033
HYBRID

5
2

3
7
3

?
6

3
3


3




271

6

6

0

8


17





1
105
105
. 1,034
3,780
4,814
flSSIST-i

5


3
7

2
7

&
3
3



1



13
81
3
i

k

I

I
3
13





I
as
• is
789
,3,861
3,84'3
flSSIST-S

86


3
9


10


I
4

1
1

1
1

83

5

4

3

3


15




-
1
130
138
702
4,680
5,332
Foot rotes are the sa*i as those for Table B-9.
                                         B-34

-------
           TABLE  B-ll.    MODEL  PLANT  3  STAGE II  UNDERGROUND  DIRECT COST
 UNDERGROUND COMPONENTS
UNIT COST
NUMBER OF COMPONENTS

GALVANIZED PIPE (a)
1" PIPE (FT)
2" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
3/4" CLOSE NIPPLE
1" CLOSE NIPPLE
2" CLOSE NIPPLE
3" CLOSE NIPPLE
1" ELBOW
2" ELBOW
3" ELBOW
1" X 3/4". REDUCER
2" X 1" REDUCER
3" X 2" REDUCER
2" X 1" BUSHING
4" X 2» BUSHING
4" X 3" BUSHING
1" UNION
2" TEE
FIBERGLASS PIPE (b)
2" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
2" THREADED ADAPTER
3" THREADED ADAPTER
2" ELBOW
3" ELBOW
2" TEE
3" TEE
2" COUPLING
3" COUPLING
3" X 2" REDUCER
GLUED JUNCTIONS
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (c)
4" X 2" TANK BUSHING
4" X 3" TflNK BUSHING
2" FLOAT CHECK VALVE
VENT MANIFOLD DRUM (d)
BUNGS (e)
LABOR COMPONENTS
TRENCHING (FT) (f)
ASSEMBLY (FT) (g)
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
TOTAL INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST


0.89
1.88
3.86
0.46
0.70
1.42
5.41
1.51
4.48
20.11
1.73
3.84
13.14
2.81
11.09
11.09
1.13
6.43

1.89
2.89
7.23
10.58
16.41
22.82
23.50
26.61
4.68
7.23
11.14
3.25

2.61
£.61
32.55 '
500.00
180.00

36.00
6.00



EflL-I

10
2

7
13
3

13
6

7
7


3




476

10

16

3

9


34


••


1

165
165
1,779
5.940
7,719
BAL-K

10

2
7
13

6
13

6
7
7
3






86
125
10
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
4
26


3
3
1
1

165
165
2,053
5.940
7,993
HYBRID

10 -
2

7
13
3

13
6

7
7


3




476

10

16

3

9


34





1

165
165
1,779
5.940
7,719
ASSIST-1

10


7
13

2
13

2
7
7



1



26
143
7
1

4

g

3
7
26





1

140
140
1,253
5,040
6,293
ASSIST-2

71


7
15


16


7
&

I
1

1
1

156

9

6

7

4


24





1

185
185
1,046
6.668
7,706
Footnotes ara the sane as those for Table B-9.
                                                   B-35"

-------
          TABLE B-12.   MODEL PLANT  4 STAGE  II  UNDERGROUND DIRECT  COST

                         UNIT COST
OF

SftLVflNIZED PIPE (a)
i" PIPE (FT)
8" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
3/4» Qjm NIPPLE
1" CLOSE NIPPLE
2» CLOSs NIPPLE
3" CUBS NIPPLE
i"
2» afiQU
3" ELBO«
1" X 3/4" REDUCER
S' X 1*
3" X 2» SEDUCER
2» X 1» BUSHING
4* X 2* BUSHIN6
4» X 3* BUSHING
I" U«ON
2" TEE
FIBERHftSS PIPE (b)
£" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT)
2" fiDSPTER
3"
a" ELBOW
3' EUQH
2" TEE
3" TEE
2-COUPUNB
3" COUPLING
3" X 2» REDUCER
6U£D JUNCTIONS
WHHTIONM. ITEMS (c)
4" X 2" TM«
4" X 3" TftNK BUSHING
2" FU»T assy. WLVE
VENT WMFDLD DRW (d)
6UN8S (e)
UffiCi CdPONEHTS
TONCHIN8 (FT) 
-------
           TABLE  B-13.    MODEL  PLANT  5  STAGE  II  UNDERGROUND  DIRECT  COST
                           UNIT COST

GALVANIZED PIPE (a)
  1" PIPE (FT)
 . £* PIPE (FT)
  3" PIPE (FT)
  3/4" CLOSE NIPPLE
  1" CUBE NIPPLE
  2« CLOSE NIPPLE
  3"      NIPPLE
  1" EMU
  2" ELBOW
  3" ELBOW
  1" X 3/4" REDUCER
  2" X 1"
  3" I 2"
  2" X 1" BUSHINB
  4a x 2s mum
     X 3* BUSHINB
     UNION
     TEE
FIBERGLASS PIPE (b)
  2" PIPE (FT)
  3" PIPE (FT)

     THREADED ADAPTER
     ELBOW
     ELBOW
  2" TEE
  3" TEE
  2" eQUPL!N6
  3" COUPLIN6
  3" X 2" REDUCER
  GLUED JUNCTIONS
fiDDITIONflL ITEMS (c)
  4* X 2" TANK
  4" X 3" TflNK  BUSHINB
  2" FLOflT CHECK VflLVE
  VENT MANIFOLD DRUM (d)
       (a)                    188.00
    LABOR COMPONENTS
  4"
  1"
  2'
  2"
  3"
  2"
  3"
                                                              WSER QFeffiPfflBlTS

8.89
LIB
3.86
8.46
0.70
1.42
5.41
1.51
4.4S
20.11
1.73
3.84
13.14
2.81 .
11.09
ii.es
1.13
E.43
1.89
2. as
7.23
10.58
16.41
22.82
23.53
£6.61
4.66
7.23
11.14
3.25
2. SI
2. SI
32.55
BflL-I
24
2

IS
33
3

33
6

IS
16


3



797

If

32

12

12


72



BAL-M
24

2
16
33

6
33

&
16
16
3





IBS
171
IS
3
6
2
6
S
2
3
10
57

3
3
HYBRID
24
£

16
33
3

33
&

16
16


3



797

19

32

12

12


72



(ffiSIST-1
24


16
33

2
33

2
16
16



1


65
249
16
1

7

15

5
16
68



ASSIST-2
44


16
35


%


16
17

1
1

1
1
331

18

8

16

6


46



TRBCHINB (FT) (f)
flSSEMBLY (FT) (g)
TOTflL COST
TDTflL INSTflLLflTION COST
TDTfiL DIRECT COST
30.89 265
6.00 265
3,180
S,540
12,720
265
265
3,041
9,540
. 12.5B1
265
265
3,1B0
9,540
12,728
245
245
2,381
B,82@
11,201
280
281
1,874
10,08*
11,954
Footnotes are the same as 'those for Table B-9.
                                                  B-37

-------
the individual balance system (three lines from island to underground

tank as opposed to one line for the manifolded system) is assumed equiv-

alent to the additional time required to plumb the service islands when

using the manifolded balance system (exact pipe lengths, sloping, addi-

tional pipe joints,. etc.)»
     The physical characteristics of the trench for both the manifolded

and individual balance systems are basically the same; therefore, the

cost of trenching ($/ft) is the same for all systems.

     Only two contractors provided the information necessary to deter-

mine the cost of installation for the underground piping (I-E-41 and

I-E-46).  All of those questioned, except one, said that a specific

layout was needed before an estimate could be determined; the one

exception said that he used a factor of $25 per foot of trench to esti-

mate the cost of trenching (I-E-41).

     Due to the time involved in preparing an estimate, only one con-

tractor agreed to provide EPA with an approximate installation cost

(I-E-46).  The following is an estimate for installing the piping for

model plant 3.

     Day 1:       Dig Trench                       $1,60U
                    4 man-days at       $200/day
                    1 backhoe-day at    $400/day
                    1 truck-day at      $4UO/day

     Days 2 S 3:  Lay Pipe                         $  800
                    4 man-days at       $2uO/day
                  Modify Dispensers                $  800*
                    4 man-days at       $200/day

     Day 4:       Fill Trench and Pour Concrete    $1,750
                    4 man-days at      $20U/day
                    1 truck-day at     $4UO/day
                    pea gravel - 13 tons at $10/ton
                    concrete - 6 yds at $70/yd

     Day 5:       Lay Asphalt and Clean Up         $1,350
                    3 man-days at      $HOO/day
                    1 truck-day at     $400/day
                    0,5 roller-day at  $400/day
                    asphalt - 5 tons at $30/ton

         Profit:  20-25 percent of total =,22.5%
         Trench Length:  165 feet
         Trenching = (1600 •»• 1750 + 1350)(1.225) - $5760/165 ft = $35/ft
         Assembly = (800)(1.225) » $980/165 ft = $6/ft
*Not included in total.


                                 :  8-38

-------
     The trenching cost estimate was calculated by averaging the above
$3b/ft and $2b/ft value, previously discussed.  The cost of pipe assembly
was used as shown since $2UU/day for a pipefitter seemed reasonable.
These figures were then combined with the model plant trench lengths
(feet) to obtain the installation costs presented in Tables b$-9 through
B-13.
B.2.3  Summary of Capital Costs
     The total capital  cost of a control system is the sum of direct
costs, indirect costs,  and contingency costs.  Direct costs include
purchased equipment costs (i.e., control devices, auxiliary equipment,
instrumentation and controls, and freight and taxes) and installation
costs (i.e., foundation and supports, erection and handling, electrical,
piping and insulation).  Indirect costs consist of in-house
engineering design and  supervision costs, architect and engineering
contractor expenses, contractor fees, construction fees, and preliminary
testing costs.  All indirect costs have been included in the installa-
tion costs, and freight and taxes were assumed to be included in the
total purchased equipment costs obtained from control  system vendors.
Contingency costs include such fees as penalties incurred for failure
to meet completion dates set out in performance specifications.  Due to
the nature of this analysis, contingency costs are not appropriate.
     Table 8-14 presents the direct cost summary for the five Stage II
systems applied to the  five model plants.  This table summarizes the
costs shown in Tables B-2 through B-7 and B-9 through B-13.  As can be
seen, the use of a single cost basis for a balance system and the use
of a single cost basis  for an assist system should not bias subsequent
cost evaluation because the cost differences between individual and
manifolded balance systems and between Assist-1 and Assist-2 systems
are very small.  In addition, the future installation ratio of these
systems is not known.
B.2.4.  Annual Costs and Cost Effectiveness
     Table B-15 presents an annualized cost breakdown for the model
plants.  As was the case when determining capital costs, several
assumptions had to be made.  The following points should be noted in
connection with Table B-15.
                                   B-39

-------
              TABLE B-14,
STAGE II DIRECT COST SUMMARY
COMPONENT

MODEL PLANT 1

DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUXILIARY PURCHASE COST
PIPING PURCHASE COST
  TOTAL PURCHASE COST
  INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST


MODEL PLANT 2

DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUXILIARY PURCHASE COST
PIPING PURCHASE COST
  TOTAL PURCHASE COST
  INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST


MODEL PLANT 3

DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUXILIARY PURCHASE COST
PIPING PURCHASE COST
  TOTAL PURCHASE COST
  INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST


MODEL PLANT 4

DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUXILIARY PURCHASE COST
PIPING PURCHASE COST
  TOTAL PURCHASE COST
  INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST


MODEL PLANT 5

DISPENSER PURCHASE COST
AUXILIARY PURCHASE COST
PIPING PURCHASE COST
  TOTAL PURCHASE COST
  INSTALLATION COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
 BAL-I
   COST OF COMPONENT

BAL-M   HYBRID ASSIST-1 ASSIST-2
1,368
0
64O
2,010
3,26O
5,27O
1,78O
O
1,O34
2,81O
4,04O
6,S5O
3,56O
O
1,78O
5,340
6,46O
11,800
5,33O
0
2,26O
7,590
8,16O
15,75O
S,S9O
O
3, ISO
12,070
10,840
22,91O
1,368
O
1,065
2,43O
3,26O
5,690
1,78O
O
1,313
3,09O
4,04O
7, ISO
3,560
O
2,O5O
5,610
6,460
12,07O
5,33O
0
2,37O
7,70O
S,16O
15,S6O
8,89O
0
3,O4O
11,93O
1O,S40
22,77O
1,625
O
640
2,26O
3,31O
5,57O
2,11O
0
1,O34
3,140
4,11O
7,25O
4,23O
O
1,78O
6,O1O
6,590
12,6OO
6,340
0
2,27O
S,61O
8,36O
16,97O
10,56O
O
3, ISO
13,74O
11,170
24,910
1,361
.3,975
632
5,97O
4,210
io,iao
1 , 770
3,975
789
6,530
4,610
11,14O
3,54O
3,975
1,25O
8,770
-• 6,73O
15,5OO
5,31O
3,975
1,66O
1O,950
8,32O
19,270
8,850
3,975
2,380
15,210
10,950
26,160
823
3,9OO
58O
5,30O
5,65O
10,95O
1 , O70
3,9OO
7O2
5,67O
6,O4O
11,71O
2,14O
3,9OO
1,O5O
7,O9O
8,19O
15,28O
3,21O
3i,9OO
1,51O
8,62O
10,33O
18,95O
5,35O
3,9OO
1,87O
11,12O
12,090
23,21O
                                      B-40

-------
               TABLE B-15.  STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY
COMPONENT/SYSTEM Ca>

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5
MAINTENANCE COST 
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5

INSPECTION COST 
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5

OTHER INDIRECT COSTS 
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5

RECOVERY CREDITS <£ >
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5

ADDITIONAL CREDITS 
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5

TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
   MODEL PLANT 1
   MODEL PLANT 2
   MODEL PLANT 3
   MODEL PLANT 4
   MODEL PLANT 5
BAL-I
BAL-M   HYBRID ASSIST-1 ASSIST-2
677
881
1,56O
2,150
3,230
722
91O
1,59O
2,16O
3»21O
735
96O
1,710
2,370
3,600
1,630
1,77O
2,3SO
2,930
3,960
1,64O
1,74O
2,22O
2,7OO
3,350
475
617
1,234
1,852
3, OSS
475
617
1,234
1,852
3, OSS
497
646
1,292
1 , 938
3;23O
465
575
1,O5O
1,525
2,475
4O6
433
897
1,295
2,O91
    o
    o
    o
    o
    o
    o
    0
    0
    o
    o
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
211
274
472
630
916
228
285
483 •
635
911
223
29O
504
679
996
4O7
446
&2O
771
1,046
438
468
611
758
928
129
518
9O6
1,683
4,790
129
518
9O6
1,683
4,79O
129
518
9O6
1,683
4,790
65
,259
453
841
2,395
65
259
453
841
2,395
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
. O
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1,230
1,250
2,36O
2,950
2,44O
1,3OO
1,29O
2,4OO
2,960
2,42O
1,33O
1,3SO
2, SCO
3,3OO
3,O4O
2,44O
2,53O
3,6OO
4,38O
5,O9O
2,420
2,450
3,27O
3,91O
3^970
See next, page £or footnotes,
                                      B-41

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE B-15
aBal-I s Balance-Individual, Bal-M = Balance-Manifolded, Assist-;! = Hint;
 Assist-2 « Hasstech; Hybrid = Healy.                           .
                                                    a
^Capital Recovery Cost = (Capital Cost)    1 (1 + i)            ;
                                          (1 + i)a - i

   where:  i = interest rate (10 percent)
           a » equipment life (8 years for dispenser and auxiliary equip-
               ment; 35 years for underground piping system)

cl.  Nozzle Maintenance - All Systems.
     Replace nozzle every 2 years with new nozzle (same lifetime as
     standard nozzle); therefore, annual  cost equals half the incremental
     cost between standard nozzle ($50) and vapor-recovery nozzle (see
     Table B-3 for costs).  For multiproduct dispensers, the  nozzles are
     assumed to last twice as long; therefore, maintenance costs are
     half ($25).

 2.  Hose Maintenance - All Systems.
     Replace vapor hose every 2 years (same lifetime as liquid hose on
     standard dispenser); therefore, annual  cost equals half  the incre-
     mental cost between standard liquid hose ($24.39) and coaxial liquid/
     vapor recovery hose system ($110.73 from Exhibits 8-1U,  Table B-2).

 3.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Balance Systems.
     Replace boot/faceplate assembly three times per year; parts cost
     $19 per replacement and it takes 20 minutes per replacement, at $25
     per hour.

 4.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Assist Systems.
     Replace boot/faceplate assembly two times per year; parts cost $15
     per replacement and it takes 20 minutes per replacement  at $25 per
     hour.

 5.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Hybrid Systems.
     Replace-boot/facepl-ate assembly two times per year; parts cost $33
     per replacement and it takes 20 minutes per replacement  at $25 per
     hour.                                                      :

 6.  Processing Unit Maintenance - Assist Systems.
     Maintenance performed once a year by a qualified professional at a
     cost of $100 per visit.

      expense is included in the government enforcement costs, and
 thus, it is not attributable to the model  plant annual cost.   ;

eValue includes property tax (1%), insurance (1%), and administration
 (2%), equalling 4 percent of the total  capital  cost.
                                  B-42

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 8-15
                              (concluded)
f Stage II recovery credit calculations:
 Balance and Hybrid
   Emission factors:  Displacement   = 1,552 rag/liter
                      Emptying loss - 120  ing/liter
   Assuming 95% recovery of both displacement and emptying losses,
 recovery factor = (0.95)[(1,552 + 120)mg/liter] =
 1,588 mg/liter.
   Example of recovery credit:
     1,588 mg/liter x 75,700* liters x   kg   x liter x 12 mo,  x $0.24/1 Her
                               mo.     10%g    0.67kg    yr
                              = $518/year.
 Assist 1 & 2
     Same emission factors as above.
     Assuming 50% recovery of balance system losses,  recovery  factor =
      (0.50) (0.95) (1,552 mg/liter +• 120  mg/liter) » 794 mg/liter.
   Example of recovery credit:
   794 mg/liter x 75,700* liters x   kg    x liter x 12 mo. x $0.24/liter
                            «"»•    lU^mg   0.67kg     y
                              » $259/year.
 Throughout this analysis, the Model Plant 1 throughput used was 5,000
 gallons-per-mo nth to allow a comparison with the July 1984 analysis.
 However, the new analysis uses recovery credits based on  Model  Plant la
 (2,000 gallons per month) and Model Plant Ib (6,000 gallons per month)
 when calculating nationwide or nonattainment area cost impacts.
9No additional  credits taken.  These could include investment  tax credits
 or energy conservation tax credits.
throughput for model  plant 2.

                                  B-43

-------
1.  Discussions with dispenser equipment vendors and the manufac-
    turers of the two assist systems indicated that the additional
    dispenser equipment needed for Stage II (retractors., flow
    limiters, hanger kits) and the processing unit equipment will
    last a minimum of 5 years and should last about 10 years;
    8 years was assumed for capital recovery calculation purposes
    (I-D-45, I-E-22, I-E-23, and I-E-25),               '
2.  Several vendors of fiberglass piping, used quite often for
    vapor recovery piping in California, were contacted about the
    expected life of fiberglass pipe used in underground situa-
    tions.  All vendors contacted, except one, indicated that
    there was no reason why the pipe should ever need replacing
    (I-E-37 and I-E-38).  One indicated that it would last at
    least 30 years (I-E-38).  For purposes of this analysis, the
    underground piping lifetime for fiberglass pipe was estimated
    to be 35 years..
3.  Additional credits that could be included in the calculation
    of "Total Annualized Cost" are, for example, investment tax
    credits or energy conservation tax credits.  However,  these
    are not included in this analysis.
4.  Rebuilt nozzles were not included in the maintenance scenario
    due to insufficient data on their use at this time.
5.  Currently, the annualized costs do not include enforcement
    costs.  These costs are calculated separately and on a nation-
    wide basis, and are included in the regulatory strategy
   _analysis.
6.  The assumptions shown in the Table B-lb footnotes were made to
    calculate maintenance costs.  These assumptions are based on
    conversations with vendors of Stage II equipment (I-E-20,
    I-E-22, I-E-24, I-E-26, I-E-27, and I-E-29).
7.  Recovery credits are calculated as shown in footnote (f)  of
    Table B-15, using a displacement emission factor of 1,552 mg/
    liter and an emptying  loss emission factor of 120 mg/liter.
    Also, the cost credit  for a liter of gasoline is based on
    $U.24/liter gasoline ($0.91/gallon).
                             B-44

-------
             . For balance and hybrid systems, a 95 percent recovery of
         both displacement and emptying losses was assumed, while for
         the assist systems a 50 percent recovery of balance system
         displacement and emptying losses was assumed.  These are
         theoretical efficiencies used for the purpose of determining
         per-facility costs.  For the regulatory analyses, actual
         in-use efficiencies were used to calculate recovery credits.
8.3  SUMMARY
     Detailed costs were obtained for the five basic Stage II vapor
recovery systems.  The costs for the two balance systems and the costs
for the two assist systems compared favorably enough that a single cost
could be used for either balance system and for either assist system.
The average cost of the two assist systems was taken to represent a
generic cost for the assist system, since the future installation ratio
of Assist-1 to Assist-2 systems is not known.  Table B-16 presents
the generic capital cost summary for each Stage 'II system type on a
model plant basis.  These costs are used to compute generic annualized
costs on a model plant basis, as shown in Table B-17.
     Information gathered also indicated that discounts on nozzles and
modification equipment of approximately 30 percent are available to
large volume buyers (I-E-18, I-E-24, I-E-26, and I-E-27).  Table B-18
shows the generic Stage II capital cost summary with this 30 percent
discount included.  Table B-18 is used to calculate Table B-19, which
shows the generic annualized cost summary including the 30 percent
discount.
8.4  "INSTALLATION OF STAGE n VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS DURING THE
     CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY
     The additional dispenser costs incurred due to the installation of
a Stage II system during the construction of a new facility are shown
in Table B-20.  This table is the same as Table B-2 except that incre-
mental  costs above the purchase of conventional refueling equipment
were used.
     The following specific changes were made:-
     1)  The cost of a single nozzle swivel ($32.75 for an OPW-33
        . nozzle swivel, I-F-ilO) was subtracted from the cost of the vapor
         recovery swivel.
                                  B-45

-------
    Table B-16.
GENERIC STAGE II CAPITAL COST SUMMARY:
   (Retrofit to Existing Facility)
      NO DISCOUNTS
COMPONENT

MODEL PLANT  1

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL"DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
                      COST OF  COMPONENT

              BALANCE      HYBRID       ASSIST
                1,568
                    0
                3,91O
                5,480
                    O
                5,480
 1,S8O
     O
 3,7OO
 5,58O
     O
 5,580
 1,211
 5,238
 4,120
1O,57O
     O
1O,57O
MODEL PLANT 2

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
2,O4O
O
4,95O
6,990
0
6,99O
2,44O
O
4,81O
7,250
O
7,25O
1,570
5,238
4,620
11,43O
0
11,43O
MODEL PLANT 3

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
4,O8O
O
7,86O
11,94O
O
11,940
4,SSO
O
7,72O
12,6OO
O
12,6OO
3, ISO
5,238
7,OOO
15,390
0
15,39O
MODEL PLANT 4

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY- DIRECT- COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
                    O
                9,69O
               15,8OO
                    O
               15,80O
 7,31O
     O
 9,650
16,96O
     O
16,960
 4,72O
 5,238
 9,14O
19,1OO
     O
19,1OO
MODEL PLANT 5

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
               1O,19O
                    O
               12,65O
               22,84O
                    O
               22,840
12,19O
     O
12,72O
24,910
     O
24,91O
 7,87O
 5,238
11,58O
24,690
     O
24,690
                               B-46

-------
     Table B-17.
GENERIC STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY:
   (Retrofit to Existing Facility)
     NO DISCOUNTS
COMPONENT
MODEL PLANT 1

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 2

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 3

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 4

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE 
-------
Table B-18.
COMPONENT
GENERIC STAGE II CAPITAL COST SUMMARY:
    (Retrofit to Existing Facility)
  WITH DISCOUNTS
MODEL PLANT  1

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT  COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL  COST
                           COST OF COMPONENT

                   BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST

                     1,157       1,39O         883
                         0           O       5,238
                     3,91O       3,7OO       4,12O
                     5,O7O       5,090      1O»240
                         0           O           O
                     5,O7O       5,O9O      1O,24O
MODEL PLANT 2

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1,5OO
O
4,95O
6,450
O
6,45O
-1,8OO
O
4,81O
6,610
O
6,610
1,150
5,238
4,620
11,O1O
O
11,01O
MODEL PLANT 3

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
3,010
o
7,86O
1O,87O
O
1O,87O
3,61O
O
7,720
11,33O
0
11,33O
2,3OO
5,238
7,OOO
14,54O
O
14,54O
MODEL PLANT 4

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT -COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
                     4,510
                         O
                     9,69O
                    14,2OO
                         O
                    14,20O
 5,41O
     O
 9,65O
15,060
     O
15,O6O
 3,44O
 5,238
 9,14O
17,82O
     O
17,82O
MODEL PLANT 5

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
                     7,52O
                         O
                    12,650
                    2O,17O
                         O
                    2O,17O
 9,O2O
     O
12,720
21,74O
     O
21,74O
 5,740
 5,238
11,5SO
22,56O
     0
22,56O
                              B-48

-------
  Table B-19.  GENERIC STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY:  WITH DISCOUNTS
                 (Retrofit to Existing Facility)
COMPONENT
MODEL PLANT 1
    ANNUAL COST OF COMPONENT

BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST
CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 2

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 3

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 4

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE .CQSEt	
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 5

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
    623
    475
      O
    203
    129
      O
  1,17O
    S32
    617
      O
    266
    518
      O
  1,2OO
  1,86O
  1,852
      O
    569
  1,683
      O
  2,600
  2,72O
  3,O9O
      O
    8O7
  4,790
      O
  1,33O
  644
  497
    O
  2O4
  129
    O
1,22O
  8SO
  646
    O
  273
  518
    O
1,280
2,O1O
1,938
    O
  6O2
IP 633
    O
2,87O
3,O1O
3,230
    O
  870
4,79O
    O
2,32O
1,580
  436
    O
  410
   65
    O
2,36O
1,710
  537
    O
  446
'  259
    O
2,430
1,380
1,230
O
435
9O6
O
2,14O
1,480
1,292
O
453
9O6
O
2,32O
2,140
97O
O
581
453
O
3,24O
2,580
1,41O
    O
  713
  841
    O
3,S6O
3,260
2,28O
    0
  9O2
2,40O
    O
4,040
                                B-49

-------
       TABLE B-20.
BALANCE DISPENSER  MODIFICATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASE COST9
              (New Facility)
                            COST OF  COMPONENT
EXHIBIT 4

HIGH HOSE RETRACTOR
SWIVELS-NOZZLES
SWIVELS-ISL OR DISP
SWIVELS-RETRACT
FLOW LIMITER
HOSE
DISP-HQQK & HANDLE
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
EXHIBIT 5

HIGH HOSE RETRACTOR
SWIVELS-NOZZLES
SWIVELS-ISL OR DISP
SWIVELS-RETRACT
FLOW LIMITER
HOSE
DISP-HOOK & HANDLE
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
EXHIBIT &

HIGH HOSE RETRACTOR
SWIVELS-NOZZLES
SWIVELS-ISL OR DISP
SWIVELS-RETRACT
FLOW LIMITER
HOSE
DISP-HOOK & HANDLE
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
EXHIBIT 7"~- • 	 	

HIGH HOSE RETRACTOR
SWIVELS-NOZZLES
SWIVELS-ISL OR DISP
SWIVELS-RETRACT
FLOW LIMITER
HOSE
DISP-HOOK & HANDLE
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
AVG TOTAL PURCHASE COST
LOW
94.OO
9.65
21.50
O.OO
2O.OO
13.50
16. OO
174.65

LOW
94.0O
7.25
41.55
8. OS
2O.OO
75.61
16. OO
262 . 49

LOW
94.OO
9.65
21. 5O
O.OO
2O.OO
44.56
16. OO
2O5.71

LOW
94.OO
9.65
O.OO
8.08
2O.OO
13. 5O
16.00
161.23
2O1.O2
HIGH
102. 5O
42.25
21. SO
O.OO
2O . OO
35.28
38. OO
259 . 53

HIGH
"102.50
26. 05
64 . 85
8. OS
20.00
75.61
38 . OO
335 . 09

HIGH
102.50
42.25
21. 5O
O.OO
20.OO
55.45
38. OO
279.70

HIGH
102. SO
42.25
0.00
8.O8
2O . OO
35.28
38. OO
246.11
28O.11
AVERAGE
96. OS
22.12
21.50
O.OO
20.OO
24 . 39
27. OO
211.O9

AVERAGE
96. OS
16.65
53.20
8. OS
2O . OO
75.61
27. OO
296.62

AVERAGE
96. OS
22.12
21. 5O
O.OO
2O.OO
5O.OO
27. OO
236 . 70

AVERAGE
96. OS
22.12
O.OO
8.08
20.OO
24.39
27 . 00
197.67
360. OO
          docket entries I-E-18,  I-E-19,  I-E-20, I-E-22, I-E-26, I-E-27,  I-E-31,
     I-E-32, I-E-58, I-E-62,  I-E-63,  I-E-64, I-E-65, I-E-66, I-E-67,  I-F-110,
     and I-F-111.
                                     B-50

-------
TABLE B-20.
BALANCE DISPENSER MODIFICATION EQUIPMENT PURCHASE COST3
              (New Facility)   (concluded)
Exhibit 8
Overhead Hose Retractor
Swivels for Nozzles
Swivels for Islands or Disp.
Swivel for Retractor
Flow Li miter
Hose
Liquid- Removal Venturi
Dispenser Modification

Exhibit 9
Overhead Hose Retractor
Swivels for Nozzles
Swivels for Islands or Disp.
Swivel for Retractor
Flow Li miter
Hose
Liquid Removal Venturi
Dispenser Modification

Exhibit 10
Overhead Hose Retractor
Swivels for Nozzles
Swivels for Islands or Disp.
Swivel for Retractor
Flow Li miter
Hose
Liquid Removal Venturi
Dispenser Modification
Low
94.00
47.25
0.00
40.00
20.00
65.61
0.00
38.00
304.86
Low
85.84
47.25
0.00
40.00
20.00
70.61
0.00
54.17
317.87
Low
0.00
,7.25
. 0.00
40.00
20.00
'80.61
200.00
54.17
High
102.50
84.85
0.00
58.80
20.00
88.11
0.00
55.00
409.26
Hi gh
" 100.00
84.85
0.00
• 58.80
20.00
94.36
0.00
54.17
412.18
High
0.00
26.05
0.00
58.80
20.00
106.86
200.00
54.17
Avg.
96.08
66.05
0.00
49.40
20.00
79.06
0.00
46.50
357.09
Avg.
92.92
66.05
0.00
49.40
20.00
84.53
0.00
54.17
367.07
Avg.
0.00
16.65
0.00
49.40
20.00
95.43
200.00
54.17
                                  402.03
                                   465.88
435.65
                                B-51

-------
     2)  The  cost of  a single island or dispenser swivel  ($17.25) was
         subtracted from the island or dispenser vapor recovery swivel
         cost.  This  subtracted cost is the average cost  of the OPW-36E
         ($18.40), OPW-36S-5080 ($15.35), and the OPW-36S-5090 ($18.00)
         (I-F-110).
     3)  The  cost of  a single hose ($24.39) was subtracted from the
         coaxial hose cost shown in Exhibit 5.
     4}  For  new facilities, it was assumed that 75 percent would use
         MPD's and 25 percent would use conventional dispensers.
     Table B-21 shows the aboveground cost for the installation of a
Stage II system during the construction of a new facility at model plant 2.
This table is the same as Table B-4 except thai the unit  costs have changed
                                                              i
as follows:
     1)  The  nozzle cost for all the systems is the cost  shown in Table B-4,
         minus the cost of a conventional nozzle ($50) (I-F-110 and I-F-111).
     2)  The modification equipment cost for a balance system is taken
         from Table B-20.
     3)  The modification cost for Assist-1 is the same as ;the balance
         cost plus the cost of a ball check valve ($17) (I-E-23).
     4)  The modification cost for the hybrid system includes the
         Model 100 jet pump, Model CX-6 adapter, Model S  swivel,
         Model CX hoses, Model 143 control valve, and an  installation
         kit, minus the cost of a single hose ($24.39) (I-E-25).
     5)  The installation cost for all systems is assumed to be zero.
         It was assumed that there would be no additional cost because
         the new dispensers would come equipped for Stage II.
     The per-nozzle costs for model plants 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the same
as those for model plant 2.
     Table 8-22 shows the underground cost incurred due to the install-
ation of a Stage II system during the construction of a new facility at
model plant 2.  This  table is the same as Table B-9 except it is
assumed that there would be no additional cost for trenching since the
product lines and vapor return lines could be put into the same trench,
and no bungs are required since the tanks would already be equipped for
Stage II,  The same unit costs are used for piping lengths associated
with model  plants 1,  3, 4, and 5.

-------
           TABLE  B-21,    M.ODEL  PLANT  2  STAGE  II  ABOVEGROUND  DIRECT  COST
A30VESRO-N3 CCSPWENTS        UNIT COST                              NUMBER OF COMPONENTS
                                                 BAL-I          8AL-M         HY3RID       ASSiST-1       ASSIST-2
DISPENSER COMPONENTS
  NOZZLE BALANCE (a)                147           3.75           3.75
  NOZZLE HYBRID (b)                 145                                        3,75
  NOZZLE ASSIST-i (c!               128                                                       3,75
  NOZZLE ASSIST-2 (d)                74                                                                      3.75
  HOD EQUIP         (t>             340           3.75           3.75
  MOD EQUIP        (f)              411                   .                     3.75
  MOO EQUIP ASSIST-1 (g)            377                                                       3.75  •
  HOD EQUIP ASSIST-2 20Q                                      '                   •             1.00
3ISPENSE-1 PURCHASE COST                          1.901          1.901          2.159          1.892          1.046
AUX ITEMS PURCHASE COST                              0              0              Q          3.975          3.9QO
DIS? INSTALLATION COST                               0.              0              0              3              0
AUX INSTALLATION COST                                0              00          1.400          L2CO
  DISPENSE? DIRECT COST                          1.901          1,901          2.159          1,812          1*044
 'AUK ITEMS DIRECT-COST                             "0              0              0          5,375          Si 100
TOTAL DIRECT COST                                1,901          1,901        '  2,159          7.24?          4>144
(a) Average cast of nozzles certified by California  far use with a balance systtn
    ainus the cost of a norsal  nozzle ($50)  (I-E-28.  I-F-110, and  I-F-111).

(b) Actuti cast of the Healy Model  200 ainus the cost of  a normal  nozzle  ($505. (I-E-25).       '

(c) Average cost of the nozz-ies certified by California for use uith  the  Hirt systea
    ainus the cast uf a noraal  nozzle ($505> (I-E-28,  I-F-110, and I-F-111).

(d5 Actual cost of the Husky Hodel  HP-2 nazzlt iinus  the  cost erf a noritl aazzie (ISO),  (I-F-104).

(e) Modification equipment includes the average cost  of the high-hang retractor system) swivels, flow liiitsn
    and hoses as certified by California (see Tables  1 and 20).                '

(f) Modification equipment includes the Model  100 jet punp. Model CX-6 adapter. Model S suiveli Model CX hose,
    Model 143 control valve, and an installation kit  minus the cost of a  single nose ($24.39).  (I-E-25).

(g) Modification aciuipsent includes the same ewpaent as listed for  the  balance systsi  (footnote afa) plus a ball
    check vilve U-E-23 and Tables  1 and 2).
                                                                                               *

(h) Modification shipment includes the Hasstseh vapor hose, .ITT flow control valve, A.Y. McDonald i apart
    waive, hass swivels, and Hasstech Model  1025 flaw arrester (I-r-106).

(i) Auxiliary aeuspient inciudes a  P/V valvt,  collection  unit, and processing unit (i-e-235.

                                                   B-53

-------
        TABLE B-22.   MODEL  PLANT 2  SI \GE II  UNDERGROUND DIRECT COST
                    UNIT COST                         OF

GflLWNIZED PIPE (a)
1" PIPE (FT)
2" PIPE (FT)
3" PIPE (FT) -
3/4" CLOSE NIPPLE
l» CUBE NIPPLE
2" CLOSE NIPPLE
3" CLOSE NIPPLE
1" SJOU
2* ELBOH
3" ELBOH
i" X 3/4»
2" X 1" REDUCER
3" X 2" REDUCER
2" X 1» BUSHING
4" X 2» BUSHING
4" X 3"
1" UNION
2* TE£
FMeRStftSS PIPE (b)
2" PIPE (FT)
3' PIPE (FT)
2" THREADED ADAPTER
3* TWfH^fifJPTI Qn2DT£&
i ncumiA**/ nun* i MI
2* ELBOH
3" ELBOH
2* TEE
3" TEE
2"COUPL1N6
3" GQJPUNB
3" X E* REDUCER
BLUED JUNCTIONS - - •- -
ADDITIONAL ITEHS (e)
4" X 2* TANK BUSHIN6
4" X 3" TfflK
2" FLOAT 0€CK VBLVE
VENT WWIFQtB DRW (d)
mas (g)
LABOR COMPONENTS
(FT) (f)
ASSEMBLY (FT) (g)
TOTAL PURCHASE COST
TOTAL INSTALLATION COST
. TOTAL DIRECT COST


0.89
1.88
3.86
0.4S
0.78
1.42
5.41
1.51
4.48
20.11
1.73
3.84
13.1*
2.31
11.09
11.09
1.13
6.43

1.89
2.89
7.23
10.58
16.41
22.82
23. 50
26.61
4.68
7.23
11.14
3.25 •

£.61
2.61
32.55
500.00
0.00

0.00
6.00



BfiL-I

6
2

4
S
3

8
•6

4
4


3




273

7

S

0

8


17







10S
IKi
869
633
1.499
BflL-M

6
2

. __. 4
a
3

a
6

4
4







140

7

3

2
0
2

0
11

3

3
1


105
105
1,140
630
1,778 .
HYBRID

6
E

4
8
3

a
s

4
4


3




273

7

6

0

8


17







105
105
• 869
630
1,499
fiSSIST-I

6


. , 4
• 8

• £
3

2
4
i 4



1



15
83
4
• 2

• 2

3

I
4
IS

;





85
as
846
510
M5fi
ASSIST-2

• 67


.... 4
11


11


4
5

i
1

. 1
. 1

85

S

4

4

3


li







130
139
550
78*
1,330
SM footnotes next page.

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE B-22

aReference I-E-33.
^Reference I-E-34.
cReference I-F-110.
dUnit cost is an estimated cost since no information on this was readily
 available.
eNot needed on new tanks.
^Cost is absorbed in trenching cost for product lines.
SReference I-E-46 (see text accompanying Table B-9 for discussion).
                                    B-55

-------
     Tables B-23 and 8-24 present the capital cost and annual!zed cost
breakdown for the model plants.  The same basic assumptions used in
Tables B-14 and B-15 are used here; however, for new facilities more
nozzles are assumed in the analysis based upon 25 percent single
dispensers and 75 percent multiproduct dispensers (vs. 75 percent
single dispensers and 25 percent multiproduct dispensers for existing
facilities).
     Table B-25 presents the generic capital cost summary for each
Stage II system type on a model plant basis.  The costs showrt are used
to compute generic annualized costs on a model plant basis, as
shown in Table B-26.  Table B-27 shows the generic Stage II capital
cost summary, assuming the 30 percent discount for large volume
buyers.  This table is used to calculate Table B-28, which shows the
generic annualized cost summary including the 30 percent discount.
                                  B-56

-------
 TABLE B-23.  STAGE  II  DIRECT  COST SUMMARY 
-------
  Table B-24.  STAGE u ANNUAL COST SUMMARY  
CAPITAL RECOVERY COST 
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
MAINTENANCE COST 
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
INSPECTION COST 
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS 
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
RECOVERY CREDITS <£ >
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
ADDITIONAL CREDITS 
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
MODEL PLANT 1
MODEL PLANT 2
MODEL PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT 5
BAL-I

442
512
980
1,42O
2,27O

6OO
643
1,290
1,930
3,21O

0
O
O
O
0

113
136
257
362
567

129
51S
9O6
1,683
4,79O

0
O
O
O
O

1,O3O
77O
1,620
2,O3O
1,260
BAL-M

4S5
54O
1,010
1,420
2,25O

6OO
643
1,29O
1,93O
3,210

0
0
O
O
O

ISO
147
267
365
561

129
518
9O6
1,683
4,79O

O
O
O
O
O

1,O9O
81O
1,660
2,O3O
1,23O
HYBRID ASSIST- 1 ASSIST-2

487
560
1,080
1,56O
2,510
	 -- •
623
668
1,340
2,OOO
3,34O

0
0
O
0
O

123
146
277
393
618

129
518
9O6
1,683
4,790

O
O
O
O
O

1,1OO
86O
1,79O
2,270
1,6SO

1,450
1,480
1,920
2,350
3,180

,556
588
1,O8O
1,56O
2,54O

O
O
O
0
O

327
337
446
548
,748

65
259
453
841
2, -395

O
0
0
O
0

2»27O
' 2, ISO
2.99O
3,620
4, O70

1,27O
1,29O
1,56O
1 , 840
2,30O

497
525
95O
1,370
2,22O

0
O
O
O
O

293
299
369
444
554

65
259
453
341
2,395

0
O
0
O
0

2,OOO
1,36O
2,43O
2,81O
2,68O
See next, page  for footnotes,
                                        B-58

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE.B-24
aAssist-l = Hirt; Assist-2 = Hasstech; Hybrid = Healy.
                                               a
bCqst of Capital -  (Capital Cost)     j (l * 1)
                                     (1 + 1>« - 1

   where:  i = interest rate (10 percent)
           a = equipment life (8 years for dispenser and auxiliary
               equipment; 35 years  for underground piping system)

cl.  Nozzle Maintenance - All Systems.
     Replace nozzle every 2 years with new nozzle (same lifetime as
     standard nozzle); therefore annual cost equals half the incremental
     cost between standard nozzle ($50) and vapor recovery nozzle.

 2.  Hose Maintenance - All Systems.
     Replace vapor hose every 2 years (same lifetime as, liquid hose  on
     standard dispenser); therefore,  annual cost equals half the incre-
     mental cost between standard liquid hose ($24.39) and liquid/vapor
     recovery hose system ($110.73  from Exhibits 8-10, Table 8-2).

 3.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Balance Systems.
     Replace boot/faceplate assembly  three times per year; parts cost
     $19 per replacement and it takes 20 minutes per replacement at  $25
     per hour.

 4.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Assist Systems.
     Replace boot/faceplate assembly  two times per year; parts cost  $lb
     per replacement and it takes 20  minutes per replacement at $25  per
     hour.

 5.  Boot/Faceplate Assembly Maintenance - Hybrid Systems.
     Replace boot/faceplate assembly  two times per year; parts cost  $33
     per replacement and it takes 20  minutes per replacement at $25  per
     hour.

 6.  Processing Unit Maintenance -  Assist Systems.
     Maintenance-performed once a year by a qualified professional at a
     cost of $100 per visit.

^This expense is included in the government enforcement costs and,
 thus, it is not attributable to the  model plant annual cost.

6Va1ue includes property tax (1%),  insu-rance (!%)» and administration
 (2%), equalling 4 percent of the total capital cost.

fStage II recovery credit calculations:

   Balance and Hybrid

   Emission factors:  Displacement    = 1,552 nig/liter
                      Emptying loss = 120 mg/liter


                                  B-59

-------
                        FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE B-24
                              (concluded)

      Assuming 95% recovery of both displacement and emptying losses,
 recovery factor = ((I9552,mg/liter)(.95)) + ((120 nig/liter) (.95))  =
 1,588 mg/liter.
    Example of recovery credit:
      1,588 mg/liter x 75,700* liters x   kg   x liter x 12 mo. x $U.24/liter
                                mo.     106mg    U.67kg    yr
                              = $518/year.
 Assist 1 & 2
      Assuming 50% recovery of balance system losses, recovery factor =
     (0.50)(0.95)(1,552 mg/liter) + (120 mg/liter) - 794 mg/liter.
      Example of recovery credit:
     794 mg/liter x 75,700* liters x   kg   x liter x 12 mo. x $0.24/liter
                             mo.      m6mg    o.67kg   yr
                              = $259/year.
^Throughout this analysis, the Model Plant 1 throughput used was 5,000
 gallons per month to allow a comparison with the July 1984 analysis.
 However, the new analysis uses recovery credits based on Model Plant la
 (2,000 gallons per month) and Model Plant Ib (6,000 gallons per month)
 when calculating nationwide or nonattainment area cost impacts.
                                                              i
9No additional credits taken.  These could include investment tax credits
 or energy conservation tax credits.
"Throughput for model  plant 2.

                                  B-60

-------
Table B-25.
GENERIC STAGE II CAPITAL COST SUMMARY:
         (NEW STATION COSTS)
NC DISCOUNTS
COMPONENT
MODEL PLANT 1
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 2
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 3
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 4
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING- DIRECT -COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 5
DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
COST OF COMPONENT
BALANCE
1,775
O
1,260
3,O3O
O
3,O3O

1P9OO
O
1,830
3,530
O
3,53O

3,300
O
2,74O
6,540
O
6,540

5,700
6
3,390
9,O9O
0
9,O9O

9,51O
O
4,590
14,100
O
14,10O
HYBRID
2,O1O
O
1,060
3,O7O
O
3,O7O

-2,16O
0
1 , 50O
3,66O
O
3,66O

4,32O
O
2,620
6 , 940
O
6,94O

6,48O
O
3,360
9,84O
O
9,840

1O,79O
O
4,66O
15,450
0
15,450
ASSIST
1,371
5,238
1 , 14O
7,750
O
7,75O

1,470
5,238
1 , 240
7,950
0
7,950

2,940
5,238
2,O10
1O,190
O
1O,19O

4,410
5,233
2,750
12,4OO
0
12,4OO

7,35O
5,238
3,69O
16,280
O
16,23O
                                 B-61

-------
     Table B-26.
GENERIC STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY:
        (NEW STATION COSTS)
    NO DISCOUNTS
  COMPONENT
 MODEL PLANT  1

 CAPITAL RECOVERY  COST
 MAINTENANCE  COST
 INSPECTION COST
 OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
 RECOVERY CREDIT
 ADDITIONAL CREDITS
    TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

 MODEL PLANT  2

 CAPITAL RECOVERY  COST
 MAINTENANCE  COST
 IHSPECTION COST
 OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
 RECOVERY CREDIT
 ADDITIONAL CREDITS
    TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

 MODEL PLANT 3

 CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
 MAINTENANCE COST
 IHSPECTION COST
 OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
 RECOVERY CREDIT
 ADDITIONAL CREDITS
    TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

 MODEL PLANT 4

 CAPITAL  RECOVERY COST
 MAINTENANCE,COST
 INSPECTION  COST
 OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
 RECOVERY CREDIT
 ADDITIONAL  CREDITS
    TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

 MODEL PLANT 5

 CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
 MAINTENANCE COST
 INSPECTION COST
 OTHER INDIRECT COSTS   .
 RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
                                   ANNUAL COST OF COMPONENT

                               BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST
                   464
                   6OO
                     0
                   122
                   129
                     O
                 1,060
                   526
                   643
                     O
                   142
                   SIS
                     O
                   79O
                2,26O
                3,210
                    0
                  564
                4,790
                    O
                1,240
   487
   623
     O
   123
   129
     O
 1,10O
   56O
   668
     0
   146
   518
     O
   860
2,510
3,34O
    O
  618
4,79O
    O
1,680
 1,360
   527
     O
   310
    65
     O
 2,13O
 1,39O
   557
     0
   318
   259
     O
 2,O10
1,000
1,290
O
262
9O6
0
1,65O
1,080
1,340
O
277
9O6
O
1,79O
1,740
1,020
O
4OS
453
O
2,720
1,42O
1,93O
O
364
1,683
O
2,O3O
1,56O
2,OOO
O
393
1,683
0
2,27O
2,1OO
': 1,465
O
496
841
O
3,220
2,740
2,38O
    O
  651
2,400
    O
3,370
                                B-62

-------
Table B-27.
GENERIC STAGE II CAPITAL COS"1" SUMMARY:
          (NEW STATION COSTS;
WITH DISCOUNTS
COMPONENT
HODEL PLANT 1
DISPENSER EQUIPMENT
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
UNDERGROUND PIPING
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 2
DISPENSER EQUIPMENT
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
UNDERGROUND PIPING
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 3
DISPENSER EQUIPMENT
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
UNDERGROUND PIPING
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PLANT 4
DISPENSER EQUIPMENT
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
UNDERGROUND PIPING
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
HODEL PLANT 5
DISPENSER EQUIPMENT
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
UNDERGROUND PIPING
TOTAL DIRECT COST
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
COST
BALANCE
1,242
O
1,26O
2,5OO
0
2,500

1,33O
O
1,63O
2,96O
0
2,960

2,66C
O
2,740
5,4OO
O
5,40O

3,99O
0
3,390
7,380
O
7,38O

6,65O
0
4,590
11,24O
O
11,240
OF COMPONENT
HYBRID
1,41O
O
1,06O
2,47O
O
2,47O

-1,51O
O
1,5OO
3,O1O
O
3,O1O

3,O2O
O
2,62O
5,64O
O
5,640

4,53O •
O
3,36O
7,890
o
7,89O

7,55O
0
4,66O
12,21O
O
12,21O

ASSIST
960
5,238
1,14O
7,34O
O
7,340

1»03O
5,238
1,240
7,51O
O
7,31O.

2,060
5,238
2,O1O
9,31O
O
9,31O

3,09O
5,238
2,75O
11,080
O
11,QSO

5,14O
5,238
3,690
14,070
O
14,O7O
                                    B-63

-------
     Table B-28.'
GENERIC STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY:
        (NEW STATION COSTS)
     WITH DISCOUNTS
COMPONENT
MODEL PLANT 1

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 2

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 3

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 4

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE- COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 5

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
                 ANNUAL COST  OF  COMPONENT

             BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST
                 364
                 6OO
                   O
                 100
                 129
                   O
                 94O
                 419
                 643
                   0
                 119
                 518
                   O
                 66O
               1,1OO
               1,930
                   O
                 296
               1,683
                   O
               1,64O
               1,73O
               3,210
                   O
                 450
               4,79Q
                   0
                 60O
  374
  623
    O
   99
  129
    0
  97O
  44O
  668
    O
  12O
  51S
    0
  71O
1,2OO
2,OOO
    O
  316
1,633
    0
1,83O
1,9OO
3,340
    O
  489
4, 79O
    O
  940
1,28O
"  527
    O
  294
   65
    O
2,O4O
1,310
  557
    O
  SOO
  259
    O
1,910
790
1,29O
O
216
9O6
O
1,390
840
1,34O
O
226
9O6
0
1,50O
1,580
1,02O
O
373
453
O
2,52O
1,85O
1,465
    O
  443
  841
    O
2,92O
2,330
2,38O
    O
  563
2,4OO
    O
2,870
                                 B-64

-------
B.b  REFERENCES3

I-A-55                       Evaluation of Air Pollution  Regulatory
                             Strategies for Gasoline Marketing  Industry.
                        ..U.S.  EPA.   Research Triangle Park,  NC.
                             EPA-450/3-84-012a.  July 1984.

I-D-45                       Letter from Bradt, R.D., Hirt Combustion
                             Engineers, to Purcell,  R., Pacific
                             Environmental Services, Incorporated.
                             January 29, 1985.  Stage II  gasoline
                             station vapor control.

I-D-39  .                     Letter from Treadway, R.W.,  Dayco  Corpor-
                             ation, to  Eldridge, K.M., PES,  Inc.
                             December 26, 1984.  Prices of various
                             Dayco products.

I-E-18                       Telecon.  Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Nye,  A., Zallay Packing & Seal,  Cleveland,
                             Ohio.  October 16, 1984.  Cost  of  the   .
                             Searle Leather & Packing B-1399  Retractor.

I-E-19                       Telecon.  Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Strag, I., B.F. Goodrich, Akron, Ohio.
                             October 16, 1984.  Cost of B.F.  Goodrich
                             coaxial hose assembly  (B.F.  Goodrich
                             Co-Ax).

I-E-20                       Telecon.  Levine, A., William M. Wilson's
                             Sons, Inc. (Gasboy), Pomona, California,
                             with  Eldridge, K., PES, Inc. October  18,
                             1984.  Cost of high-retractor hose  config-
                             urations Gasboy Model 90-750-2  and  high-
                             retractor  dispenser Gasboy Series  50.

I-E-21                       Telecon.  Purcell, R.,  PES,  Inc.,  with
                             Crist, J., W.F. Crist Company.   October 26,
                             1984.  Costs for certified P/V  valves
     -  >    .--•-•-            B-l Varec.

I-E-22                       Telecon.  Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Simon, J., Petro Vending, Brookfield,
                             Illinois.   October 26,  1984. Cost  and
                             life  expectancy of PV-8 cord.

I-E-23                       Telecon.  Purcell, R.,  PES,  Inc.,  with
                             Taylor, B., Hirt Combustion  Engineers,
                             Montebello, California.  October 26, 1984.
                             Costs for  Hirt Stage II components.
aNumbers correspond to docket item numbers in Docket No.  A-84-07.*

                                  B-65              "         "

-------
I-E-24                       Telecon.   Crosby,  B.,  Gilbarco,  Greensboro,
                             North Carolina,  with  Eldridge, K.,  PES,
                             Inc.   October 29,  1984.   Price of Uilbarco
                             components dispenser  (high-hang  hose  con-
                             figuration)  MPD-2.

I-E-2S                       Telecon.   Purcell, R., PES,  Inc., with
                             Healy, J., Cambridge  Engineering, Inc.
                             October 29,  1984.   Costs  for Healy  Jet
                             Pump  Phase II system.

I-E-26                       Telecon.   Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Madden, M.,  Pomeco, Paramount, California.
                             October 29,  1984.   Cost of Pomeco equipment.

I-E-27                       Telecon.   Taygart, D., SMP Company
                             (Wedgon),  Denver,  Colorado,  with Eldridge,
                             K., PES,  Inc.   October 29,  1984.   Cost of
                             Wedgon PS  3445 VRM.

I-E-28                       Telecon.   Eldridye, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Funk9 D.,  Emco Wheaton, Incorporated,
                             Conneaut,  Ohio.  October  31, 1984.  Prices
                             of Emco Wheaton  products.

I-E-29                       Telecon.   Panzer,  J.,  Exxon  Research,
                             Linden, N.J., with Eldridge, K., PES,  Inc.
                             November 8,  1984.   API Stage IT report
                             cost  methodology and  survey  results.

I-E-31                       Telecon.   Powell,  D.,  Parker Hanifin
                             Corporation, Hose  Products Division,
                             Wickliffe, Ohio, with  Eldridge,  K., PES, Inc,
                             November 9,  1984.   Cost of vapor recovery
                             and gasoline dispensing hoses.

I-E-32     *                 Telecon.   Treadway, B., Dayco Company,
                             Dayton, Ohio, with Eldridge, K., PES,  Inc.
     . ...   .•-  -  -             November 12, 1984. List  price for  Dayco
                             hoses.

I-E-33                •       Telecon.   Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Andrews, R., Union Supply Company,  Durham,
                             North Carolina.  November 15, 1984.
                             Galvanized schedule 40 pipe  costs.

I-E-34                       Telecon.   Eldridge, K., PES, Inc.,  with
                             Thompson,  T., Jones Frank Company,  Raleigh,
                             North Carolina.  November 16, 1984.  Cost
                             of fiberglass piping.
                                  B-66

-------
I-E-35
I-E-36
I-E-37
I-E-38
I-E-39
I-E-4U
I-E-41
I-E-44
I-E-46
Telecon.  Puncell, R., PES, Inc., with
Bnadt, R., Hint Combustion Engineens.
January 11, 198b.  Diffenences in
costs stated in Hint's comment letten
{see docket item I-H-129) and costs quoted
duning a telephone convensation with Hint
on 10/26/84.

Telecon.  Puncell, R., PES, Inc., with
Hasselman, E., Hasstech, Inc., San Diego,
Califonnia.  Januany 11, 1985.  Lange
pnocesson base unit cost and installation.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K., PES, Inc., with
Van Cleave, R., Amenon, Houston, Texas.
Januany 7, 1985.  Expected senvice life of
fibenglass pipe used as vapon netunn lines
fon gasoline sen/ice-stations.

Telecon.  Oswald, K., A.O. Smith, Inc.,
Little Rock, Ankansas, with Eldnidge, K.,
PES, Inc.  Januany 9, 1985.  Senvice life
of fibenglass pipe used fon Stage II vapon
necoveny systems.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K., PES, Inc., with
Fneed, G., IWNN, Inwin, North Canolina.
Octoben 2, 1984.  Costs associated with
Stage II vapon necoveny systems.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K,, PES, Inc., with
Wai ken, L., Bnaswell Equipment Company,
Hickony, N.C.  Octoben 18, 1984.  Excavation
costs in Stage II installation.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K., PES, Inc., with
DeLaHunt, R., Keanny Constnuction, National
City, Califonnia.  Octoben 29, 1984.
Pnice of netnofitting gasoline station to
Stage II vapon necoveny system.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K., PES, Inc., with
Bynne, J.» Prime of Califonnia, Panamount,
Califonnia.  Novemben 65 1984,  Excavation
costs associated with installation of
Stage II system.

Telecon.  Eldnidge, K., PES, Inc., with
Johnston, G., R.W. Johnston Company,
Oakland, Califonnia.  Novemben 16, 1984.
Costs of installation fon Stage II vapon
necoveny system.
                                  B-67

-------
I-E-52                       Telecon.   Eldridge,  K.f  PES,  Inc.,  with
                             West, E., Spences and Jones,  California.
                             November  7,  1984.  Stage II  retrofit  and
                             labor costs.

I-E-6b                       Telecon.   Norton, Bob, PES,  Inc,t with
                             Rumble, John, Emco Wheaton.   December 18,
                             1986.  Costs  of new nozzles.

I-E-66                       Telecon.   Norton, Bob, PES$  Inc., with
                             Brown, Bill,  OPW.  December  18,  1986.
                             Nozzle costs.

I-E-67"                      Telecon.   Norton, Bob, Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with Robertson,  Phil, B.F.
                             Goodrich.  December 18,  1986.  Costs  for
                             Coaxial hose.

I-E-71                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with-Payne,  Michael,  Dresser-
                             Wayne. January 7, 1987.  Stage  II  costs.

I-E-72                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with Rowan,  Dave,, Tokneim.
                             January 7, 1987.  Cost difference between
                             standard  and  vapor recovery  dispensers.

I-E-73                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with Brown,  Bill, OPW.
                             January 7, 1987.  Nozzle costs.

I-£-74                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with Rumble$  John,  Emco-
                             Wheaton.   January 7, 1987.   Nozzle  costs.

I-E-75                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
                             Services, Inc., with Zepoli,  Frank, Gilbarco.
                             January 8, 1987.  Cost difference between
                             conventional  and VR  dispensers.

I-E-76                       Telecon.   Osbourn, Scott,  Pacific Environmental
     ...   ...               Services, Inc., with Alary,  Roger,  Goodyear.
                             January 13,  1987.  Cost  of coaxial  hose.

I-F-1Q6                      "Development  of the  Hasselmann Vacuum
                             Assist Gasoline Vapor Recovery System."
                             Prepared  by Hasstech,  Inc.,  San  Diego,
                             California.

I-F-110                      OPW Fueling Components Group  Distributor
                             Price List Automatic Nozzles  - Service
                             Station Valves and Fittings,  New Nozzles
                             and Accessories, Vapor Recovery  Nozzle
                             Price Schedule, Replacement  Parts for OPW
                             Vapor Recovery Nozzles.   Dover Corporation/
                             OPW Division, Cincinnati,  Ohio.  June 11,
                             1984.

                                  B-68

-------
I-F-111                      Emco Wheaton,  Incorporated, Vapor Recovery
                             Nozzle  Pricing List.  Emco Wheaton, Inc.9
                             Conneaut, Ohio.  September 1, 1984.

I-F-113                      State of California Air Resources Board
                             Executive Order G-70-52-AC - Certification
                             of  Components  and Alternative Hiyh-Hang/
                             High-Retractor Hose Configurations for Red
                             Jacket, Hint,  and Balance Phase II Vapor
                             Recovery Systems.  J.D. Boyd, Executive
                             Officer.  Sacramento, California.  August 22,
                             1983.

I-F-114                      State of California Air Resources Board
                             Executive Order 6-70-7-AA - Receratification
                             of  the  Hasstech Model VCP-2 and VCP-2A
                             Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems.  J.D. Boyd,
                             Executive Officer.  Sacramento, California.
                             August  22,  1983.

I-F-115                      State of California Air Resources Board
                             Executive Order G-70-36-AA - Recertification
                             of  the  OPW  Balance Phase II Vapor Recovery
                             System.  J.D.  Boyd, Executive Officer.
                             Sacramento,  California.  August 22, 1983.

I-F-116                      State of California Air Resources Board
                             Executive Order G-7U-70-AA - Relating to
     . '                      the Certification of the Healy Phase II
                             Vapor Recovery System for Service Stations.
                             J.D. Boyd,  Executive Officer.  Sacramento,
                             California.  December 16, 1983.

I-F-117                      State of California Air Resources Board
                             Executive Order 6-70-33-AB - Certification
                             of  Modified Hirt VCS-200 Vacuum Assist
                             Phase II Vapor Recovery System.  J.D. Boyd,
                             Executive Officer.  Sacramento, California.
                             March 9, 1984.

-------

-------
              APPENDIX C





COMPARISON OF STAGE II COST ESTIMATES
                 C-l

-------
                               APPENDIX C

                 COMPARISON OF STASE II COST ESTIMATES

C.I  INTRODUCTION
     This appendix compares Stage II per-facility costs estimated by
the American Petroleum Institute (API), Sierra Research Corporation
(Sierra), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Methodologies
used by API and Sierra to calculate Stage II per-facility costs are
discussed in Sections C»2 and C.3, respectively.  These costs are then
compared to the Stage II per-facility costs estimated by EPA (see
Appendix B) in Section C.4, on an EPA model plant basis.  Section C.4
also shows a comparison of API, Sierra, and EPA costs on an EPA model
plant basis, with the cost annualization parameters (i.e., interest
rates, component equipment lives, sales tax, certification cost, etc.)
and recovery credits used by API and Sierra set equal  to those used by
EPA.  All information regarding the API and Sierra cost estimates
presented in this appendix was obtained from references I-D-42, I-E-30,
I-F-98, and I-F-100.  The EPA costs shown in this Appendix reflect
the assumptions for retrofit to an existing facility (7b percent single
dispensers and 25 percent multiproduct dispensers).
     Throughout this appendix, balance-individual (Bal-I) refers to a
Stage II balance system with an Individual vapor return line from each
pump to each storage tank.  Balance-manifolded (Bal-M) refers to a
balance system with the return lines from each pump at an island
manifolded together so that there is a single vapor return line from
each island to the leaded storage tank.  The title Assist-1 is used to
denote the Hirt system, Assist-2 is used for the Hasstech system,
Hybrid-1 (Hyb-1) is used for the Healy system, and Hybrid-2 (Hyb-2)
is used for the Red Jacket system.
C.2  API COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
C.2.1  API'Balahce'System'tnstal1ed'Cost
     The API obtained data on the installed cost of a balance system,
including cost and equipment life of components, by surveying eight
companies with installation and operating experience in California,
Costs were obtained for 6, 9, and 12-nozzle stations (see Table %C-1),
                                  C-2

-------
The costs for 3, 15, and 18-nozzle stations were extrapolated from these
data.
     Incremental dispenser costs over the costs of conventional  dispenser
equipment were calculated by API.  The costs of components for conven-
tional and balance dispensers are shown in Table C-2,  These data were
also obtained by API from Its survey of eight companies with operating
experience In California.  From these data, a total  dispenser cost dif-
ference of $324/nozzle was calculated.
     A 12 percent engineering fee (as shown 1n Table C-l)  and an Instal-
lation permit fee (shown In Table C-3) were added to the total  cost.
Total piping costs were then calculated using the equation:
       TPC - [(TCS * PF) - (ACBS - ACCS) x NN] x (1 + EC)
where:
      TPC  *  Total Piping Cost
      TCS  =  Total Cost of Station (from Table C-l)
       PF  -  Permit Fee (from Table C-3)
     ACBS  =  Average Dispenser Costs of a Stage II  Balance System
              ($432/nozzle from Table C-2)
     ACCS  =  Average Dispenser Costs of a Conventional System
              ($108/nozzle from Table C-2)
       NN  »  Number of Nozzles/Station (3, 9, 12, 15, and 18)
       EC  =  Engineering Cost (12%)
Installation costs for a Stage II balance system as reported by API are
shown In Table C-4.
C.2.2  API Vacuum Assist System Installed Cost
      API costs for the vacuum assist systems were obtained from three
manufacturers of these systems.  The cost data used 1n the API study
were the lowest of those reported (I-D-42).  Dispenser component costs
were estimated to be slightly higher than for the balance displacement
system dispenser components.  Each assist system nozzle costs $29.50
more than the balance nozzle, and Includes a $17/nozzle ball check valve
not used 1n the balance system.  Thus, the Incremental dispenser compo-
nent cost for the vacuum assist system (above conventional dispenser
components) 1s $324 +• $29.50 +• $1? = $37I/nozzle.  As with the balance
system, API added a 12 percent engineering cost and a permit fee (see
Table C-3) to the total cost.  The underground piping costs were assumed
to be the same as for the balance system.  Table C-5 presents the API
                                  C-3

-------
        Table C-l.  API SURVEY RESULTS:  TOTAL COST OF RETROFITTING
              A SERVICE STATION WITH A STAGE II BALANCE SYSTEM
                    (1983 Dollars, Reference I-E-30)
  Survey Respondent
           6 Nozzles
9 Nozzles
12 Nozzles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average
12% Engineering.
Total
(7,600) 9,Q4Qa (9,185)
10,500
4,200
9,840
13,224
(10,200) 11,640* (12,500)
5,400
9,980
9,240C
1,110
10,350
ll,345a (10,900)
14,700
6,300
12,770
NAb
15,380* (14,400)
6,735
16,870
11,910
1,430
13,340
13,780a
17,000
8,400
16,685.
NAb
17 ,280a
7,980
22,500
14,660
1,760
16,420
  aH1gh-hang retractor costs were not included in costs reported by
   respondents; therefore, a $24Q/nozzle cost was added by API to the
   respondents' costs.  Numbers in parentheses are the costs reported by
   the respondent*

       reported, by respondent*

  cTh1s average cost was. reported by API but was not reproducible
   by EPA calculations (9,228 calculated from entries given).
             Table C-2..  API COST ESTIMATES OF CONVENTIONAL
                 AND BALANCE SYSTEM DISPENSER COMPONENTS
                           (Reference I-E-30)
Component
Conventional  Dispenser
    Cost (Dollars)
 Balance System Dispenser
 Cost (Dollars)  (Range)
Nozzle
Swivels
Hose
Retractor
Total
Total Cost Difference
60
18
30
'0
Hi"
= $324
144
18
30
240
432

(85-200)
1 (15-25)
(15-48)
(225-250)


                                  C-4

-------
              Table C-3.  API INSTALLATION PERMIT FEE ESTIMATES
                              (Reference I-F-98)
                                      Number of Nozzles

           2a        3         6a        9         12          15         18



Cost($)   151       285       452       657       889       1,015      1,201
Estimated by EPA so costs could be compared with EPA estimates for additional
 model plants as shown in Tables C-14, C-15, C-17, and C-18.  Although API
 obtained data for a 6-nozzle station, they did not report an installation
 permit fee or capital  costs for this size station.
        Table C-4.  API COST ESTIMATES FOR AN INSTALLED BALANCE SYSTEM
                              (Reference I-F-98)
Number of
Nozzles/Out! eta
3
9
12
15
18
Installation Cost of
Balance Displacement System
(Dollars)
Dispenser
Components
1*090
3,270
4,360
5,440
6,530
Piping
6,650b
10,730
12,950
15*070
17. 250
Total
Cost
7,740
14,000
17,310
20,510
23,780
aAlthough API obtained data for a 6-nozzle station, they did not report
 ft in this table.
    s number was not reproducible and is inconsistent with the cost shown
 in the Table on page 3 of Appendix IV of the API report* (i.e., 6,560).
                                     C-5

-------
installed cost estimates for a vacuum assist system for various sized
stations.  As noted in Tables C-4 and C-5, the piping costs are not
reproducible for the 3-nozzle station.  Also, the piping costs are
supposed to be the same for the balance and vacuum assist systems, but,
as can be seen, were reported differently for the 3-nozzle station.
  Table C-5.  API COST ESTIMATES FOR AN INSTALLED VACUUM ASSIST SYSTEM
                          (Reference I-F-98)
Number of
Nozzles/Outlet5
3
9
12
15
18
Dispenser
Components
1,190
3,560
4,750 -
5,910
7,130
Costs in Dol
Processor
5,110
5,220
5,280
5,340
5,390
lars
Piping
6,560b
10,730
12,950
15,070
17,250
Total
12,860
19,510
22,980
26,320
29,770
aAlthough API obtained data for a 6-nozzle station, they did not
 report it in this table.
^This number is not consistent with its counterpart in Table C-4
 (i.e., 6,650); most likely a calculation or typographical  error.
C.2.3  API Maintenance Cost for Balance and Vacuum Assist Systems
     Annual nozzle maintenance by dispensing outlet personnel was
based on API estimates and incorporates three basic assumptions:
     1)  nozzles are exchanged for rebuilt nozzles yearly,
     2)  sealing face, retaining disc, bellows, and spring  of
         balance system displacement nozzle are replaced by
         dispensing outlet personnel every 6 months, and
     3)  costs are calculated as incremental over standard  dispensing
         outlets.  (API states that the incremental cost was calculated
         several ways and the least expensive method was used.)
The incremental costs for nozzle replacement for both balance and vacuum
assist nozzles are shown in Table C-6.  Additional maintenance costs are
shown in Table C-7.

                                  C-6

-------
       Table C-6.  API INCREMENTAL NOZZLE REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES
                             (Reference I-F-98)
Balance System
Vacuum Assist System
Rebuilt Vapor
Recovery Nozzle
100
75
Cost, $
Rebuilt
Standard Nozzle
17
17
Incremental
Cost
83
58
        Tabl* C-7.  ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE COSTS ASSUMED BY API
                            (Reference I-F-98)
           Item-                                            Cost,. $

Nozzle? Maintenance*                                       35/ Nozzle
Hose Components                                           30/ Nozzle
Hose. Laborb                                               21/Nozzle
Annual Operating Perrail: Cost                             ISO/Outlet
Pr oces so r. Mai ntenancec (vacuum assist only)              279/Qutlet
Ball Check Valved (vacuum assist only)                     I/Nozzle

aThis cost was excluded by API in its analysis when calculating vacuum
 assist maintenance cost*
     r. was estimated to be 45 minutes/year at $28/hr.
Estimated: as 10 percent of processor cost ($2,790).
^Estimated as 5 percent of ball check valve cost of $17*
                                    C-7

-------
C.2.4  API Annuallzed Cost
     Total annual1zed costs consist of several variables:  1) annual-
1zed cost of capital, 2) maintenance costs, and 3) recovery credits.
The API calculated1 the annual capital recovery cost by multiplying
capital costs by a capital recovery factor.  The capital recovery
factor equals:
        1(1+1)* / (1+1)* - 1,
where:  1 ~ the real return on Invested money as a fraction, and
        a = life of the equipment In years.
     The average return for oil companies for the next 14 years was
estimated to be 12.5 percent.  However, the average Inflation rate
estimated by Data Resources, Inc., for 1982-1986 1s 4.8 percent.
Therefore, the real return on Invested money was assumed by API to be
7.7 percent, or 1 = 0.077.  Table C-8 shows the annuallzatlon factors
used by API.
             Table C-8.  ANNUALIZATION FACTORS USED BY API
                             (Reference I-F-98)
             Component                         Annuallzatlon
               Life                                Factor
             (Years)	_„_____	__.
                3                                  0.3859
                8                                  0.1720
               15                                  0.1147
The Initial costs for the system were annual1zed over 3 years for dis-
pensed equipment, 15 years for underground plumbing, and 8 years for
processor equipment.
     Recovery credits for returned gasoline were not calculated by API
on a, per-faciHty basis.  The value of the returned fuel was calculated
on a nationwide basis by multiplying national throughput by the following
relationship for credits per gallon of gasoline dispensed:
          (grams hydrocarbon emitted/gallon dispensed gasoline) x
                        density of gasoline~
          (collection efficiency) x (credit for returned fuel),

                                  C-8

-------
where:
        - grams hydrocarbon emitted/
            gallon dispensed gasoline = 4 grams/gallon dispensed
        - density of gasoline         = 2,650 grams/gallon
        - collection efficiency -
            balance system            = 95%
            vacuum assist             = 50%
        - credit for returned fuel    = $0.909/gallon
     Table C-9 ^summarizes the cost estimates used by API for various
size stations.  As has been mentioned in Tables C-3, C-4, C-5» and C-9,
several numbers reported by API were not reproducible using the method-
ology described in the API report.  The one noticeable discrepancy is
in the maintenance cost for 12, 15, and 18-nozzle stations, which appear
to be in error by $22, $45, and $67, respectively, based on maintenance
items shown in Table C-7 and those reported in Table C-9.
C.3  SIERRA COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
C.3,1  Sierra Insta|jedBalance, Aspirator Assist, and Vacuum Assist
       System Costs
     Sierra obtained Stage II system costs from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and from vendors of installed system components.
The cost of an installed balance system was calculated by summing
the costs for each individual component of the system.  For comparison
to EPA cost estimates, it was assumed that the "aspirator" assist
system referred to by Sierra in its report was a Red Jacket (Hybrid 2)
system since the Healy hybrid system does not have an "aspirator," but
rather a "jet pump."  It was also assumed that the assist system referred
to by Sierra in its report was the Masstech system since the diagram
on page 8 of their report contains a blower (there is no blower associated
with this generation Hirt system).  The capital costs estimated by
Sierra are shown in Table C-10.  Sierra included a 10 percent discount
on nozzle costs and a"5 percent sales tax on all component and installation
costs.
                                  C-9

-------
            Table C-9.  SUMMARY OF API COST ESTIMATES FOR VARIOUS SIZE! STATIONS
                             Ba 1 a nee Pis pi a cement Sy s_t em

                                             Number of Nozzles/Outlet3,

                                     3         9        12        15
                                            18
  Installation Cost, 1983 $        7,740     14,000    17,310    10,51.0    23,780

  Maintenance Cost/Year, 1983"$    ""157s""""*T.Wl""~~"zll5$>"*J2,64CF   3425^

  Control Efficiency, percent     <	•—     95    	———	>

  Recovery Credit                 <	    $0.0013/gallon dispensed   	>
  Equipment Life, Years
            Dispenser Equipment <•
            Underground Piping  <«
                            3
                           15
   Although data were obtained for a 6 nozzle station, API did not report costs
   for a 6 nozzle station.

   This cost was not reproducible using methodology described by API.
                                  Vacuum Assist
                                           Number of Nozzles/Outlet

                                             9        12        15
                                          18
Installation Cost, 1983 $

Maintenance Cost/Year, 1983 $

Control Efficiency, percent

Recovery Credit

Equipment Life, Years
          Dispenser Equipment
          Underground Piping
          Processsor
12,860     19,510    22,980    26,320    29,770


   759C     1,418     1,747 •    2,077     2,405

 <•.._.....—.._.—     QK    .«.«.»..,._____..-.%
 •^^^L^WB-w^^. ^..w..^ ^ _._•_• ^     «?W    »™-™™--™^>—««••—^^—.^.W-.—mmm,^


 <	$0.000686/gallon dispensed —•	>
                          3
                         15
                          8
'This number is most likely a calculation or typographical error ($657
 calculated from data given by API).
                                         C-10

-------
             Table C-10.  SIERRA CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (Dollars)
Component
Nozzle
Dispenser
Modifications
Manifolded
Balance
198/ nozzle
140/ nozzle"
Vacuum Assist
124/nozzle
200/nozzle
Aspirator Assist
(Hybrid and Individual
Balance)
161/nozzle
334/nozzle
Blower and
Incinerator
Installation
Blower Installation
175/nozzle
   0
3,500/outlet
  17O/nozzle
2,000/outlet
Underground Piping  6,000/island0    5»OQQ/islandb
(for initial island)	
  225/nozzle
      0
7,000/islandb
alnstallation costs include an overhead retractor*
    s $650 per each additional island.  Cost tables are only for the first island,
  C.3.2  Sierra Maintenance Costs for Balance, Aspirator Assist, and
         Vacuum Assist Systems
       Routine maintenance items included by Sierra in their cost esti-
  mates were nozzles, boots, and faceplates.  Nozzles and vapor lines
  were assumed to require replacement every 2 years.  In the-calculation
  of nozzle replacement costs, a $50 cost for replacement of a conventional
  nozzle was subtracted from the discounted cost of the vapor recovery
  nozzles.  Vapor line replacement was estimated at $12/hose.  The labor
  required for nozzle and dispenser maintenance was estimated to require
  3 hours per year at a labor cost of $25 per hour.  Each replacement of
  nozzle boots and faceplates was estimated to cost $19 per nozzle per
  replacement for a balance system, $15 per nozzle per replacement for a
  vacuum assist system", and $20 per nozzle per replacement for an aspirator
  assist system.  These items were-assumed-to-need replacement every
  4 months, or three times per year.
  C.3.3  Sierra Annualized Cost
       Annualized costs were estimated by^ Sierra using the following
  assumptions:
       *  An annual investment tax credit of 10 percent and an energy
  conservation tax credit of 10 percent were applied to the entire system.
  This cost was annualized over 15 years,
                                  .  C-ll

-------
     •<  An annual permit fee of $16/nozzle was also added  to  the annual
cost.
     *  A property tax of 1 percent of the total  capital cost of the
Stage II system was added to the annual  cost.
     •>•  Initial costs for the system were amortized over 20 years for
the underground piping and 10 years for all  other equipment.
     •»  Annual costs for capital Investment were  calculated based on a
12 percent Interest rate using the~cap1tal  recovery factor foriiuiTa:

            annual cost: * capital cost x	
                                         (H-1)a - 1
       where:
            1  *  Interest rate (0.12)
            a  *  amortization period.
The capital recovery factors used by Sierra are shown  1n Table C-ll.
     o  Subtracted from the annual cost were the  annualized value of the
tax credtrand. the value of gasoline recovered (based  on 4.7  grams of hy-
drocarbons: recovered per gallon of gasoline dispensed, assuming 95 percent
capture efficiency, $0.30 per gallon of gasoline  recovered, and a gasoline
density of 2»8Q6 grams per gal loir).  The throughputs used  per facility are
shown 1n Table C-12.          -                                 ;
          Table C-ll.  CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTORS USED BY SIERRA

                Years             Recovery Factor

                 10*                   0.177
                 15&                   0.147
                                       0.134
a
 Used to calculate annual1 zed cost of capital  for dispenser equipment,
 processors, and nozzles.
b
 Used to. calculate annuallzed ITC and energy  tax  credits.
c                                    •
 Used to calculate annual1zed cost of capital  for underground piping.
                                   C-12

-------
             Table C-12.  THROUGHPUTS USED BY SIERRA FOR CALCULATION OF
                              PRODUCT RECOVERY CREDITS
Number of Nozzles
2
6
8
12
16
Number of Islands
1
2
2
4
4
Average Throughput
(gallons/month)
14,000
30,000
55,000
100,000
250,000
          An example of Sierra cost calculations  for the installation  of an

     aspirator assist system on a 4-island,  16-nozzle,  250,000 gallon

     throughput/month station follows:


Capital Investment:  (see Table C-10)

     piping:    (($7,000 for first island)  + (3 islands x $650/island))
                     x (1.05 sales tax) = $9,398

     nozzles:   (($161/nozzle) x (1 -  0.1 discount)) x  (16 nozzles)
                     x (1.05 sales tax) =145 x 16 x 1.05 = $2,436

     dispenser modification:
                ($334/nozzle) x (16 nozzles) x (1.05 sales tax)  = $5,611

     installation:  ($225/nozzle) x (16 nozzles)  x (1.05 sales tax)  =  $3,780

     Total  Capital Cost = $21,225.

Annualized Cost of Capital Investment:

   C($9,398 piping cost) x (0.134 capital  recovery factor from Table C-ll)]

 +• [($2,438 nozzle cost + $5,611 dispenser modification cost + $3*780
    installation cost)

                        x (0.177 capital  recovery factor from Table  C-ll)]

                        =  $3,353.

Annual  Maintenance:

     boots* faceplates, and labor:

     [(($20/nozzle replacement) x (3 replacements/year) x (1.05 sales  tax))  +
                        ((3 labor hours/nozzle-year) x  ($25/hr))] x  (16  nozzles)
                          = $2,208.


                                      C-13

-------
     nozzles and vapor hoses:
     C(((($161/nozzle) x (1 - 0.1 discount)) - ($50/conventional  nozzle)) /
     (2 years/replacement)) + (($12/vapor hose) / (2 years/replacement))] x
     (16 nozzles) x (1.05 sales tax) » (48 + 6) x 16 x 1.05 = $907
     Subtotal = $3,115.
Annual Permit Fee:  ($16/nozzle) x (16 nozzles) = $256.
Annual Property Tax;                                 	
     ($21,225 x capital cost) x (0.01 property tax) = $212.
Annual1zed ITC/Energy Tax Credit;
     ($21,225 capital  cost) x C(0.1 investment tax credit) + (0.1 energy
              tax credit)] x (0.147 capital recovery factor from Table C-ll) =
                             - ($624) credit.
Annual Product Recovery;
     [(250,000 gallons dispensed/month) x (12 months/year) x
          (4.7 grams recovered/gallon dispensed) x
          ($0.90/gallon)] / (2,806 grams/gallon of gasoline)
                             = ($4,522) credit.
Total Annualized Cost;
     $3,353 + $3,115 + $256 + $212 - $624 - $4,522 = $1,790.
Cost Per Hegagram of Hydrocarbon Controlled
     $1,790 annual ized cost / ((250,000 gallons dispensed/month.)  x (12 months
            /year) x (4.7 grams recovered/gallon dispensed)) x (10^ gm/Mg)
             = $127/Hg recovered.
          Table C-13 summarizes the Stage II per-facility capital  costs
     and annual maintenance costs estimated by Sierra.
     C.4  COMPARISON OF STAGE II COST ESTIMATES
          A direct comparison of EPA, Sierra, and API cost estimations was
     difficult to make because each analysis used different facility gasoline
     throughputs, number of nozzles per facility, and number of islands per
     facility.  However, Figures C-l through C-4 graphically display both the
     capital and annualized costs for each analysis on a per-nozzle basis
     and a per-facility throughput basis.  EPA per-facility throughputs
                                       C-14

-------
Table C-13.
SIERRA CAPITAL AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
    COST ESTIMATES
COST COMPONENT
DISPENSER CONVERSION <«/NOZZLE>
NOZZLES
MODIFICATION EQUIPMENT 
LABOR 
TOTAL DISPENSER COST
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT CS/STATION)
PROCESSING UNIT 
LABOR
TOTAL AUXILIARY COST (•>
UNDERGROUND PIPING <«/STATION>
2 NOZZLE STATION
6 NOZZLE STATION
a NOZZLE. STATION*
12 NOZZLE STATION
16 NOZZLE STATION
TOTAL, EQUIPMENT &- LABOR COST
2 NOZZLE, STATION
6 NOZZLE: STATIO8<
8. NOZZLE STATIO*
12. NOZZLE STATION
IS NOZZLE. STATION
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS, «3
2 NOZZLE! STATION
6. NOZZLE STATION
3 NOZZLE STATION^
12 NOZZLE STATION:
is. NOZZLE: STATIC*
TOTAL. CAPITAL. COST
2 NOZZLE STATION*
6 NOZZLE STATION'
a NOZZLE. STATION.
12 NOZZLE STATION
IS NOZZLE STATICS
DISPENSER MAINTENANCE <*/NZ/YR>
NOZZLES (9;
HOSES 
TOTAL. DISPENSER MAINTENANCE COST
ADDITIONAL. MAINTENANCE <*/STAT/YRJ
PROCESSING UNIT <.-}>
TOTAL. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE. COST CkJ
MODEL. PLAHT 1
MODEL. PLANT 2
MODEL. PLANT 3
MODEL PLANT 4
MODEL PLANT S
1 BAL-IND

198
14O
175
313



0

7.0OO
7,690
7.6SO
a.9so
S.9SO

a.oz&
1O.72S
11.75*
IS^IOS-
17.15*
•
359-
41O
42O
3O3
522.

3.3SS
l£.13ft
12.174
15.609
17.630

67
&
135

208



4ir
1.250
1.667
2.500
3.334
•
BAL-MAN

198
14O
175
513



0

S.OOO
6.650
6>6SO
7.95O
7.95O

7.026
9.729
1O.754
14.106
16. 158-
-
3O9
36O
37O
453
472

7.335
1O.088
1-1.124
14.359
16,630

6T
6
135

2oa



4ir
1.2SO
1.667
2.SOO
3.334-
SYSTEM 
1 HYB-2

161
334
225
72O



O

7.00O
7.650
7.650
8.950
3.9SO

a,44O
11.970
13.41O
17.S9O
2O.47O

3B&
498
536
678
755

8.828
12.468
13.946
18,268
21.225

SO
6
138

195



389
1,168-
1.558
2.336.
3.115
IASSIST-2

124
2OO
170
494

3.SOO
2.000
5.500

S.OOO
5.650
5.650
6.95O
6.950

11..48&
14,114
16.4O2
18,378
20,354

549
630
719
768
ai&

12,037
14,744
17.121
19,146
21.170

33
S
122

161



322
96T
1.289
1.933
2,578
    for
                        C-15

-------
                       Footnotes  for  Table  C-13

(a)  Balance-Ind = Balance  Individual;  Hyb-2  = Red  Jacket;
                   Assist-2 = Hasstech.

(b)  Balance-Ind and Manifolded:
                   Includes cost  of anti-recirculation valve,
                   flow limiter,  hose swivels, new  liquid hose
                   and vapor recovery hose, and  hanger kit.
     Hyb-2;
                   Includes aspirator,  new  liquid hose and
                   vapor recovery hose, hose  swivels, and
                   hanger kit*	_		
     Assist-2:
                   Includes cost  of check valve, flame arrestor,
                   vapor hose, and  hanger kit.

(c)  Sierra's labor cost for each system includes the cost of an
     overhead hose retractor system.

(d)  Cost includes collection unit  (blower, turbine, etc.), control
     panel,  processor, and  pressure/vacuum  valve for manifolded vent
     risers*

(e)  Manifolded balance system piping is $6,000  for first island,
     plus $650  per additional island.

(f)  An average discount of 10 percent  on the cost  of nozzles is
     included in the "Total Capital Cost" values, also a $50 cost
     for standard nozzle is subtracted  from vapor recovery nozzle
     costs.   Sierra also computes a 5 percent sales tax on the
     "Total  Equipment and Labor Cost" value after the nozzle discount
     is applied and includes this tax in the  "Total Capital Cost"
     values  (e.g., for a 6-nozzle balance individual system, cost =
     6 ((198 x  0.1) - 50) = 181).

(g)  Sierra  replaces every  2 years  with a new nozzle (same lifetime
     as standard nozzle); therefore,  annual cost equals half the
     incremental cost between standard  ($50)  and vapor recovery
     nozzles.  The nozzle cost includes a 5%  sales  tax.  Example for
     balance individual  nozzle, cost  -  [((198)(0.9) - 50) (1.05)]/2 = 67,

(h)  Sierra  replaces a vapor hose ($12)..every 2  years.  The hose cost
     includes a 5% sales tax.  All  boots and  faceplate equipment costs
     also include- a 5% sales tax.

(1)  Balance-Ind and Manifolded;
                 replace three times  per year, parts cost $19 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor per  replacement at $25
                 per hour (e.g.,  19 X 1.05  x  3 + (3 x 25) = 135).

     Hyb-2:
                 replace three times  per year, parts cost $20 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor per  replacement at $25
                 per hour (e.g.,  20 x 1.05  x  3 + (3 X 25) = 138).
                                C-16

-------
                  Footnotes  for Table  C-13  (concluded)


     Assist-2:
                 replace  three times per year, parts cost $15 per
                 replacement, and  1 hour labor per replacement at $25
                 per hour (e.g., 15 x  1.05  x 3 +  (3 x 25) = 122).

(j)   No  cost given.

(k)   Costs  include a 5  percent sales tax on equipment.
                                  C-17

-------
o
j_»
00
O
O
fe
   •mar

   I
26-

24-

22-

20-

18 -

16 -

14-

12-

10-

 8-

 i -

 4-
                              Figure C-l
                STAGE I! PER-FACILITY CAPTITAL COST
         0
                  X-APt
7     9     11
  NUMBER OF NOZZLES
                                             13
                                                i
                                                §

                                           0-SIERRA
                                                      i
                                                      15
                                                    i
                                                    17

-------
o
O
Q

k.
O

CO
Q
        3.S H
        2.5-
        1.5-
        0.5-
                              Figure C-2


                 STAGE II PER-FACILITY ANNUAL COST
                  X-API
                           NUMBER OF NOZZLES
                           • f-EPA      —
0-SIERRA

-------
•
0
   OT

   s
   o
   Q
   8



   I
   O
26




24



22



20




18



16








12



10



 8
         4-




         2 -




         0
                                  Figure C-3,


                 STAGE II  PER-FACILITY CAPITAL COST
                   40





                   X-APt
                   80
120
160
 I


200
240
                     THRUPUT (GALLONS PER MONTH)

                     	 I-EPA       	 0-SIERRA

-------
W
  o
  Q
v'fe
ISJ
a
I
o
      4
     3.5 -
      3 -
     2.5 -
      2 -
       1.5 -
      1 -
     0.5 -
        0 •
                               Figure C-4.
              STAGE II PER-FACILITY  ANNUAL  COST
              F    I
                  40
 i
80
120
160
200
240
               X-API
                            THRUPUT (GALLONS PER MONTH)
                            	 #~EPA      	 0-SIERRA

-------
are used to calculate API's recovery credits for the 3, 9, and 15-
nozzle stations, and Sierra (12-nozzle and 16-nozzle) per-faclHty
throughputs are used to calculate API's recovery credits for the 12 and
18-nozzle stations, because API did not supply per-facility gasoline
throughputs.  The costs shown reflect the costs reported by each
analysis for a manifolded balance system, since that is the only system
which all of the analyses considered.  As these figures show, EPA per-
facillty capital cost estimates are very similar to those of ARI^and
Sierra.  The EPA's costs for the smaller stations are less than the API
and Sierra costs, while EPA's costs for the larger stations are greater
than the API and Sierra costs.  The Agency's annual costs generally are
less than both Sierra and API, because EPA's recovery credits are so much
larger than Sierra's or API's.  The EPA's recovery credits are larger
due to EPA's use of higher emission factors and a higher cost of gasoline.
     In order to make a more direct comparison of costs among the
three analyses, Sierra and API methodologies for Stage II costs were
used to calculate capital and annualized costs for EPA model plants
(i.e., EPA nozzles per facility, number of islands per facility, and
throughput per facility; see Table B-8 for definition of each EPA model
plant),  Tables C-14 and C-15 present the per-facility Stage II capital
and annualized cost estimates developed by EPA (see Appendix B for
further details), those calculated using the Sierra methodology (see
Section C-3), and those calculated using the API methodologies (see
Section C-2) on a per-model plant basis.  In this comparison of
capital costs (see Table C-14), the general  trends remain the same as
in the previous comparison.  One exception to this trend i<> for
Assist-1 systems, where API's capital costs are greater than EPA's
capital costs for all model plant sizes.  Table C-15 shows that EPA's
annualized costs are generally less than either API's or Sierra's
annualized costs.  This is most likely due to the differences in
methodologies used in calculating annualized costs and the larger
recovery credits calculated by EPA.
     To further explore the differences in methodologies, all costs
were recalculated using EPA model plant financial assumptions (i.e.,
number of nozzles per station, number of islands per station, gasoline
throughput per model plant, sales tax, engineering costs, Interest

                                  C-22

-------
                     Table C-14.  CAPITAL AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE  COST SUMMARY
                                 USING EPA  MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
SYSTEM (a)
COST COMPONENT
DISPENSER CONVERSION ^t/KOZZl£)
NOZZLES (b)
NOOIFICfTON EQUIPMENT (c)
US® (d)
TOTAL ms&m am
ftKiLHsr Eumerr <$/srenGN>
PKEESBIIB UNIT 
-------
                        Footnotes  for  Table  C-14
(a)  Hyb-1 = Healyj Hyb-2 » Red Jacket;  Assist-1 = Hlrtj
     Assist-2 « Hasstech.

(b)  API calculates incremental  cost between  standard nozzle  ($60)
     and vapor recovery nozzle  ($144 for balance nozzle and $174 for
     assist nozzle).

(c)  Balance-Ind
        EPA!includes cost  of overhead  hose retractor system,
                 applicable swivels, flow limiter, hanger kit, and the
                 incremental  cost between a standard liquid hose and a
                 liquid/vapor recovery hose system.       \
        Sierra:  includes cost  of anti-recirculation valve, flow
                 limiter, hose  swivels,  new liquid hose and vapor
                 recovery hose, and  hanger  kit.
     Balance-Mani folded
        EPA:same as Balance-Ind for EPA.
        Sierra:  same as Balance-Ind for Sierra.
        API:     includes swivels, hoses, and  retractors.
     Hyb-1
        EFA:     includes cost  of Model  100 jet pump, Model CX-6 adapter,
                 installation kit, Model  S  swivel, Model 143  control
                 valve, and incremental  cost  between standard liquid
                 hose and Model  CX hose.
     Hyfa-2
        Sierra:  includes aspirator, new liquid hose and vapor recovery
                 hose, hose swivels, and hanger kit.
     Assist-1
        EPA:     same as Balance-Ind for EPA  plus cost of ball check
                 valve.
        API:     same as Balance-Manifolded.
     Assist-2
        EPA:     cost obtained  from  Hasstech,  Inc. (see Appendix B);
                 no specific component breakdown given.  Sierra:
                 includes cost  of check  valve, flame arrestor, vapor
                 hose, and hanger kit.

(d)'  Sierra's labor cost for each system includes the cost of an
     overhead hose retractor system-

(e)  Cost includes collection unit (blower, turbine, etc.),, control
     panel». processor, and pressure/vacuum  valve for manifolded vent
     risers.

(f)  Total  processor costs estimated by  API are:

           Model plant 1:  $4,563*
           Model plant 2:  $4,563
           Model plant 3:  $4,612*
           Model plant 4:  $4,714
           Model plant 5:  $4,768

     *Estimated by EPA from data presented  by API.

                                  C-24

-------
                 FootnotesforTable  C-14 (continued)


(g)      Sierra:   an average discount  of 10% on  the  cost  of  nozzles
                 and a 5% sales tax on  the "Total Equipment and Labor
                 Cost" is applied (e.g.,  for a  balance-individual
                 system.  Model  Plant  2:   additional  cost =  - ($198/
                 nozzle x 0.1 nozzle  discount x 3 nozzles/model plant
                 x 1.05 sales tax) +  ($8,539 total  equipment and  labor
                 costs x  0.05 sales tax)  » -($20 x  3 x 1.05) +  ($8,539
                 x (1.05  -  1) » - 63  +  427 » $364.

        API:      a 12% engineering cost on "Total Equipment and Labor
                 Cost" and  an installation fee  (see Table C-3) is
                 applied  (e.g.s for a balance manifolded system,
                 Model Plant 3:  additional  cost c  ($9,237  equipment
                 and labor  cost) x (0.12 engineering cost)  +• ($452
                 installation fee) =  $1,560.

        EPA:      engineering and inspection costs  were  not included in
                 the EPA  analysis.

(h)      EPA:      replace  every  2 years  with new nozzle (same life-
                 time as  standard nozzle);  therefore, annual  cost
                 equals half the incremental cost between standard
                 ($50) and  vapor recovery nozzles.   Multiproduct
                 dispenser  nozzle life  considered twice  that of
                 conventional dispenser.

        Sierra:   replace  every  2 years  with new nozzle (same lifetime
                 as standard nozzle;  therefore, annual cost equals
                 half the incremental cost between  standard ($50)
                 and vapor  recovery nozzles. The 10% nozzle discount
                 and 5% sales tax are also included in this price
                 (e.g., balance-individual  nozzle replacement =
                 [($198/nozzle  x 0.9  discount)  - $50/conventional
                 nozzle]  x  1.05 sales tax x 1/2 replacement per
                 year - [(178 - 50) x 1.05] /2  = $67/nozzle.

        API:      replace  nozzles every  year with rebuilt nozzle; cost
                 presented  includes deduction for standard  rebuilt
                 nozzle ($17).

(i)      EPA:      replace  every  2 years  (same lifetime as liquid  •
                 hose on  standard dispenser); therefore, annual
                 cost equals half the incremental cost between
                 standard liquid hose ($24) and coaxial  liquid/vapor
                 recovery hose  system*

        Sierra:   replace  vapor  hose  ($12) every 2 years.

        API:      annual equipment costs (including  retractors) average
                 $30 and  labor  averages $21 per year.
                                  C-25

-------
               Footnotes for Table C-14 (concluded)

(j)  Balance-Ind
        EPA:replace three times  per year;  parts  cost $19 per
                 replacement, and 20 minutes  labor per  replacement
                 at $25 per hour.

        Sierra:  replace three times  per year,  parts  cost $19 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor  per replacement at $25
                 per hour.

     Balance-Mani folded
        EPA:     replace three times  per year;  parts  cost $19 per
                 replacement, and 20 minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

        Sierra:  replace three times  per year;  parts  cost $19 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor  per replacement at $25
                 per hour.

        API:     replace two times per year.

    Hyb-J
        EPA:     replace two times per year;  parts cost $33 per
                 replacement, and 20 minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour*
    Hyb-2
        Sierra:  replace three times  per year;  parts  cost $20 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor  per replacement at $25
                 per hour.
    Assist-1
        EPA:     replace two times per year;  parts cost $15 per
                 replacement, and 20 minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

        API:     replace two times per year.

    Assist-2
        EPA:     replace two times per year;  parts cost $15 per
                 replacement, and 20 minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

        Sierra:  replace three times  per year;  parts  cost $15 per
                 replacement, and 1 hour labor  per replacement at $25
                 per hour.

(k)  API assumed an annual  maintenance cost equalling 5 percent of
     component cost (i.e., $17 x 0.05 = $1).

(1)     EPA:     maintenance time per year at $100 per  visit.

        Sierra:  no cost given.

        API:     assumed an annual  maintenance  cost equalling
                 10 percent of the processor  cost  (i.e., $2,790
                 x 0.10 = $279).

                                  C-26

-------
                       Table  C-15.   CAPITAL  AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST  SUMMARY
                                       USING  EPA MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
SYSTEM (i)
 mmsrim  i
  EM        i
	_—_i-
                                                    EPfl
                       HYB-l   HYB-2
                         EPft
                                                                                           ASSIST-1
                                                                                           EPfl     »
                                                                                                        SS31ST-2
                                                                                                       EPfl  smm
CflPITflL ffiCOVESY COST  (b)
   WOSLPUW2
   HJBB. PLfiNT 3
   WW-PUWS
HBIHTliSCE COST
   mSLttmt
   fflBELPUSITS
   HQOB.PU8ST4
   MfflELPUWS
JH1J8L          CUT (e)
                                  677
                                  881
                                1,554
                                2,145
                                3,229

                                  475
                                  6tS
   tSMELPUWS
Sim POINTS
                 id)
OTELPUHT1
  211
  274
  472
MB3Q. PUWT *
IBB.PU!T5
    KCWSft CJEDIT5  (e)
   iBISaPUlSTS
                  m
                                     §18
                                     §16
                                   1,613
                                   4,798
   MODEL
   S3BS.PU8iT5
rara,          CSBT
   MQBB.|)UNr 1
   MBBSLPUSfTE
   fflELPUSCr 3
   J8BB.PUW4
   tsBELPuuifs
COST
   BOSELPUaiTS
   ®HL PlflST 4
   ltm.PUW§
                                2,369
                                2,94t
                                2,451

                                3,4@9
                                  873
                                     184
                                                I
                                          1,214 i
                                          1,2S3 i
                                          1,672 i
       2.74S i
             1
         521 i
         677 I
       1,354 I
       2,831 I
       3*386 i
             I
          4t i
          5£ I
         1S4 I
         156 i
                                            114 1
         178 I
             I
          ft !
         212 1
         633 I
       1,176 1
       3,347 I
             I
         254 i
         524 t
             1

       1,48® )
       2, £8? !
       1,542 i
       1,3S7 I
         981 t
         3§4 I
  722
  9ii
1,592
2,157
3,214

  475
  617
i,23e
i,es@
  483
  £34
  til
2,9^
2,4^

3,613
  m

  631
  1S1
1,073
1,142
1,531
1,921
2,607

  521
  S77
1,354
2,831
                                                            52
                                                            114
                                                            1S6
                                                            7S
                                                            127"
                                                 ilS     312

                                                1,633   1,176
                                                4,7ft.  3,347

                                                   8     223
                                                      f
                                                           374
                                                          1,353
                                                          2,168
                                                          5,113
                                                         359
                                                         291
                                S4S
                              1,13S
                              1,751
                              2,472
  4E3
  549
1,«9
1,648
2,746
                                                                150
                                                                15®
                                                                m
        *   s

          78
         313
         547

       2,i94
                                                                 It44t
                                                                 3,038
        1,042
         431
                                                                           223
                                                                           S7S
                                                                           129
                                                                           Slfi
          735   1,312
          956   1,41®
        1,714   1,927
        2,371   2,443
        3,603
  497
  646
1,298

3^239
                                                                                  487
                                                                                  633
                                                                                 1,
                                 4t
                                 5t
                                m
                 153
                 £14

                  90
                       1,681   1,176
                       4,7t§   3,347
                   i     2S7
                   t     377

                   i     629

                1,33§
                1 772   t si&.®
                Jh,waw   &, «Tw
                2,6^   2,41@
                3,313   3,818
        3,567
          949   1,684
        I,g3i   1,435
          786    965
          22S    343
                1,629     SB8
                1,766   1,172
                2,373   1,8S1
                2,929   2,597
                3,964   4,048
  465
  575
I,fs59

2,43®
                                        4i7
                                        446
                                                                                         1,
                  65
                 m
                 453
                 141
  554
  636
  55-3
1,353
                                        15®
                                        151
                                        15§
                                        159

                                          e
          41
         165
         £83
         §35
                        2,395   1,523
               2,440   l,64t
                       l.TSf-
               3,59@   2,74®
                 4"3S&>   1 S£,&
                 ,i32v   M,%Jo2«
                       %73S


               13,526   6,833
               1 ^%&   ! Bl£R
               tSy^Hi   i|OD3
               2,S43   1,631
               1,B72   1,141
                 763     533
                1,642   1,558
                1,745   £,§17
                2,217   2,399
                2,781   ^ 782
                3,349   3,456
  406
  498
  m?
l,29i
                                 433

                                 611
                                 75S
                                                                                                            0
  4§3

1.S47
1,571
2,618

   48
   St

  IS
                         123
                         134
                         1ST
                         lit-
                         S!3
           65     S®
          259    361
          453    §33
          341  i,17f
        2,395  3,347
                                                               361
                                                               393

                                                               525
               2,42t
               2,45i   lf97S
               3,276   £,Sie
               3,918   2, Set
               3,979   2,578

               13,416   8,5-2-3
               3,395^   2, IS
               a, 593   1,554
               1,667    955
                 595    289
    lout page for footnotes.
                                                                C-27

-------
                            Footnotes for Table C-15
(a)  Assist -1 = Hint; Assist-2 = Hasstech; Hyb-1 = Healy;  Hyb-2 = Red  Jacket
                                           •   1    -
                                           1   l  * 1
(b)  Cost of Capital * (Capital Cost)  x
                                         (1 + i)a - 1   *
       where:  1 = Interest rate
               a = equipment lifetime.

       EPA:    i « 10 percent
               a =  8 years for dispenser and processing unit,  and ,
                   35 years for piping
       Sierra: i » 12 percent
               a » 10 years for dispenser and processing unit,  and
                   20 years for piping
       API:    i *  7.7 percent
               a »  3 years for dispenser,
                    8 years for processing unit,  and
                   15 years for piping.

(c)    EPA:    included in nationwide enforcement costs; therefore,  not
               attributed on a per-facility basis.

       Sierra: $16/nozzle,

       API:    $150/station.

(d)    EPA:    includes property tax (1%), insurance (1%),  and  administration
                   » equalling 4 percent of total capital cost.
       Sierra: includes property tax equalling 1 percent  of total  capital cost.

(e)  Bal ance and Hy bri d ;
       EPA:    Emission factors:  Displacement = 1,552 mg/liter
                                  Breathing loss = 120 mg/liter

               Assuming 95% recovery of both displacement and  breathing
               losses, recovery credit - (1,552 mg/liter) (0.95) +
               (120 mg/liter) (0.95) = 1,588 mg/liter.

     Example of recovery credit for Model  Plant 2  (=20,000 gallons  =  75,700
liters):

               1,588 mg/liter x 75,700 liters/month x kg/106 mg x  ltter/0.67 kg
               x 12 months/year x $0.24/liter « $518/year.

     Assist-1 S Assist-2
               Assuming 50% of the recovery credit  associated  with  balance
               systems - C(l,552 tng/liter) (0.95) +• (120  mg/liter)
               (0.95)3 (0.50)  - 794 mg/liter.
                                      C-28

-------
                       Footnotes for Table C-15  (concluded)


               Example  recovery credit:  For Model Plant  2  (=20,000 gallons =
               75,700 liters),
               794 mg/liter x 75,700 liters/month x kg/106 mg x liter/0.67 kg
               x  12 months/year x $0.24/liter =  $259/year.

       Sierra:  equals (throughput gal/mo)(12 mo/yr)(4.7 g/gal)($0.90/gal)
                                    2,806 g/gal

       API:     equals  $0.0013/gal  dispensed for balance  systems and
               $0.000686/gal dispensed for assist systems.

(f)     EPA:     none.

       Sierra:  includes  investment tax credit  (10%) and  energy conservation tax
               credit  (10%), equalling 20% of total capital cost amortized over
               15 years  at an interest rate of  12 percent.

       API:     none.
                                       C-29

-------
rates, emission factors, compiled recovery factors, equipment lifetimes,
discounts, certification costs, tax credits, inspection fees,, property
tax, insurance, and administrative costs were changed to those used
by EPA).  Table C-16 shows the financial assumptions made in each
analysis that were changed to those used by EPA.  Table C-17 shows
the Stage II capital costs and annual  maintenance costs.  Table C-18
shows the Stage II annualized costs.  In both cases, EPA's costs
generally are greater than API's and Sierra's.           ;
                                  C-30

-------
             Table C-16.  FINANCIAL-ASSUMPTIONS  MADE BY  EPA,  SIERRA, AND API

Interest Rate (%)
Dispenser Life (years)
Processor Life (years)
Piping Life (years)
Nozzle Discount (% discount)
Sales Tax (%)
Engineering Cost
(% of total capital cost)
Certification Cost ($)
Tax Credit Life (years)
Insurance (% of capital cost)
Administration
(% of capital cost)
Property Taxes (% of capital cost)
Inspection Cost®
EPA*
10
8
8
35
0
b
0
0
NA^
1
2
1
0
Sierra
12
10
10
20
10
5
0
0
15
0
0
1
16
API
7.7
3
8
15
0
0
12
c
- NAd
0
o
0
150
RECOVERY CREDIT

     Balance and Hybrid
        ($/gal  dispensed)

     Vacuum Assist
        ($/gal  dispensed)
0.0022


0.0011
0.0015


0.0015
0.0013


0.000686
 All financial assumptions were changed to those used by EPA to calculate Table
 C-18 and Table C-19.

 Assumed that sales tax was included in total  cost estimates received  from
 vendors.
f+
"Varies with service station (see Table C-3).

 NA - not applicable.
a
"Sierra - I/nozzle, API - I/station.
                                         C-31

-------
       Table C-17.
                               CAPITAL AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST  SUMMARY
                                    WITH ALL EPA INPUTS
SYSTEM (a)
COST COMPONENT
DISPENSER CONVERSION (I/NQZ2LD
NOZZLES (b)
MODIFICATION EQUIPMENT (c)
moft td)
TOTAL DISPOSER COST
funiiAW Esuiweff (I/STATION)
P8QCESSIN8 UNIT (e)
LASW
TOTAL flUXIUAW COST
INDER8ROUNB PIPING (J/STATION)
MODEL FlflNTl
KIEL PUNT 2
MODEL PUHT3
«OELPlflNT4
MDKLPUOT5-
TOTOL EQUIPMENT t LflUR COST
MODEL PUWi
KBELPUSNT2
MODEL PUNTS
KIEL PLANTS
MODEL PtflHT5
ffliniDNfiL CAPJTftL COSTS' (3)
MODEL PtflNTi
KDB.PUNT2
MQ0ELFUNT3
KXSaPUKT4
MODEL PUNT5
TflTflL CAPITAL COST
MODEL PUWi
MODEL PtAKT2
MXe.PUHT3 *
K»ELPlflNT4-
MODEL PUHT5
Dispense MAINTENANCE  554
573 636
1,858 993
1,538 11,358
2,480 1^064
flSSirf-2
EPA SIEHffi

124 124
205 288
58 170
\ 379 49*

3,988 3,588
1,288 2,888
5,108 5,501

4,908 ii,m
5,388 3,088
7,710 :i,65«
18,158 f>,388
11,958 f 1,358

10,958 li,73S
11,718 12,756
15,278 i:i,en
18,950 17,267
23,210 20,471

8 8
0 8
8 0
8 8
0 8

18,950 11,, 735
11,718 12,758
15,278 i:i,311
18,958 17,267
23,218 20,478

32 37
43 &
47 121
— _- — _
123 162

188 	
'
406 488
498 538
897 1,,860
1,298 £,589
2,898 c!,649
Bt» twct
for f ootrxrt L«S.
                                          C-32

-------
                        Footnotes  for  Table  C-17
(a)   Hyb-1 = Healy; Hyb-2 »  Red  Jacket;  Assist-1 = Hirt;
     Assist-2 = Hasstech.                                 -

(b)   API calculates incremental  cost between  standard nozzle ($60)
     and vapor recovery nozzle  ($144 for balance nozzle and $174 for
     assist nozzle).
        EPA:     includes  cost of overhead  hose  retractor system,
                 applicable swivels,  flow limiter,  hanger kit, and the
                 incremental  cost between a standard  liquid hose and a
                 liquid/vapor recovery  hose system.
        Sierra:  includes  cost of anti-recirculation  valve, flow
                 limiter,  hose swivels, new liquid  hose and vapor
                 recovery  hose, and hanger  kit.
     Balance-Man i folded
        EPA:same as Balance-Ind  for EPA.
        Sierra:  same as Balance-Ind  for Sierra.
        API:     includes  swivels, hoses, and  retractors.
     Hyb-1
        EPA:     includes  cost of Model  100 jet  pump, Model CX-6 adapter,
                 installation kit, Model  S  swivel,  Model 143 control
                 valve, and incremental  cost between  standard liquid
                 hose and  Model  CX hose.
     Hyb-g
        Sierra:  includes  aspirator,  new liquid  hose  and vapor recovery
                 hose, hose swivels,  and hanger  kit.
     Assist-1
        EPA;     same as Balance-Ind  for EPA plus cost of ball check
                 valve.
        API:     same as Balance-Manifolded.
     Assis|-2
        EPAT*    cost obtained from Hasstech,  Inc.  (see Appendix B);
                 no specific  component  breakdown given.
     Sierra:     includes  cost of check valve, flame  arrestor, vapor
                 hose, and hanger  kit.

(d)  Sierra's labor cost for each  system includes the cost of an
     overhead hose retractor  system.

(e)  Cost includes collection unit (blower, turbine,  etc.), control
     panel, processor, and pressure/vacuum  valve for manifolded vent
     risers.

(f)  Total processor costs estimated  by API are:

           Model plant 1:   $4,563*
           Model plant 2:   $4,563
           Model plant 3:   $4,612*               .
           Model plant 4:   $4,714
           Model plant 5:   $4,768

     *Estimated by EPA from data presented  by  API.

                                  C-33

-------
                  Footnotes for Table C-17 (continued)
(g)     Sierra:  an average discount of 10% on the cost of nozzles
                 and a 5% sales tax on the "Total  Equipment and Labor
                 Cost" is applied (e.g., for a balance-individual
                 system,  Model  Plant 2; additional cost • - |$198/
                 nozzle x 0,1 nozzle discount x 3  nozzles/model  plant
                 x 1.05 sales tax) + ($8,539 total equipment and labor
                 costs x .05 sales tax) - -($20 x  3 x 1.05) f ($8,539
                 x (1.05 - 1) = - 63 + 427 = $364.          '.

        API:      a 12% engineering cost on "Total  Equipment and Labor
                 Cost" and an installation fee (see Table C-3)  is
                 applied (e.g., for a balance manifolded system,
                 Model Plant 3; additional cost =  ($9,237 equipment
                 and labor cost) x (0.12 engineering cost) + ($452
                 installation fee) = $1,560.

        EPA:      engineering, inspection costs, and sales tax were
                 not included in the EPA analysis.

(h)     EPA:      replace every 2 years with new nozzle (same life-
                 time as standard nozzle); therefore, annual cost
                 equals half the incremental cost  between standard
                 ($50) and vapor recovery nozzles.  Multiproduct
                 dispenser nozzle maintenance costs considered  half
                 that of conventional nozzles.

        Sierra:  replace every 2 years with new nozzle (same lifetime
                 as standard nozzle); therefore, annual  cost equals
                 half the incremental cost between standard ($50)
                 and vapor recovery nozzles.  The  10% nozzle discount
                 and 5% sales tax are also included in this price
                 (e.g., balance-individual nozzle  replacement =
                 [($198/nozzle x 0.9 discount) - $50/conventional
                 nozzle]  x 1.05 sales tax x 1/2 replacement per
                 year « [(178 - 50) x 1.05] /2 - $67/nozzle.

        API:      replace nozzles every year with rebuilt nozzle;
                 cost presented includes deduction for standard
                 rebuilt  nozzle ($17).

(i)     EPA:      replace every 2 years (same lifetime as liquid
                 hose on  standard dispenser);  therefore, annual
                 cost equals half the incremental  cost between
                 standard liquid hose ($24) and coaxial  liquid/vapor
                 recovery hose system.

                 replace  vapor hose ($12)  every 2  years.

                 annual equipment costs (including retractors)  average
                 $30 and  labor averages $21 per year.
        Sierra:

        API:


(j)   Balance-Ind
        EPA:
                 replace  three times  per year;  parts cost $19 per
                 replacement,  and  20  minutes  labor per  replacement
                 at $25 per hour.
                              C-34

-------
              Footno tes fo r ,Ta fal e (XL 7_(.conc.1jidedl)
Hyb-2
    Sierra;
Assist-1
        Sierra:   replace three  times  per year,  parts cost  $19  per
                 replacement, and  1  hour labor  per replacement at  $25
                 per hour.
    _Bal-anc^e»jteif\1Tfoljrded
        EPAl      repTace three  times  per year,  parts cost  $19  per
                 replacement, and  20  minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

        Sierra:   replace three  times  per year,  parts cost  $19  per
                 replacement, and  1  hour labor  per replacement at  $25
                 per hour.

        API:      replace two times per year.

                 replace two times per year,  parts cost $33  per
                 replacement, and  .20  minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.
                 repTace three  times  per year,  parts cost  $20  per
                 replacement, and  1  hour labor  per replacement at  $25
                 per hour.

                 replace two times per year,  parts cost $15  per
                 replacement, and  20  minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

                 replace two times per year.

                 replace two times per year,,  parts cost $15  per
                 replacement, and  20  minutes  labor per  replacement at
                 $25 per hour.

        Sierra:   replace three  times  per year,  parts cost  $15  per
                 replacement, and  1  hour labor  per replacement at  $25
                 per hour.

(k)   API assumed an annual  maintenance cost equalling 5 percent of
     component cost (i.e.,  $17  x 0.05 - $1).

(1)      EPA:     .maintenance time  per year at $100 per  visit.

        Sierra:   no cost given*

        API:      assumed an annual maintenance  cost equalling
                 10 percent of  the processor  cost (i.e., $2,790
                 x 0.10 - $279).
    API:
Assist-2
                              C-35

-------
                Table C-18.  STAGE II ANNUAL COST SUMMARY WITH  ALL EPA INPUTS
SYSTEM (a)
COSrOKHKHT
CflPITB. RECOVERY COST (b)
HQDELnJNT 1
NQGELPLflNre
maPyWS
WBe.puwr4
MHBlPUWrS
WOTBttNCE COST
MHSLPUWT 1
HOKLPUW2
«SH.PUW3
MODEL PUHT4
td€LPUW5
mm. INSPECTION COST (o
HQDELPlflNTl
HIB.Py»fr2
«ELPWNT3
HQDELPUW4-
ME.PUW5
OTHER IWIRECT COSTS (d)
MGt€LPLflHTi
OTB.PUtfT2
MODEL PUOT3
MXELPimr4-
KEELPLWTS
»*0L jESVEif oens (•>
MOOaPUNTi
M00B.PU*tr2 '
KHB.PUWT3
HOB. PUNT 4-
XKLPUMTS
Harriott, (f)
Hoce.pLflwri
Hooaptflwra
«B.pyifr3
MOCeLPLflKTA.
TOELPUWrS
•raw. miflLHED eesr
WGELPLMTl
MODEL PLfiKT2
weaPLfiwrs
MOCe.PLflKT4-
KU&.pyWF5
COST EffECnVBEBSW/Mg CONTROIED)
MODELPytNTl
MOB.PUNT2
MD3G.flflKT3
fOS.PU»fr4
HOBaPUWS
BflLfiHCE-IND
EM SIERM

877 %6
881 1,938
1,564- l,4ifi
2,145 l»7ifl
3,229 2,491

475 538
620 689
1,238 1,378
1,838 2,067
3,039 3,445

	 49.
	 . 5£
	 114
1 	 155
	 26»

211 331
274- 347
472 439
63» 532
91E 691

1S3 129
518 518
966 9iS
1,683 1,683
4,79t 4,79t

t 8
ft 8
8 »
f »•
f f

1,223 1,748-
1,268 1,619
2,369 2,43*
2,S4» 2,878
2,4S» 2,109

3*409 4,823
873 1,115
934 962
, .627 _..S12
184 157
BflLfflCE-tiftNIFGtDB)
Effi API

722 BS3 673
910 935 778
1,5% 1,315 1,151
2,157 1,694 1,53
3,214 2,387 2,289

475 530 423
617 689 549
1,230 1,378 1,099
1,850 2,057 1,648
3,090 3,445 2,746

	 40 150
	 52 150
	 184 150
	 155 150
	 253 150

228 ' 291 234
225 337 266
483 399 375
634 492 485
911 651 713

129 129 129
518 518 518
Sea SfJa 9SS
1,683 1,683 1,683
4,790 4,79i 4,790

000
000
8 9 0
S-0 0
» t '0

1,300 1,530 1,350
1,29Q 1,460 1,230
2,400 2,290 1,870
2,950 2,730 2,133
2,428 1,950 1,110

3,603 4,407 3,742
894 1,012 852
950 907 740
-631 582 454
181 145 83
HYB-1 HYB-2
EPfl

735 1,063
956 1,164
1,714 1,570
2,371 2,175
3,603 3,121

497 493
645 549
1,290 1,281
1,940 1,921
3,230 3, £91

	 40
	 52
	 184
	 155
	 SGI

823 352
299 374
504 493
678 613
996 825

129 129
518 518
QQC G££
•HER! 3IS3
1,583 1,683
4,790 4,790

0 0
0 8
0 0
0 0
0 0

1,330 1,820
1,379 1,710
2,508 2,540
3,310 3,188
3,848 2,520
1
3,58? 5,045 I
949 1,185 1
1,830 1,845 t
705 678 t
228 195 1
ftSSEinr-1
EPA API

1,629 687
1,756 736
2,378 1,187
2,929 1 1,579
3,954 2,379

455 554
575 635
1,050 993
1,530 1,358
2,480 2,864

_ m
—_ ' ip
• 	 150
— ist
— 150

407 419
445 452
520 558
770 6§4
1,@45 923

55 65
259 259
433 453
841 841
2,395 ; 1,355

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 8
e • 0

2,440 1,740
2,530 1,788
3,590 £,448
4,390 £,9^
5,890 ?028

13,525 9,645
3,506 2,457
2,843 1,932
1,872 l,-245
763 467
ftSSIS3T-2
EPA

1,642 1,723
1,745 1,851
2,217 2,161
2,701 8,531
3,349 3,199

405 483
498 531
897 1,050
1,290 1,589
2,890 2,549

	 43
v;zvr-iTimrr $&
— - 104
— m
	 '260

438 459
458 Sit
611 508
758 691
928 819

55 55
£59 259
453 453
841 841
2,395 1,395

0 8
0 f
0 0
0 1
8 0

2,420 £,580
2,450 ?,&as
3,270 3,478
3,910 4,121
3,978 4,530

13,416 14,393
3,395 3,7H
2,598 2,748
1,667 1,75?
595 679
S*t ntrt pig* for footnotes.
                                                     C-36

-------
                          Footnotes for Table C-18


(a)   Assist-1  * Hi rt; Assist-2 = Hasstech; Hyb-1 » Healy; Hyb-2 = Red Jacket.


(b)   Cost  of Capital  =  (Capital Cost)     j  C1 * •
                                     x
       where:   i  =  interest  rate
               a  =  equipment lifetime.

       EPA:     i  =  10 percent
               a  *   8 years  for dispenser and processing unit, and
                   35 years  for piping
       Sierra:  i  =  12 percent
               a  =  10 years  for dispenser and processing unit, and
                   20 years  for piping
       API:     i  =   7,7  percent
               a  =   3 years  for dispenser,
                    8 years  for processing unit, and
                   15 years  for piping.

(c)    EPA:     included  in nationwide enforcement costs; therefore, not
               attributed on a per-facility basis.

       Sierra:  $16/nozzle.

       API:     $150/station.

(d)    EPA:     includes  property tax (1%), insurance  (1%), and administration
               (2%), equalling 4 percent of total capital cost.

       Sierra;  includes  property tax equalling 1 percent of total capital cost.

(e)  Balance and  Hybrid;
       EPA:     Emission  factors:  Displacement « 1,552 nig/liter
                                 Emptying loss = 120 mg/liter

               Assuming  95%  recovery of both displacement and emptying
               losses* recovery credit = (1,552 mg/liter) (0.95) +
               (120. mg/liter)  (0.95) = 1,588 mg/liter.

     Example of recovery credit for Model Plant 2  (=20,000 gallons • 75,700
     liters);

               1,588 mg/liter x 75S7QO liters/month x kg/106 mg x liter/0.67 kg
               x  12 months/year x $0.24/liter » $518/year

     Assist-1  & Assist-2
               Assuming  50%  recovery of displacement and 95% of emptying losses,
               recovery  factor - [(1,552 mg/liter) (0.95) + (120 mg/liter)
               (0.95)] - 794 mg/liter.
                                     C-37

-------
                      Footnotes  for  Table C -18  (concluded)

               Example recovery  credit:  For Model  plant  2  (=20,000 gallons =
               75,700 liters)

               794 mg/liter x  7,571  liters/month  x  kg/106 mg  x
               12 months/year  x  $0.24/liter » $259/year.

       Sierra:  equals (throughput  gal/mo)(12 mo/yr)(4.7 g/ga1)($0.90/gal)
                                                                    '
       API:      equals  $0.0013/gal  dispensed  for balance  systems  and
                $0.000686/gal  dispensed  for assist  systems.

(f)    EPA:      none.

       Sierra:   includes  investment tax  credit  (10%)  and  energy conservation tax
                credit  (10%),  equalling  20% of  total  capital cost amortized over
                15 years  at an interest  rate  of 12  percent.

       API:      none.
                                     C-38

-------
C.5  REFERENCES

1-0-42     Letter from Panzer, J.» Exxon Research and Engineering
           Company, Linden, New Jersey, to Eldridge, K., Pacific Environ-
           mental  Services, Inc.  January 8, 1985.

I-E-30     Telecon.  Eldridge, K.»  Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
           with Panzer, J., Exxon Research and Engineering Company,
           Linden, New Jersey.  November 8, 1984.

I-F-98     "Cost Comparisons for Stage II and On-Board Control  of
           Refueling Emissions."  Prepared by the American Petroleum
           Institute.  Washington, D.C.  January 1984.

I-F-100    "Refueling Emissions Control - Onboard vs. Service Station
           Controls."  Prepared for Ford Motor Company by Sierra
           Research Corporation,  Sacramento, California.  March 1984.
                                  C-39

-------

-------
         APPENDIX D



SERVICE STATION PROJECTIONS
            D-l

-------
                               APPENDIX D
                      SERVICE STATION PROJECTIONS

D.I  INTRODUCTION
     Several comments (I-H-114, I-H-127) were received concerning the
assumption, made in EPA's July 1984 analysis, that the number of
service stations would stay constant throughout the period of the
analysis.  These commenters remarked that the number of service stations
not only has decreased since the time of the 1984 analysis (1982 base
year), but is expected to continue to decrease.  Such a decrease would
especially be expected with the continued decrease in projected gasoline
consumption.  In addition, the commenters suggested that the shift from
smaller to larger facilities would also continue.  Studies conducted by
Sierra Research Corporation (I-F-100, I-H-114) for Ford Motor Company,
and submitted to EPA for review, projected both a decreasing number of
stations and a shift in station size.  The result of the assumptions
made by Sierra Research was a decreased cost for Stage II strategies
relative to EPA's estimates, since fewer stations were projected to
exist in the future and, hence, to require control.  The EPA was aware
of the continued decline in the service station population when the
July 1984 analysis was completed; however, a suitable methodology could
not be devised to reflect this decrease.  The Agency has now adopted a
methodology similar to that used by Sierra Research, with some modifi-
cations.  A computer model was developed to project the decreasing
number of (and, in some cases, the decreasing throughputs at) service
stations through the year 2020.  The purpose of Appendix D is to
discuss the methodology used in EPA's service station projections.
D.2  BASIC METHODOLOGY
     In general , the service station projection model  made three basic
adjustments to Sierra's method.  The first adjustment was to reduce the
number of public facilities based on the reduction in gasoline consumption
(less gasoline to pump ~ fewer stations).  The second adjustment was for
private facilities.  The Agency felt that a decline in consumption would
not necessarily result in a decline in private fleet operations, but
rather just a decline in each facility's throughput.  Therefore, for
                                  D-2

-------
private facilities, the facility throughput was adjusted proportional
to the decline in gasoline consumption.  (It should  be noted that the
model also has the capability to adjust for increases in gasoline con-
sumption.) The third adjustment was to account  for the trend toward
larger, more efficient stations.  The model estimates the closure of
existing small facilities and the building of new larger facilities.
D-2.1  Number of Facilities
     Several commenters questioned the number of facilities assumed  in
the July 1984 analysis (210,900 public stations and  210,300 private
stations for a 1982 base year).  The EPA reviewed available data and
revised the public station total to 190,000 to  reflect the latest
estimate for the new 1984 base year (I-F-124).   No data were available
to adjust the private facility total to reflect 1984, so this value
remained at 210,300.
     Facility projections used in the EPA model apply only to public
service stations.  The number of public stations was decreased or
increased in proportion to the projected decrease or increase in
nationwide throughput (based on the gasoline consumption projections
discussed in Section 2.3.2 of Chapter 2),  Specifically, the number
of public service stations was determined by uniformly decreasing the
throughput for each existing facility type (model plant size range  and
ownership classification) by the same percentage as  the projected
decrease in nationwide consumption.  The throughput  assigned each
facility type was then divided by the corresponding  representative
model plant throughput»
     The number of private stations was considered to stay constant
with time, since the market pressures associated with decreasing con-
sumption and shifts to more efficient stations  do not apply to private
facilities.  In the model, however, throughput  at the private facilities
was decreased in proportion to the decrease in  total gasoline consump-
tion to reflect the impact of decreased overall consumption caused  by
increased fuel economy.  The throughput adjustment at private facilities
and the industry trend toward larger, more efficient public facilities
are discussed in more detail 1n Section 0.2.2.
                                  D-3

-------
D.2.2  Size Distribution of Facilities
     Distribution of public stations was shifted  from smaller model
plants to larger model plants to reflect current  trends toward larger
facilities.  The EPA model accomplished this by removing facilities
from the smaller model plant totals and adding facilities to the larger
model plant totals; the total throughput of the new facilities ^was
assumed equivalent to the total throughput of the closed facilities.
Table D-l summarized the projection of new facilities used in the
analysis.  Throughput to be shifted from small facilities in a given
year was assumed to be 50 percent of the throughput decrease from the
previous year for existing (pre-1985) model plant numbers 1, 2, and 3
(Sierra assumed 50 percent of the decrease from all facilities in only
model plant numbers 2 and 3).  This total shifted throughput was distri-
buted as new public facilities in the following manner:  20 percent was
assumed to be apportioned to each of model plants 2 and 3 (40 percent
total) in order to reflect new convenience stores, and 30 percent of
the total was assumed to be apportioned to each of model plant numbers
4 and 5 (60 percent total) in order to reflect the shift toward larger
facilities (Sierra assumed all of the shifted throughput would go to
model plant 5).  Redistributed facilities were assumed to be new or
totally reconstructed stations (implying no difference in cost between
three one-Island expansions and one three-island  new station).  After
the year 2000, no new facilities were projected .since the gasoline
consumption was assumed constant from 2000 to 2020, and new facility
projections were based on changes in consumption.
     As a check, the model compares the total consumption in each year
(from the fuel consumption model) with the consumption obtained by
multiplying the number of facilities in each model plant size by their
respective model plant throughput.  In no case did the yearly consump-
tions differ by more than 3 percent.  Thus, unlike the Sierra model,
the model used in the EPA reanalysis keeps the total contributions of
the individual model plants roughly equal to the  projected total
national  consumption in each year.  Table D-2 indicates the results of
the service station projection model.  Shown are the total  number of
service stations in each year, the total number of public stations in
each year, and the .number of public stations for each year for-each
model plant size.

                                  D-4

-------
Table D-l.  SUMMARY OF NEW  FACILITY  PROJECTIONS  FROM
        THE SERVICE STATION PROJECTION MODEL
YEflR
1984
1385
1985
1387
1388
1383
1338
1331
1332
1933
1334
1335
133S
1337
1993
1999
E00B
2081
2002
2003
2004
2905
2806
2807
200S
2003
2810
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2316
2017
2018
2013
2020
TOTfiL OF
oat PHblLiiica T
IN EflCH YEflS i
0
71S
658
583
525 '
454
405
405
405
405
332
405
343
277
224
183
134
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
. 8
0
f
0
8
0
8
t
0
0
NEW
«
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
0
8
a
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
i
8
0
8
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
PUBLIC FflCILITIES BY MODEL PLftNT
MP2
0
326
308
S&B
239
207
185
184
185
185
178
184
157
128
102
83
si
0
8
0
- 0
0
0
0
i
8
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
8
MP3
8
187
178
154
137
118
185
106
105
US
102
10s
83
72
.53
48
34
0
3
8
8
8
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
8
8
8
**
158
139
124
118
95
85
85
85
85
83
85
72
58
47
38
S3
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
0
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
0
!"!P5
53
49
43
31
33
38
30
•3«
30
23
38
25
21
16
14
10
0
8
0
9
0
2
8
t
8
0
0
8
8
a
.0 .
8
8
8
0
9
                        D-S

-------
          Table  D-2.   RESULTS OF  SERVICE STATION FACILITY
                              PROJECTION MODEL
Year
1984-
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
.2009
2010
20U
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2019
2020
Humoer of Facilities
Total of
All
400.250
395,489
* 391.-129
• 387,206
383.723
380.399
377,998
375.319
372.622
3S9-.931
367,335
364,647
362.352
360.529
359.023
357.321
355,933
356,938
356,933
356,933
355,933
356,933
356,933
356,933
356,930
356.930
355,930
355,930
356,926
356,925
356,925
356.925
356.926
356,926
355.926
356,926
356.926
Total of
Puolic
Facilities
190.000
185.239
180,379
175,956
173,473
170,449
167,748
165,069
162,372
159,381
157,085
154,397
152.112
150.279
148,778
147,571
145,588
146,388
146,683
146,383
146,383-
146,683
146.633 *
146.683
146,680
146.680
145,580
146,680
146,575
146.576
146,676
146,676
146,376
146,676
146,676
146,376
146,376
PuUHe Facilities ay
MP1B
49,400
47,338
46.502
45,256
44,150
43.139
42.332
41.481
40.52*
39,769
33,944.
33,090
37,385
36,782
36.305
35.922
3S.fi41
35,341
35.340
35,540
35,640
35,140
35,640
35,540
35,339
35,639
35,339
35,339
35.337
35.S37
35,337
35,337
35.537
3S.S37
35,337
35,337
35.637
MP2
" 57,000
55.531
54.282
53.113
52.075
51.174
50,370
49, sn
48.763
47.966
47,132
46,391
45,711
45.165
44,717
44,357
44,095
44.095
44,093
' 44,093
44,093
44,093
44,093
44,093
44,092
44,092
44,092
44,092
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
44,090
MP3
50,350
48.996
47,754
46.333
45,346
44,786
44,317
43,255
42.487
41.721
40.982
40,218
39,567
39,045
38,319
38.275
38,024
38,024
33.022
38.022
33.022
33,022
33.022
38.022
38.021
38,021
38,021
38.021
33,021
38,021
38,021
38,021
38,021
38,021
38,021
38.021
38,021
.Moaci Plant
MP*
26,600
25,207
,J5,349
25,521
25,239
24.990
24,767
24,546
24,324
£4,102
23.389
23,367
23,478
23.323
23,204
13,104
23,031
23,031
23,031
23,031
23,031
23.031
23.031
23,031
23.031
215.031
23,031
23.031
23,031
213,031
23,031
23,031
23,031
23.031
23,031
23,031
23.031

HPS
6,650
6.567
6,492
6,423
5,363
3,310
3,262
3,216
3.169
3,123
3,078
5,031
5,991
5.959
5,933
5.913
5.397
5,397
5.397
5,397
5,397
5,397
5,397
5,897
5,397
i.397
5,397
5,897
5,397
5,397
5,397
5,397
5.397
5,897
5,397
5,397
5,397
aEstimate- includes all public and, private gasoline dispensing facilities.  Does not
 include farms and other small operations for refueling agricultural-related equipment.

     • Model Plant 1.  Model plants described in Table 2-3.
                                   D-6

-------
     No changes were made to the proportion of public stations assumed
to be non-independent versus independent., - For private-stations*- the
number of facilities in each model plant was assumed to remain constant;
however, the representative model plant throughput decreased with time
in proportion to the nationwide consumption decrease.  This reflects the
presumed situation of private concerns (government, commercial, industrial,
etc.) keeping their own service stations open, but using less gasoline
due to increased fuel economy and other conservation measures.
     Several commenters felt that the Model Plant 1 throughput (5,000
gallons/month) was too high to represent the private sector, which makes
up the majority of the facilities in Model  Plant 1 (approximately 80 per-
cent), and that 2,000 gallons/month would be more representative.  The
EPA reanalyzed the existing data and agreed that 2,000 gallons/month
would better represent the throughput at a private facility, but would
be too small, given the installed equipment (2 nozzles), for a public
facility.  Therefore, in the new analysis,  Model Plant 1 was divided
into a private facility (2,000 gallons/month) and a public facility
(6,000 galIons/month).  Both are considered Model Plant 1's because
both facility types have the identical physical equipment and layout.
The size distribution of the remainder of the service station model
plants remained the same as in the July 1984 analysis (see Table D-3).
     The above discussion summarizes EPA's service station projection
methodology as it was used in the reanalysis.  Given the number and
throughput of existing and new service station types, control option
costs could be determined, as well as the throughput exempted from
control for purposes of calculating emission and incidence reduction.
The use of the facility projections model affected the service station
costing because:  (1) the number of facilities changed with time      	
(affecting the costs of retrofit, new, and replacement Stage II instal-
lations), (2) the closing of small facilities and opening of large
facilities changed the facility size distribution with time (this also
affected the evaluation of exempting certain size stations), and (3)
the tracking of each type of facility in each year allowed for the
inclusion of a cost differential between new and existing facilities.
                                  D-7

-------
                                Table D-3.  ESTIMATED 1984 SERVICE STATION SIZE DISTRIBUTION
00
Model Plant No,
Average Throughput 103 1/mo
(103 gal/rno)
No. of Single Dispensers
Nozzles Multidlspensers
"Public" Service Stations
- Independents
- Nonindependents
- Total
- Percent
"Private" Service Stations
Population 189
Percent
Total Facilities
Population 189
Percent
la
7,
(?)
2
4

.

,200
90

,200
47
Ib
6 23
(?)
2
4

8,900
40,500
49,400
26

-

49,400
12
. 2
76
3
4

17,700
39,300
57,000
30

8,600
4.1

65,600
16
3
132
(35)
6
8

22,500
27,900
50,400
26.5

7,400
3.5

57,800
14
4
246
(65)
9
12

10,400
16,200
26,600
14

4,200
2.0

30,800
8
5
700
(185)
15
20

2,600
4,000
6,600
3.5

800
0.5

7,400
2
Total s
-
-

190,000
100.0

210,300
100.0

400,200
100.0
        Throughput
           (% of total  consumption)
5.1     4,0     17.8
27.4
27.1
18.5
100,0

-------
D.3  REFERENCES
I-F-100    "Refueling Emissions Control  - Onboard vs. Service Station
           Controls."  Prepared for Ford Motor Company by Sierra
           Research Corporation.  Sacramento, California.  March 1984.

I-F-124    "Service Station Shakeout Continues," 1984 National  Petro-
           leum News Factbook Issue.  _76 (6a}:103.

I-H-114    Letter from Buist, D.R., Ford Motor Company, to Weigold, J.B.,
           U.S. EPA*  Comments on EPA analysis.  November 8,  1984.

I-H-127    Letter from Bowditch, F.W., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
           Association of the United States, Inc.,  to Weigold,  J.B.,
           U.S. EPA.  Comments on EPA analysis.  November 8,  1984.
                                  0-9

-------

-------
          APPENDIX E



REANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
            E-l

-------
                                  APPENDIX E
                        REANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
E.I  INTRODUCTION
     Chapter 8 of "Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for
Gasoline Marketing Industry" (EPA-45Q/3-84-012a) provides an analysis of
potential economic impacts associated with various regulatory strategies.
Impact estimates, expressed in mid-1982 dollars, were derived from previously
available facility cost estimates updated to mid-1982, and 1982 facility
populations.  Only the onboard control analysis included facility (vehicle)
projections.
     When the analysis was published in July, 1984, some commentary stated
that a number of the costs were out-of-date and/or underestimated.  Several
commenters remarked that EPA's failure to project service station populations
resulted in overestimated Stage II impacts.  Others criticized the exemption
option, which treats independent and nonindependent facilities differently.
In order to respond to comments concerning costs, the principal cost figures
were reevaluated, some cost estimates were revised, and all costs were updated
to third-quarter 1984 dollars.  The number of service stations in each size
class was projected for each year of the analysis.  Additionally, ;EPA considered
two alternative exemption options.
     This reanalysis, which incorporates the aforementioned revisions, provides
a summary of some of the economic impacts associated with various regulatory
strategies:  Section E.2 presents estimates of price impacts (price increases
stemming from increased costs) and quantity impacts (consumption reductions
attributable to price increases) for several nationwide and nonattainment area
strategies; Section E. 3 provides estimates of service station closures associated
with these strategies; and Section E.4 examines a variety of financial ratios
for various size gasoline marketing firms in SIC 5541, Gasoline Service Stations.
E.2  PRICE AND QUANTITY IMPACTS
     Gasoline and/or vehicle price increases are associated with a variety of
regulatory strategies.  Gasoline price increases are estimated under two
                                       E-2

-------
nationwide regulatory strategies (Stage I or Stage II control) and two non-
attainment area strategies (Stage II control for 61 areas, alone or in combina-
tion with onboard control).  Nationwide and nonattainment area strategies
result in nationwide and regional price increases, respectively.  Vehicle
price increases are associated with any strategy including onboard and/or
evaporative control.
     Estimated price increases per liter of gasoline are based on average unit
cost increases attributed to the regulatory strategies.  Average unit cost
increase is calculated by dividing the annual equivalent of the 1988 NPV of
regulation cost (excluding enforcement expenditures) by average annual gasoline
consumption in the control area over the period of analysis.  Nationwide
impact estimates are based on average annual gasoline consumption of 286.5 billion
liters/year (75.6 billion gallons/year), while estimates for 61 nonattainment
areas assume 100.3 billion liters/year (26.5 billion gallons/year).  Vehicle
price increases are based on model year-specific unit cost increases for light
motor vehicles (LMVs) and light duty trucks (LDTs).
     Reductions in gasoline and/or vehicle consumption attributed to gasoline
and/or vehicle price increases are also estimated for each regulatory strategy.
Average reductions in gasoline consumption are based on average unit cost
increases, a base gasoline price of 31.7f/liter (120
-------
              TABLE E-l.  AVERAGE UNIT COST AND QUANTITY EFFECTS
             FOR GASOLINE UNDER SELECTED REGULATORY STRATEGIES3
    Regulatory strategy
Option
  Unit cost
'increase of
  gasoline
(1984 
-------
with exemptions to 820 million liters/year for Stage II control with no exemp-
tions.  These reductions represent from 0.04 to 0.29 percent of average national
annual gasoline consumption over the period.  Estimated reductions in gasoline
consumption associated with Stage II control in 61 nonattainment areas range
from 80 to 390 million liters/year, representing from 0.03 to 0.14 percent of
average national annual gasoline consumption.  While nationwide Stage II
control and Stage II control in nonattainment areas result in similar price
increases, the associated reductions in consumption differ.  Stage II control
in nonattainment areas results in smaller reductions in consumption because
estimated price increases apply only in those areas.
     Table E-2 presents unit cost (price) and quantity effects for evaporative
control applied to new vehicles in two model year periods (1990 - 1994 and
1995 ~ 2020) and for onboard and evaporative control of new vehicles in three
model year periods (1990 - 1994, 1995 - 1999, and 2000 - 2020).  For evapora-
tive control, estimated vehicle price increases and accompanying reductions in
consumption represent, at most, 0.03 percent of base vehicle price and produc-
tion.  Under onboard and evaporative control, vehicle prices are predicted to
increase by about 0.2 percent, inducing vehicle consumption to decline by
0.2 percent.
     Although the impacts presented in Table E-2 are small, they may be over-
stated.  Each vehicle control strategy generates recovery credits through
increased fuel efficiency and, therefore, the user cost of each control is
less than the estimated vehicle price increase.  User costs for these vehicle
controls have been estimated assuming the above vehicle price increases,
recovery estimates from the most recent vehicle control analysis, vehicle
miles traveled estimates from Appendix C of "Evaluation of Air Pollution
Regulatory Strategies for Gasoline Marketing Industry (EPA45Q/3-84-Q12a), a
gasoline price of 31.7
-------
presented  in Table E-2 are probably overestimated.  The degree of overestination
depends on the discount rate and lifetime or payback period considered appro-
priate for these types of consumer decisions.  However, if vehicle purchasers
do not have sufficient information to recognize and estimate cost savings,
estimated  consumption reductions do not overstate consumer response to estimated
vehicle price increases.                                            j
E.3  MARKET ANALYSIS:  CLOSURES
     Reductions in gasoline consumption attributed to increased gasoline
prices will result in the closure of some gasoline marketing operations,
especially retail facilities.  This section provides estimates of the numbers
of service station closures that might occur as a result of Stage 1 or Stage II
control on a national basis, or Stage II control in 61 nonattainment areas.
     The estimates foUowin§ are rough for these reasons:  (1) There is no
accepted methodology for projecting closures resulting from increased costs of
control; (2) gasoline is not sold in a national market where each facility is
in competition with all other facilities.  Rather, gasoline is sold in local
markets that vary in sizej and (3) it is not sufficient to assume that closures
will be restricted to facilities that have the highest per unit production
and/or control costs (smaller facilities).  Some smaller, higher cost facilities
are, and will continue to be, optimal for the smaller markets they serve.
E.3.1  Methodology                                        -         !
                                                                    !
     Because there is no standard method for estimating closures, this market   \
analysis selects and employs two different methodologies and compares the
results.   The first methodology, Method I, uses the average unit cost increases
and gasoline consumption reductions presented in the price and quantity impacts
analysis.  Under Method I, projected reductions in gasoline consumption are
assumed to be shared by all facility size classes in accordance with a base
year public station throughput distribution.   The base year (2004) is midway
through the period of analysis because the throughput distribution for the
initial year (1990) does not adequately reflect existing industry trends
toward larger facilities.   Facility closures in each model plant category are
estimated by dividing the consumption reduction allotted to that category by
model plant size.   The total number of closures is the sum of closures in each
model plant class.
                                                                    i

                                      E-6

-------
            TABLE E-2.  AVERAGE UNIT COST AND QUANTITY EFFECTS FOR
              VEHICLES UNDER ALL REGULATORY STRATEGIES INCLUDING
                EVAPORATIVE OR ONBOARD AND EVAPORATIVE CONTROL3
Control strategy
Model
years
Vehicle
price increase
($/vehicle)b
Reductions in
vehicle consumption
(103/yr)c Percent01
Evaporative control

  LMV


  LOT
Onboard and
evaporative control

  LMV
1990-94
1995 on

1990-94
1995 on
1990-94
1995-99
2000 on
 2.90
 2.00

 3.80
 2.60
20.00
17.70
16.30
 3.8
 2.6

 1.1
 0.7
26.5
23.0
21.3
0.03
0.02

0.03
0.02
0.24
0.21
0.19
LOT


1990-94
1995-99
2000 on
. 27.10
24. 20
22.60
7.9
6.7
6.3
0.22
0.19
0.18
 Quantity effects may be overestimated because cost increases are not reduced
 by recovery credits attributed to the control strategies.  The degree of
 overestination depends upon the degree to which vehicle purchasers are aware
 of efficienty improvements associated with stated vehicle price increases.
3LDT estimates are based on weighted averages of single tank and dual tank
 truck costs.
"Reductions are computed using a price elasticity for light vehicles of -1.11.
 Percentages are of projected annual LMV or LOT consumption for the relevant
 period.
                                      E-7

-------
     While Method I allots overall gasoline consumption reductions attributed
to average unit cost  increases to model plant categories, Method II estimates
consumption reductions by model plant category based on model plant unit cost
increases.  Because model plant data do not include costs for Stage II in
combination with onboard control, Method  II cannot be applied to regulatory
strategies including  this combination.  For Stage I control estimates, aggregate
Stage I costs for facilities other than service stations are averaged over all
gasoline consumption  and the resulting unit cost increase is passed forward to
all service stations.  For each strategy, a percentage reduction in consumption
is calculated for each model plant category based on a general price elasticity
of demand for gasoline (-0.55) and a percentage price increase for the model
plant class.  Percentage price increases  are based on model plant unit cost
increases and an initial gasoline price of 31.7f/liter.  Consumption reductions
by model plant class  are calculated by applying estimated percentage consumption
reductions to total public station throughput in the control area by model
plant class for the year 2004.  Model plant closures are calculated by dividing
consumption reductions for model plant categories by model plant throughputs.
The total number of closures is the sum of closures in each model plant class.
     The closure analysis includes another calculation that is intended to
facilitate evaluation of closure estimates.  Under Method I, consumption
reductions are allotted to model plant classes without reference to;model
plant-specific unit cost increases.  If it is assumed that retail facilities
will attempt to pass on these specific unit cost increases in the form of
price increases, each estimated Method I  consumption reduction incorporates an
implicit demand elasticity for gasoline that is specific to each model plant
category.  Method I closure estimates may be evaluated by comparing such
implicit elasticity estimates to benchmarks for reasonableness.   Because
gasoline price elasticity estimates vary widely, anything between -0.24 and
-1.59 is considered reasonable.
     Elasticities implicit in the Method  I distribution of closures are esti-
mated in the following manner.   For each  relevant regulatory strategy and
option, a percentage decline in consumption is calculated for each model  plant
category based on the Method I consumption reduction for the category and
total  throughput for the category in 2004.  Percentage price increases are
                                      E-8

-------
calculated based on model plant unit cost increases and an initial gasoline
price of 31.If/liter.  Implicit elasticities are calculated by dividing each
estimated percentage reduction in quantity by the corresponding estimated
percentage increase in price.
E.3.2  Results
     Table E-3 provides Method I public service station closure estimates for
a variety of regulatory strategies and exemption options that affect service
stations.  For nationwide Stage I control with exemptions, Method I predicts
60 retail closures, representing 0.04 percent of the initial (1990) public
station population.  Depending on the exemption option, nationwide Stage II
control is expected to close between 150 and 530 stations, representing from
0.09 to 0.32 percent of the base population.  Depending on exemption option,
under Stage II control for 61 nonattainment areas, Method I predicts from 50
to 250 retail closures, representing 0.03 to 0.15 percent of the base popula-
tion.  Somewhat fewer closures are projected under Stage II in 61 nonattain-
ment areas in combination with onboard control.
     Table E-4 presents estimates of the elasticities implicit in the Method I
distribution of closures.  Based on the benchmarks established, all implicit
elasticities estimated for model plants 2, 3 and 4 are reasonable.  Many
implicit elasticity estimates for model plant 1 are unreasonably low, while
those for model plant 5 tend to be high.  This indicates that Method I probably
generates too few model plant 1 closures and too many (even though few) model
plant 5 closures.
     Table E-5 provides estimates of public service station closures under
Method II.  These estimates range from 100 closures (0.06 percent of the 1990
public station population) for nationwide Stage I control with exemptions, to
560 closures (0.33 percent of the base population) for nationwide Stage II
control with no exemptions.  For Stage II control nationwide, Options A and A1
generate the same number of public station closures; only the composition of
closures varies between these options, with fewer independents closing under
Option A.  (Precise estimation of potential differential impacts on independent
and nonindependent operators would require a significantly more sophisticated
closure methodology.)  Options A11 and B generate the same number of public
station closures under Stage II control because Option A11 exempts almost
exclusively private stations.

                                       E-9

-------
            TABLE E-3.  PUBLIC SERVICE STATION CLOSURES ATTRIBUTED
              TO SELECTED REGULATORY STRATEGIES UNDER METHOD Ia

                                                                Closures
Regulatory strategy

Stage I — nationwide
Stage II — nationwide0



Stage II — 61 nonattainment
areas


Stage II, and onboard —
61 nonattainment areas


Option
i
A,A
A
A1
A"
B
A
A1
A"
B
A
A1
A"
B
Reduction
in gasoline
consumption
(106 £/yr)

120
290-320
350-410
560-640
710-820
100-150
130-200
200-310
250-390
80-130
110-160
150-250
180-290
Number

60
150-160
180-210
360-420
460-530
50-80
60-100
130-200
160-250
40-60
50-80
100-160
120-190
Percent of
,1990 public
station
population

0.04
0.09-0.10
0.11-0.13
0. 21-0. 25
0.27-0.32
0.03-0.05
0.04-0.06
0.08-0.12
0.10-0.15
0.03-0.04
0.03-0.05
0.06-0.09
0.07-0.11
 Closure estimates are based on estimated reductions in gasoline consumption
 attributed to average unit cost increases associated with the regulatory
 strategies.  Under. Method I, consumption reductions are allotted to model
 plant classes in accordance with the public throughput distribution in 2004,
 midway through the period of analysis.  This year was chosen because closures
 are expected to occur earlier rather than later in the period of analysis.

 Options A,A1, and A11 include throughput-based size exemptions for bulk plants
 and service stations.  Under Stage I control, Options A and A1 exempt bulk
 plants with throughputs <10,000 gal/mo from outgoing balance controls and
 service stations with throughputs <10,000 gal/mo from all controls.  Under
 Stage II control, Option A exempts independent and nonindependent service
 stations with <50,000 gal/mo and <109000 gal/mo throughputs, respectively.
 Options A1 and ll exempt all stations with throughputs <1Q,000 gal/mo and  ,
 <2,000 gal/wo, respectively.  Option B includes no exemptions.

cRanges are based on cost ranges provided in Chapter 3, Tables 3-6, 3-12,
 and 3-13 (less enforcement expenditures).
                                    E-10

-------
      TABLE E-4.  ELASTICITIES IMPLICIT IN METHOD I CLOSURE ESTIMATES3'b
Model plants
Regulatory strategy
Stage I — nationwide0
Stage II — nationwide
1 2
-0.31
-0.16 to -0.27 to
-0.24d -0.74
3
-0.44
-0.27 to
-0.72
4
-0.58
-0.39 to
-1.05
5
-0.76
-1.13 to
-3.10d
Stage II--61 nonattainment     -0.17 to  -0.27 to  -0.27 to  -0.39 to  -1.14 to

  areasd                       -0.33d    -1.00     -0.98     -1.42     -4.18

aMethod I allots consumption reductions attributable to overall average unit
 co.st increases to model plant classes in accordance with the public station
 throughput distribution for 2004.   The resulting percentage declines in
 throughput for each model plant class, estimated unit cost increases by model
 plant class, and an overall initial gasoline price are used to estimate the
 elasticities implicit in the Method I distribution of closures.   No estimates
 are provided for strategies including Stage II in combination with onboard
 control because model plant unit cost estimates are not available for these
 strategies.

 Gasoline price elasticity estimates vary widely.  Anything between -0.24 and
 -1.59 is considered reasonable.  (-0.55 is used in other parts of this
 analysis.)
Estimates are for Options A and A1 only.  (Model plant 1 exempted).

 Ranges provided are based on cost ranges for various exemption and
 nonexemption options.
                                     E-ll

-------
            TABLE E-5.  PUBLIC SERVICE STATION CLOSURES ATTRIBUTED
             TO NATIONWIDE REGULATORY STRATEGIES UNDER METHOD Hcl

                                                             Closures



. Regulatory strategy

Stage I — nationwide
Stage II— nationwide



Stage II — 61 nonattai nment
areas





Option
i
A
A
A1
A11
B
A
A1
A"
B
I


Number

100
270
270
560
560
90
90
200
200
Percent of
1988 public
station
population

0.06
0.16
0.16
0.33
0.33
0.06
0.06
0.12
0.12
aClosure estimates are based on estimated reductions in gasoline consumption
 attributed to model plant unit cost increases associated with the regulatory
 strategies.  Stage II model plant costs are based on a weighted average of
 Stage II system costs provided in Appendix B, Table B-17.  Because model
 plant cost estimates are not available for Stage II in combination with
 onboard control, no Method II closure estimates are provided for strategies
 involving this combination.  Under Method II, closures are estimated in the
 following manner:  (1) Unit cost increases by service station model plant
 class are estimated based on model plant costs.  Stage I costs for other
 types of facilities are averaged across all gasoline consumption and passed
 on to all service stations; (2) Consumption declines by model plant category
 are estimated by applying a general price elasticity for gasoline (-0.51) to
 percentage price increases for model plant classes.  The same initial price is
 assumed to apply in all model plant classes.   Initial quantities by model plant
 class are based on public station throughputs for the year 2004; (3) Closures
 are calculated by dividing consumption declines for the model plant classes by
 plant sizes.
 Options A, A1, and A11 include throughput-based size exemptions for bulk
 plants and service stations.   Under Stage I control, Options A and A1
 exempt bulk plants with throughputs <10,QOO gal/mo from outgoing balance
 controls and service stations with throughputs <10,000 gal/mo from all
 controls.  Under Stage II control. Option A exempts independent and non-
 independent service stations with <50,000 gal/mo and <10»000 gal/mo
 throughputs, respectively.   Options A1 and A11 exempt all stations with
 throughputs <10,000 gal/mo and <2,000 gal/mo, respectively.   Option B
 includes no exemptions.
                                      E-12

-------
     When compared with Method I, Method II allocates a larger fraction of the
overall decline in gasoline consumption to model plant categories 1, 2 and 3
and a smaller fraction to model plant categories 4 and 5.  Accordingly, Method II
generally produces more estimated closures than Method I.  Under nationwide
Stage I control with exemptions, Method II predicts 56 percent more closures
than Method I.  For nationwide Stage II control, Method II generates 7 to
84 percent more closures than Method I.  Furthermore, Method II closes more of
the smallest facilities and fewer of the largest facilities than Method I.
Based on the evidence provided by implicit elasticity calculations, Method II
is preferable to Method I in this respect.
E.4  FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
     This section addresses the concern that smaller gasoline marketing firms,
especially those that own service stations, will have more difficulty financing
control expenditures than larger firms.  The financial ratio analysis conducted
does not support this contention.  In fact, the analysis indicates that there
is no simple, direct relationship between firm size and financial health.
There are both profit and loss earning firms in all size categories and, as
the estimated financial ratios indicate, credit worthiness depends more on the
profit position of the firm than on its size.
     Controls must be financed by a combination of internally and externally
generated funds.  The existence of internal funds and availability of external
funds depend on the firm's financial health.  Financial ratio analysis is the
selected method for evaluating financial health.  Accordingly, this section
provides a financial ratio analysis for firms in SIC 5541, Gasoline Service
Stations.  Ratios are examined by firm employment size (Table E-6) and by firm
asset size (Tables E-7 and E-8).  Ratios by asset size are shown for firms
earning profits in the year specified (Table E-7) and for firms earning losses
during the same year (Table E-8).  Liquidity, leverage, and profitability
ratios are considered in the following manner.
E.4.1  F i nanci a 1 Rati os Exami ned
     The quick ratio, a liquidity ratio, measures a firm's ability to meet its
short-term obligations.  The quick ratio is considered a measure of solvency.
The higher the quick ratio, the more liquid the firm's position and the more
"breathing room" it has.

                                       E-13

-------
       TABLE E-6.  SIC 5541 FINANCIAL RATIOS BY FIRM EMPLOYMENT SIZE3
Total firm employment
Financial ratios
Quick ratio
Debt/net worth
Profit margin
Profit on net worth
Long-terra debt/assets
1-19
1.17
0.72
0.025
0.152
0.140
20-99
0.88
1.14
0.017
0.138
0.156
100-499
0.82
1.33
0.015
0.161
0.150
>500
0.73
1.80
0.012
0.089
0.136
All values are in ratio form; none have been converted to percentages.  All
calculations are based on FINSTAT data for 1976 through 1981, provided to EPA
by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  For consistency, all ratios are
calculated from mean raw data and are thus ratios of means rather than mean
ratios.  (Data provided by SBA includes mean values for some, but not all, of
the above ratios.)

Ratios are defined as follows:

               Quick ratio = (current assets-inventories)/current debt
            Debt/net worth = total debt/tangible net worth
             Profit margin = net profit/net sales
       Profit on net worth - net profit/tangible net worth
     Long-term debt/assets = total long-term debt/total assets
                                   E-14

-------
             TABLE E-7.   SIC 5541 FINANCIAL RATIOS BY FIRM ASSET SIZE FOR FIRMS EARNING PROFITS3
Firm asset size (106 $)




rn
i— »
U1
Financial ratios
Quick ratio
Debt/net worth
Coverage
Profit margin
Profit on net worth
Long-term debt/assets
Beaver's ratio
All
f i rms
0.70
1.48
5.72
0.013
0.219
0.191
0.311
Zero
assets
N/A
N/A
20.11
0.277
N/A
N/A
N/A
0. 001-
0.099
1.21
1.05
17.67
0.018
0.581
0. 220
0.757
0.100-
0.249
0,93
1.57
7.71
0.016
0.423
0.221
0.438
0.250-
0.499
0.89
1.78
4.57
0.012
0.233
0.327
0.276
0.500-
0.999
1.02
1.12
4.25
0.011
0.136
0.209
0.310
1.000-
4.999
0.84
1.20
4.75
0.011
0.135
0.157
0.282
5.000-
9.999
0.76
1.78
3.79
0.008
0.147
0.247
0.262
10.0-
24.99
0.57
1.57
5.12
0.009
0.154
0.166
0.276
10.00-
24.99
0.52
5.76
2.50
0.007
0.192
0.130
0.119
aSchonfeld & Associates, Inc.   IRS Corporate Financial  Ratios.   Second Edition.   1984.  pp. 393-394.  Ratios
 are based on IRS data from returns with accounting periods ending from July 1980 to June 1981.

 Ratios are defined as follows:

                Quick ratio = (current assets-inventories)/current debt
             Debt/net worth = total debt/tangible net worth
                   Coverage = (profit before taxes + interest charges)/!nterest charges
              Profit margin = net profit/net sales
        Profit on net worth = net profit/tangible net worth
      Long-term debt/assets = total long-term debt/total  assets
             Beaver's ratio = (earnings before interest and taxes + depreciation)/total debt

-------
                 TABLE E-8.  SIC 5541 FINANCIAL RATIOS BY FIfiM ASSET SIZE FOR FIRMS EARNING LOSSES3

                                                                Fin asset size (108 $)
                     .            All     Zero     0.001-  0.100-   0.250-  0.500-  1.000- 5.000- 10.00-  100.0-
     Financial ratios0          firms   assets    0.099   0.244    0.499   0.999   4.999  9.999  24.99   24.99

   Quick ratio                   OS     R7I5749Q7HO5    6746OS    N/A    0.36    0.49

   Debt/net worth                9.15     N/A   -67.91   -9.67   424.82   14.38    8.11    N/A    8.94    8.32

   Coverage                     -0.98    0.74    -4.91   -1.17    -2.56   -0.40   -0.32    N/A   -0.59   -0.76
    »
   Profit margin                -0.015  -0.001   -0.023  -0.021   -0.030  -0.026  -0.018   N/A   -0.007  -0.006

   Profit on net worth          -0.914    N/A      N/A     N/A   -78.854  -1.219  -0.750   N/A   -0.699  -0.444

m  Long-term debt/assets         0.390    N/A     0.621   0.750    0.652   0.581   0.384   N/A    0.236   0.112
i
«  Beaver's ratio                0.005    N/A      N/A     N/A    -0.075   0.035   0.046   N/A    0.039   0.010

   aSchonfeld & Associates, Inc.  IRS Corporate Financial Ratios.   Second Edition.   1984.  pp.  393-394.  Ratios
    are based on IRS data from returns with accounting periods ending from July 1980 to June 1981.
    Ratios are defined as follows:

                   Quick ratio = (current assets-inventories)/current debt
                Debt/net worth = total debt/tangible net worth
                      Coverage = (profit before taxes •*• interest charges)/!nterest charges
                 Profit margin = net profit/net sales
           Profit on net worth = net profit/tangible net worth
         Long-term debt/assets = total long-term debt/total assets
                Beaver's ratio = (earnings before interest and taxes + depreciation)/total debt

-------
     Leverage ratios used include the ratio of debt to net worth and the
coverage ratio.   The debt/net worth ratio indicates the extent to which the
firm's assets are financed with contractual obligations (debt).  It exhibits
the relationship between capital contributed by creditors versus owners.  The
higher this ratio the lower the firm's future debt capacity.  A high ratio
results in a high cost of capital to the firm and indicates vulnerability to
downward business cycles.  The coverage ratio measures a firm's ability to
meet its obligations arising from the use of borrowed funds and affects a
firm's ability to obtain loans.
     The profitability ratios considered are the profit margin and the ratio
of profit to net worth.   The profit margin measures the fraction of dollar
sales converted to net income.  The higher this ratio, the more attractive the
firm to all providers of funds (debt or equity).  If the profit margin is too
low, either product price is too low or costs are too high.  The ratio of
profit to net worth is increasingly regarded as the final criterion of profit-
ability.  If this ratio is too low, the firm cannot attract risk capital
(equity) and will probably also have difficulty obtaining loans.  Continued
viability requires a ratio in excess of the risk-free interest rate outside
the industry.  A ratio in excess of 0.1 is desirable in order to provide
dividend payments and funds for growth.
     Two additional ratios are considered:  long-term debt to total assets and
Beaver's ratio.   The ratio of long-term debt to total assets is needed to
supplement the coverage ratio because a firm may exhibit a low coverage ratio
as a result of efficient management and still have substantial long-term debt
capacity.  (Control capital is frequently financed through long-term as opposed
to short-term debt.)  Beaver's ratio is included because it is considered a
good predictor of business failure.
E.4.2  Ratio^JEstimates
     When examined by employment size class, the quick ratio ranges from 0.73
to 1.17.  Ratio estimates decrease with firm size indicating that smaller
firms are more liquid than larger firms.  When single-year data are examined
by asset, size, the quick ratio ranges from 0.52 to 1.21 for profitable firms  .
and from 0.36 to 0.49 for firms earning losses.  For profitable firms, the
quick ratio decreases with size and qnly the two largest classes produce
ratios below the figure of 0.46 for all firms.  There is little dispersion in

                                     E-17

-------
ratios for firms earning losses.  Clearly, a firm's profit or Toss status
affects solvency much more than size.
     The long-term debt to total assets ratio is used to supplement the quick
ratio, which does not consider long-term debt capacity.  When examined by
employment size class, this ratio ranges from 0.136 to 0.156.  The largest
finis generate the smallest ratios, indicating less existing debt compared to
assets and, therefore, a greater capacity for increased debt.  However, the
largest ratios are not associated with the smallest firms, but rather with
midsize firms.  When examined by firm asset size, this ratio ranges from 0.130
to 0.327 for profitable firms and from 0.112 to 0.75 for firms earning losses.
For all firms the figures are 0.191 for profit-makers and 0.39 for loss-earners.
Whether among profitable or losing firms, the largest firms produce the small-
est ratios but the smallest firms do not produce the largest ratios.  The
all-firin value for companies earning losses is higher than all values associated
with profitable firms..
     The debt/net worth ratio ranges from 0.72 to 1.80 across employment size
classes.  This ratio increases with firm size and is greater than 1.0 for all
except the smallest firms.  Therefore, the smallest firms should have the
greatest capacity for future debt.  When examined by firm asset size, the
debt/net worth ratio ranges from 1.05 to 5.76 for profitable firms and from
-67.91 to 424.82 for firms earning losses.  (Negative values indicate negative
net worth.)  The all-firm values are 1.48 for profit-makers and 9.15 for loss
earners.  While the ratios for firms earning profits exhibit no clear pattern
across asset size categories, the ratios for firms earning losses do have
regularity.  Smaller firms exhibit either negative or large, positive ratios.
The lowest positive value among firms earning losses is-higher than the highest
positive value for firms earning profits.   Furthermore, there is much greater
dispersion in the ratios for losing-companies.   As with the quick ratio, basic
profitability appears to be a more important determinant of leverage than firm
size.
     The coverage ratio, available by firm asset size only, ranges from 2.50
to 20.U for profitable companies and from -2.56 to 0.74 for firms earning
losses.   The all-firm average is 5.72 for profit-makers and -0.98 for loss-
earners.  (Negative values occur when profit before taxes plus interest charges
1s negative.)  For profitable firms, the largest ratios (the greatest coverage)
are associated with the smallest firms.   For companies earning losses, smaller
                                      E-18

-------
firms (except the smallest) have small ratios (less coverage).  Thus, the
relationship between size and coverage varies with profit status.
     When examined by employment size, the profit margin decreases with firm
size from 0.025 to 0.012.  When examined by firm asset size, the ratios for
profitable companies also decrease with size, from 0.277 to 0.007.  For firms
earning negative profits, the profit margin is negative and ranges from -0.001
to -0.030.  The ratios for the smallest firms are the least negative, while
midsize firms produce the most negative and, therefore, the worst ratios.  As
expected in this case, profit status is more important than firm size.  Moreover,
among profitable firms, the profit margin is highest for the smaller firms.
     The profit on net worth ratio by employment size class ranges from 0.089
to 0.161.  The larger firms produce the lowest and highest ratios.  Only the
largest class exhibits a ratio under 0.10 (greater than 0.10 is desirable).
All other classes produce acceptable values.  When examined by asset size, the
ratio ranges from 0.135 to 0.581 for profitable firms and from -0.444 to
-78.854 for firms earning losses.  For profitable companies, the all-firm
estimate is 0.219 and only the smaller companies exhibit higher (more desir-
able) ratios.  Among firms earning losses, the ratio improves as the firm size
increases.  (A small negative value is more desirable than a large negative
value.)  Thus, the relationship between profit on net worth and firm size
depends on the profit status of the firms. .
     Beaver's ratio is available only by firm asset size.  For profitable
companies, it ranges from 0.119 to 0.757, with an all-firm value of 0.311.
The ratio tends to decrease with firm size, with only the smaller firms showing
ratios in excess of the all-firm figure.   Among firms earning losses, this
ratio is much lower, ranging from -0.075 to -0.046.   Only one class generates
a negative value.  Among the positive values, the largest class yields the
smallest ratio.  Beaver's ratio is sometimes considered to indicate problems
if the ratio is less than 0.08.  An alternative critical value is 0.12.  All
profitable firm classes pass this test; loss-earning firm classes do not.
     In summary, the financial ratio analysis indicates that there is no
simple, direct relationship between firm size and financial health.   For some
ratios, smaller firms produce the "best"  values, while larger firms produce
the "worst" values.  For most ratios, the profit position of the firm is more
important than firm size in determining the desirability of the ratio value.
Moreover, for several ratios the relationship between firm size and ratio

                                    E-19

-------
value is reversed for profit and loss earning firms.  (Among profitable firms,
smaller entities produce more desirable values than larger firms, while among
losing firms, smaller entities produce the least desirable values.)  Thus,
this analysis does not substantiate the contention that smaller gasoline
marketing firms will have more difficulty than larger firms in financing
control expenditures.
                                    E-20

-------
        APPENDIX F



BASELINE EMISSIONS TABLES
           F-l

-------
                               APPENDIX F

                       BASELINE EMISSIONS TABLES

    Appendix F contains four tables detailing the Agency's State-by-
State estimates of baseline emissions from the four principal  emission
sources in the gasoline marketing network.  Table F-l provides estimates
for bulk gasoline terminals (tank truck loading), Table F-2 for bulk
terminal storage tanks, Table F-3 for bulk plants, and Table F-4 for
service station operations.  These emission estimates reflect quanti-
ties of gasoline vapors (total hydrocarbons) emitted from these opera-
tions.  To determine total benzene emissions in each table, the total
vapor estimates were multiplied either by 0.0060 (for all Stage I
operations including service station storage tanks) or by 0.0066 (for
vehicle refueling).
    The basic methodology used to calculate baseline emissions was very
similar to the one used in Appendix B of the July 1984 Strategies
Document.  Emission factors were selected to represent the degree of
control (or lack of control) on emissions within various areas of each
State, and emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors
by the corresponding throughput for each area.  To simplify the presen-
tation in this appendix, the values in these tables are based on the
assumption of nationwide average fuel temperatures and RVP's.   In the
calculation of impacts in nonattainment areas, gasoline RVP's  and
temperatures are varied according to the data contained in Table 2-1 of
Chapter 2.
    Changes from the previous emissions calculations, with the excep-
tion of the new emission factors discussed in Chapter 3, were minor.
Based on comments, the presumed regulatory coverage (and hence, emis-
sion factors) for a few areas was updated to more accurately reflect
the present situation in those areas.  Also, assumptions concerning the
numbers and types of storage tank seals in use were adjusted slightly.
                                  F-2

-------
Table F-l.  BULK TERMINAL BASELINE EMISSIONS
1982 1962 1982 1982
STfiTE NflTIOJJHE NOTQIfiDE "27 AREAS" "27 AREAS" "U AREAS" "11 AREAS"
88SELINE $tm.im NQNBTTAHiEff NHWTTBMtWr NONftTTOINMBir NGNftTTfllNttNT
UNCONTRGLLED CONTRtlLLED tHBTTmUD CCfTTROLLED UKCONTROLLED CONTROLLED
TH80USSW THROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT THRQU6HW THROU6HPUT THROUWUT
(1888*5 liters) (IBBB's liters) USW's liters) (1888*s liters) (1888's liters) (1888's liters)
ftlabaea
Alaska
ftrizona
ftrkansas
California
San Diego
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Coluabia
Florida
fieorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
low
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
KassactmaettB •
Michigan
(timascta
Mississippi
Missouri
Clay
Franklin
tent ana
Nebraska
Nevada
Clark
Douglas
NmHaapshire
ViBW^ tfePaCy
NBM texieo
Ms* York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Olio
Oklahoa
Oregon
Pennsylvania
fiode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Veipojit
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
WyoBing
8
519,677
4,931,988
3,778,787
8
8
2,715,232
8
422,897
8
6,191,527
8
1,188,282
1,698,519

7,398,888
5,328,341
3,734,618
615,555
8
547,954
1,649,288
8
8
7,415,178
4,365,948
4,778,419
*
9
1,598,519
2,878,568
265,654
8
8
8
8
2,264,452
4,885,878
18,896,147
1,241,544
8,267,378
4,672,238
2,824,229
t-
8
8
1,396,12*
@
18,894,382
1,584,374
8
7,218,118
, 2,578,935
8
1,317,589
7,217,995
8
8
545,684
38,525,828
2,984,128
2,771,248
4,911,193
657,728
1,826,116
9l 458; 263
18,678,632
8
8
17,246,996
2,339,667
8
885,274
5,888,297
7,721,294
1,372,866
5,323,554
8,428,661
15,759,255
8
8
8
1,347,684
3,195,943
8
8
8
935,564
593,118
1,538486
11,858,791
632,413
16,358,560
569,124
8
9,837,137
1,718,663
2,843,932
17,725,227
1,356,552
5,766,663
8
8,913,553
11,185,171
1,816,232
898,182
2,417,832
3,388,878
615,328
7,886,381
8
8
8
2,575,333
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
a
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
t
8
a
a
8
266,551
8
8 .
@
8
8
8
8
1,831,299
8
0
8
8
8
2,771,248
8
617,719
8
8
3,597,537
8
8
18,181,764
1, 195, 772
8
8
1,885,622
618,594
8
5,923,554
5,965,641
6, 841, 999
8
a
8
8
3,196,343
a
8
a
8
8
8
11,858,791
8
9,543,481
8
8
8
773,898
8
8,883,218
8
" §
8
8
8,222,651
1,818,122
8
1,878,589
8
2,274,888
8
a
8
2,575,333
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8.
8
8
a
a
8
8
a
8
8
e
a
8
a
8
8
8
i
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
a
a
8
a
a
8
a
8
8
8
ft
8
e
8
e
0
0
a
e
a
3,597,537
0
18,181,764
919,641
8
S
8
C
8
4,668,222
8
8
8
8
8
8
3,196,943
e
8
e
a
0
8
11,658,791
8
9,543,481
8
a
8
a
a
4,47S,fa7
a
e
a
e
8,222,651
a
a
1,878,589
8
8
8
e
                      F-3

-------
                               Table  F-l.   BULK TERMINAL -BASELINE  EMISSIONS
                                                   (continued)
        STATE
Alafaita
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Calif&mi»
  Sin Diego
Colorado
Conmcticut
DtlsKirv
District of ColoAia
Florida
Georgia
Ki>«u
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Ktntucky
Louisiana
Kaint
Ktryland
Kassadwsitis
Michigan
Xinraicta
Mississippi
Missouri
  Clay
  Franklin
Montana
Mraska
Ntvada
  Clark
  Douglas
HIM Hsjcshirs-
Km Jirsay
NN Mtxico
H« York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahau
Oregon
Ptnnsylvwii
Riodt Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Ttnntsset
Texas
Virginia
Mtst Virginia
Wisconsin
W>-c«ing

  HHIQNUIJE
i3«
IH80U6HPUT
1W»
CONTROLLED
THROUSHPUT
U888*s liters) (1880's liters)


f
505,154
4,794,876
3,665,333
8
2,639,451
8
412,851
8
7,962,611
a
1,154,997
1,651,853
a
7,183,561
5,179,438
3,638,252
598,353
a
532,641
1,683,128
8
8
7,287t957
4,243,948
4,644,334-
a
a
1,553,343
2,798,117
258,238
8
§
a
a
2,281,171
3,971,696
9,314,005
1,286,343
8,036,342
4,541,662
1,967,661
a
a
a
1,357,189
8
17,588,648
1,462,334
0
7,808,628
3,426,497
2,499,889
8
1,208,768



7,816,285
8
a
538,629
27,443,428
2,988,727
2,693,384
4,773,947
639,348
999,333
9,186,171
18,338,213
a
a
16,765,021
2,274,214
a
368,535
5,715,969
7,585,519
1,333,723
5,758,818
8,193,113
15,316,355
8
8
a
1,389,945
3,187,603
a
8
a
918,333
576,535
1,487,632
11,527,391
614,740
15,911,238
553,228
a
9,562,234
1,670,634
2,754,457
17,229,387
1,318,643
5,685,451
8
8,654,557
18,794,832
932,881
865,385
2,358,265
3,293,389
598,132
7,665,992
0

CIS IfiCQNTSJ UCOMTIO
CONTROL HCK LQDN6 RCK
LEVS.
(ag/1)

80.8


38.8
80.0
133.5
30.8
80.8
38.8
133.5
38.8
30.0


80.8
38.0

39.0
dftJ
38.0
38.0
38.0
123.5
• 38.0



80.0
132.8



133.5
30.0
30.8
30.8
133.5
30.8
30.0

§8.9
88. a
38.0
30.0
30.0
38.0

38.8
38. a
38.8
38.8
30.0
38.0
30.8
30.0


HiBHiB
LOSS
(«g/yr)
0
330
3,610
. 2,768
0
1,987
0
310
a
5,996
8
878
1,241
8
5,489
3,998
2,733
451
8
481
1,287
8
8
5,427
lil
3,497
8
a
1,178
2,187
194
0
a
a
0
1,657
2,991
7,390
989 '
6,851
3,428
1,432
8
0
8
1,822
8
13,244
1,181
8
5,277
2,588
1,332
a
964
96,316
SPLASH
LOSS
ffl|/yr)
0
59
557
426
' 8
a
307
0
43
a
925
8
134
19E
0
334
682
422
69
8
62
136
8
a
337
493
539
0
0
138
325
30
0
8
a
a
256
461
1,148
148
933
526
229
a
a
8
151
8
2,043
178
0
814
398
290
a
149
14,934
CONTRU
LOONS RCK
LOSS


-------
                         Table F-l.   BULK TERMINAL BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                         (concluded)
STATE


Alaban
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
San Diego
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indian*
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland •
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Clay
Franklin
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Clark
Douglas
New HaHpshirfr
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahom
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina.
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Veracnt
Virginia
Washington
test Virginia.
Wisconsin
Hywing
CDNTRLD
TANK TRUCK
LOSS
JNgyyr)
2,818
8
0
71
4,999
387
360
637
85
408
1,226
4,157
0
0
6,715
304
0
115
763
1,882
534
769
1,894
2,845
0
8
0
175
415
§
e
0
122
77
193
1,539
82
6,373
74
8
1,277
223
369
2,300
528
2,245
8
1,157
3,232
131
347
941
440
240
1,823
8
TOTAL
STATE
LOSSES

-------
Table F-2.  BULK TERMINAL STORAGE TANK BASELINE EMISSIONS
19fl2 1382 1982 1982 1982 1982
STBTE NOTIONHI1H ^BTIdfllllS '27 "27 "11 "11
UNOWmLEB CONTBQLLID NOfBTTOIffieff NCMTTftBeeiT IWffTfllNfflifT NQNftTTfilNBIT
THROUGHPUT THROUGHPUT UNCONTROLLED CONTROLLED UCCMffiLLEB CONTROLLED
(IWS's liters) (10@0's liters) THROUSHPUT
tieaO's liters) (ISM's liters) (1080's liters) U808's liters)
Rlabata
fllaka
Arizona
ft- Kansas
California
Colorado
Conmcticut
Dtlawr*
District of Coluabia
Florida.
Saorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indian*
I(JHi
Kansas
Ktntudty
LMisianfc
Hain*
Kiryland
riUMdtttwfcts
Michigan
JliTlMHKjtS.
Hliiisiippi
MiSKwri
Xortana.
NWrtski.
ftevadt
Hi* HMpshir*
Niw-Jersty
>v4tM. Mtxico
Niw-York
North Carolina,
North Dakota
Aio
«aaho»
Oregon
Pennsylvania
fJioda Island
South Carolina.
South Oatota
Tnntsstr
Ttxi*
Utah
Vermont
Virgini*
Kaifiincton
W«ft Virginia-
Hiseoratin
Hyoinf
NflTIONHIDE TUTflL
0
513,677
4,931,526


2,715,332
8
423,89?
a
8,131,527
8
1,163,282
1,698,519
7,390,888
5,228,341


8
547,954
* ' 8
a
7,415,178
4,265,34B
MJM!
1,598,519

265,654
8*
§•
2,264,452
18|fl96,147 *
1,241,544
1,885,332
4,672,231
2,824,229
a.
a
A
1,396,124
*
16,454,682
938* 1085
565,232-
7,218,118
2,570,935

If3t?,58t
113,235,872
7,217,995
.«
0
543,884

2,771,248
4,911,193
657,728
1,828, 116
9,450,263
18,671, 632
0
0
17,246,394
2,339,667
. 8
883*274

7,721,234
1,372,066
5,323,554
8,428,661
15,759,255
0
8
4,544,547
0.

1,529,614

w'smTfi
632V413
16,268,66ft
§1,124
0
15,299,183
1,718,663
2,843,932
17,725,22?
£,355«^St
3,768,683

8,913,653
12»744,fl71
1,516,586
324,958.
2,417,832
3,388,878
615,228

8
289,682,737
0
8
0
0
8
8
0
a
8
0
a
a
a
a
a
0
8
8
9
0
8
0
0
8
8
8
a
ft
8'
a
§•
8
8
8
i
8
i
a
8
8
a
9

266,579
8* •
8
0
0
8
9
i
££5,579
1,031,408
a
2,575,605
a
0
2,771,541
0
657,783
8
8
3,597,917
0
a
10,182,848
1,195,899
0
8 '
1,885,728
618,659
8
5,324,188
5,966,271
6,042,638
8
a
3,197,281
0
f
8
0
11,868,844
a
3,544,489
8
8
a
773,179
8
8,218,628
8
8
8
8
8,223,529
1,018,229
8
1,378,787
0
3
2,275,841
8
88,535,534
a
8
8
8
0
a
8
8
8
8
0
0
.8
8
0
8
a
. .1
0 i
0
0
8
8
a
a
a
0
a
8
8
8
a
8
0
0
8
a
a
a
a
8
8
a :
266,579
0
0
t ,
8
a
0
8
266,579
a
a
2,575.685
a
8
a
a
657,789
a
8
3,597,917
8
a
10,182,848
919,739
8
a
a
a
a
2,821,762
8
a
a
8
3,197,281
8
8
8
0
11,868, 844
a
9,544,409
8
a
8
a
8
4,4S8,108
0
a
a
a
8,223,128
0
8
1,878,787
3
a
i
0
53,131,714
                                F-i

-------
                   Table F-E.   BULK TERMINAL STORAGE TANK BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                            (continued)
1984 1984 AffiASUCTHJ ftfttftS ISCTEJ ffiiftS tfCTBJ ftREftS IICTU OfTU
STATE UNCONTROLLED CONTROLLED AT BASELBE AT BASELIiC AT BftSELIfC AT BAHLBE AT BASLttE
THKJUBHPUT IN THROUGHPUT IN ISL OF TAMS ML OF TA9KS ML OF TfiNKS ML OF TANKS NO. OF TAfKS
SELECTED AfEftS SELECTED ASEftS FIXES FLOAT1NS FLOflTING
(laaa1 s barrels) (1890' s tarrel s) PRIMAiY SffiL SECONDftRY SEftL
Alaoana
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Colusnia
Florida
Stornia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska,

tte» HaBpshir*
Ita* Jersey

ffewYork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Onmon
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
\Rr8n
VcfwO***
Virginia.
Washington .
Htst Virginia.
Wisconsin
wyoMing
0
3,175
14,405
24,288

16,597
0
2,591
8
50,068
8
7,263
10,382
@
45,170
32*588
22,982
3,753
0
3,349
16,888
8
45,323
26t686
29,287
9,771
17,517
if
0) '
8°
13,841
24,974-
61,718
7,589
11,835
28.558
12,373
8
0
$
8,533
8
188,374-
8,101
5,441
44,278
21,545
15,71*
22,135
8,853
44,118
8
15,743
3.337
188,053
16,938
38,818
4,828
8,284
57,712
65,278
8
0
185,417
14,381
8
5,411
35,945
47,1S4
8,38S
2^2%
51,518
98,324
8
8
27,777
8
0
18,973
9.3S4-
72,484
3,885
188,849
3,479
0
99,624
18,585
17,383
188,348
8,292
35^247
0
54,482
77,899
9,289
t
14,77i
20,789
3,781
26,073
8
8
8
36
68
184
41
8
6
8
125
0
18
26
0
ill
81
57
9
0
8
25
0
0
111
57
73
24
44
8
0
8
35
62
154
19
28
71
31
8
8
8
21
8
251
15
14
110
§4-
39
55
29
0
2
10
18
44
11
8
2
8
34
8
5
7
8
30
22
15
3
8
2
7
8
8
31
18
28
7
12
0
8
8
9
17
42
5
7
19
8
8
0
0
6
9
68
4
38
15
11
15
5
0
5
23
38
183
26
8
4
0
79
0
11
16
8
71
51
38
6
0
5
16
8
8
71
42
45
15
28
e
0
0
22
39
97
12
17
45
19
e
8
0
13
t
151
18
9
69
34
25
35
13
0
1
4
6
16
4
0
1
0
13
0
2
3
0
11
8
6
1
0
1
3
0
0
11
7
7
2
4
0
8
8
3
6
15
2
3
7
3
8
0
0 •
2
0
25
2
1
It
5
4
6
2
94
0
34
7
482
36
64
9
13
123
129
8
0
225
31
0
12
77
101
18
77
118
206
0
0
59
0
@
23
20
155
8
214
7
0
213
22
37
231
18
75
@
116
20
0
32
44
8
56
(9
NflTIOKMIDE TOTAL
833,038
1,548,598
2,080
5S2
1,311
3,395
                                                     F-7

-------
                        Table  F-2.  BULK TERMINAL  STORAGE TANK BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                                     (continued)
       STATE
Alabwa
Alaska
ftrizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
CowiKticut
Dtlaxar*
District of
Florida
Btoroia
HiMali
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nimwcta
Mississippi
Missouri
Kontana
Hibraska
Ntvada
NftM fMJNpSili?1^
Htw J«r«r/
NSM Mtxico
Mm York
%rth Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Qrt§«n
Pennsylvania
Siod* Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Ufajfc^
Vei'voTit
Virginia.
Kashimton
int Virginia
Wisconsin
NffTHEWE
AREAS CNTRU AREAS CNTU AREAS CNTO AREAS CNTRLD AREAS U.MCTRiJ) ARI-flS liNCTRLO AREAS UNCTRLD
AT BASELINE AT BASELINE AT BASELINE AT BASELINE AT BASELINE AT BASELINE AT BASELINE
H (F FLOATING S OF FLOAT1NB ID. OF NO. OF STRG LOSS STRB LOSS STRB LOSS
S# PRIMARY «/ SECOfflftRY FUATINe FLGATINS PRIM SEBL SEC SAL FIXED ROOF
SEAL SEAL PRIHARY SEAL SECONDARY SEAL (Mg/yr) (l»!|/yr) (Hg/yr)
0.0
8.8
8.9
8.0
0.8
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.9
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
8.0
8.0
8.9
0.8
8.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.0
8.0
0.0
8.8
0.9
8.9
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.3
8.8
8.3
0.0
8.3
8.8
8.8
0.9
8.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
8.0
0.9
0.8
0.0

1.8
0.8
8.1
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
8,8
1.8
8..1
1.8
8.1
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.8
0.0
1.0
8.9
0.1
8.1

1.0
f»i
0.1
8.1
8.8
0.1
1.8
1.0
L8
0.1
1.8
0.0
8.1
1.0
1.8
0.1
8.1
1.8'
8»1
1.8
9.8

8
8
30
8
8'
0
8
0
12
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
9
69
8
16
78
39
a
9
i
8
8-
8
21
ia
8
7
192
7
8
192
0
0
8
IS
8
0
185
0"
8
a
28
a
7
8
t
m
94
0
3
7
482
36
64
3
13
123
133
8
8
225
31
0
12
a
181
2
8
11
286
01
8
53
8
8
2
2
155
1
21
1
8
21
22
37
231
2
75
0
12
166
28
8
3
44
1
55
0
2,427
3.89
74125
336.74
565.79
1525.54
387.97
0.00
60.57
0.80
1170.41
0.88
1S9.77
242. 6fi
8.00
1855.98
761.31
535.37
87. 9S
8.8® •
78.29
235.64
8.08
0.08
1059. 4&
623.81
682.74
228.48
411.34

0.8B
8.80
323.55
583.79
1442.54
177.39
257.35
657.57
£19.22
0.88
8.08
8.88
199.48
8.88
2351.04
142.61
-127.19
1830.18
581.65
367.34
517.43
188.26
19,473
• 9.88
3.34
17. B&
i 30.38
81.44
28.S8
0.80
3.21
8.00
62.07
&80
3.^1
12.17
9.08
56.88
48.38
28.39
4.66
0.80
4.15
12.58
0.18
8.W
56.19
33. ea
36.21
12.11
21.52
8.S0

0.88
17.16
30.%
76.51
9.41
13.68
15.48
15.34
0.80
8.00
0.08
10.53
0.88
124.69
7.56
: 6.75
54.64
26.71
19.48
27.44
9.98
1,333
8.88
27.78
125.60
211.81}
572.74
144.71
0.83
22.59
0.8Q
436. 21
8.08
63.32
98.S
8.80
393.84
283. 94 i
199.61)
32.81
•0.08
29.21
87.89
8.81'
8.8t
395.18
232.87
254. 6&
85.13
153.43
9.90
0.«ff
3.OT
120.68
217.75
538.95
66.17
36.21
249.00
, 107.88
8.80
3.39
8.83
74.48
8.80
876.32
53.13
47.44
384.25
187.16
137.01
133.88
78. ae
7,263
                                                                 F-8

-------
Table F-2.  BULK TERMINAL STORAGE TANK BASELINE EMISSIONS
                      (concluded)
flteftS UNOTJ) AffiflS UNCTRLD fiREftS CSTRJ flRtfiS ENTO
STATE AT BftSELIffi fil BMBLII€ fiT BASELI^ AT BASELIS
Wffi UBS SMffiLOSS STRB LOSS SIRS LOSS
FLOAT ROOF FIIES ROOF PRIM SEAL SEC SEflL
<«i/yr} 4t
8,38
9.88
1.78
i.15
1.15
3,26
6.59
i.ii
g,^
e.^
8.54.
&%
a. 43
•• a.%
a. 43
1.1£
9,49
ft.se
&8@
9,8&
8.34
8. as
2.%
&24-
3.21
1.73
3.B5
e.6£
a, 37
0.32
33


8.88
186.41
455. 3fl
764.99
2976o51
S24.S5
&88
ei.se
e.s«
i5a£,74
&M
229. 5S
3sa.ia
8.8*
1427.89
1K9.52
723.^
iia.%
8.81
18S.B7
318, £&
8.88
e.98
1432.74
843. 5t
923.27
38S.SS
3QSeC§L
&8t
8.88
&•»
437.53
7S9.4S
1958.75
239.89
34i.§2
m.n
391.12
8.08
8.88
8.@8
2E9.75
8.88
279.31
192.85
i72.ee
1393.1E
£81.89
496.75
S99.72
254.3
2S,333


8.88
8.88
449. Bl
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
179. Ei
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
8.88
1827.8&
8.88
239.63
1834. 52
1472.83
8.ti
8.81
S.88
8.88
8.89
&8t
31S,5V
2§?.2§
8.tS
U8.43
2B5S.71
99.39
8.€»
m&.®
&m
8.88
@.88
23S.92
8.88
i.88
15K.73
8.88
S.83
8.88
422.2B
8.81
187.46 . .
8.88
8.8B
13t222


457.39
8.88
lfi.78
35.39
1994.82
179.58
318.43
42.64
&E.65
612,73
S92.37
8.88
8.88
1118.25
151.7*
8.88
57.46
38,12
588.63
8.98
38.41
54.55
1821.78
B.S8
8.8»
294.66
8.88
i.8»
1I.S4
9.92
7S8.§9
4. If
18S.13
3,53
8.88
115.68
111.43
1§4.39
Ii49.a
8.88
373.89
8.81
57.71
826.34
98.33
8.88
15.68
219.67
3.99
276.58
8,8*
12,945


SREfiS CHTHJ
flTBftSELINE
• HWSLQ9S
FUWT RJ3CF
«%/yr)
2.83
8.88
8.73
8.15
a. £7
8.78
1.38
8.19
8.S
2.U
3.81
8.88
8.88
4. 36
8.66
8.88
&2S
l.&S
2.18
8.39
1.67
2.37
4.44
8.18
8.M-
1.21
8.88
8.88
8.51
8.41
3.34
6.13
4.61
8.16
8.88
4.59
S.4S
8. §8
4.99
8.38
1.22
8.89
2.51
3.59 ,
8.41
8.88.
8.63
8.95
&17
1.28
8.88
71
TOTflL TBNK
LOSSES (Mg/yr)
TBfflL TOTM.
STATE BENZEHE
LOSSES LOSSES
<*5/*r) (Hg/yr)
478.83
206.42
1483.39
1688.19
6272.38
1259.81
319. Bl
211.21
246.51
sees, is
695.2B
471.96
674.67
1123.10
3387.76
2116.46
1545.99'
131 L 33
912.68
466.56
1729.58
1529.85
lt26.2S
2945.37
1734,19
2193.96
634.95
1143.5*
325.68.
277.63
772.23
1914.15
4592. 4t
4113. S2
493.15
3573,94
1967.77

1154.25
246.89
375.51
S54»S
1617.83
7365.8*
495.21
3^.58
33I2.54-
1628.79
1132.62
1716.23
523.36
79,477 •'
79,476.58 *n

                                 F-9

-------
Table F-3.   BULK PUNT BASELINE EMISSIONS
SFftlE 1982
NflTIGNHIDE
immmr
Ui88»i litirs) (j
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
PalasM.
California
Bay Art*
Colorado
Cowwcticut
OilaMtrt-
Diitrict of Coliafcia
Florida
BKmard
B»orgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Ktntudcy
Louisiana.'
faint
&ryla«J
tewachnntts-
Itichigan-
lirmMflta
ttMillippi
ti noari
fentan*
{•brask*
tovada
ittt-Hajphir*
to* Jtnay
fcwKmico
IN York
lorth Carolina
fcrthpakrta
Mo
XOahona
ireoOB
'enaylvania.
Iwdf Island
South Carolina
'odtht Dakota
'•mm**
txas
lab
Davis
'(I'BCflt
ijfinia
«nirwtcn

7,218,118
2,525,885.
2, 57% 933*
fi 933,818
1,317,583
If82 1982 "27 1982 "27 fiHiftS" 1312 '11 1382 Ml ftHSS"
N6T10NU11E NONflTTfllNiCNT NflNflTTfllWeiT NDMftnfllWiENT NaMflTTfllMMOff
CONTROLLED UteONTmiEO CONTROLLED UNCGNTRaUD} CQNTffllia
THRgjfiHPUT THiXjeWUT TH'TOUSHPUT THflOUiftJT Hiffl9JSfPlir
.90f 3 littrs) (1008*1 liters) (1008*s liters) (18i8*s litn-s) (1008
-------
      Table F-3.   BULK  PLANT  BASELINE EMISSIONS
                      (continued)
STATE
1984 1984 *OF UNCONTROLLED CONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED CONTROLLED THROUGHPUT OIK PLANT BULK PLANT STR8 TK STRS TK
THRS16WW IN THROUHPUT IN TO THRQU6WUT IN THROUGHPUT IN BRTWB FILLING
SELECTED flREfl SSTEO AREA BULK SELECTED AW SELECTED flREfl LOSS LOSS
(1800's liters) (1636' s liters) PLANTS (1888 '5 liters) (1608's liters)
Alabama
Alaska
ftrizcna
Arkansas
Pulaski
California
Bay Area
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
BroHard
Georgia .
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
(font ana
Nebraska
Nevada
Ne»Haapshire
New Jersey
NSN Mexico
MR* York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio.
Oklahcw-
Orepn
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Davis
feraont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Hyoaino
0
585,883
4,792,635
3,664,231
530,478
18,442,483
8
2,638,658
8
411,927
8
7,968,216
9,183,418
18,377,893
1,154,658
1,658,557
B
9,455,802
5,177,882
4,489,437
0
0
1,865,883
1,682,638
0
f
7,285,791
4,242,664
5.953.839
1,553,381
2,797,276
834,515
1,487,185
8
.2,815,065
6,487,888
9,811,856
1,206,486
1,754,354
6,218,430
1,967,878
8
8
8
1,356*701
8
£4,362,643
569,915
1,473,684
549,271
7,086,522
3,425,467
2,498,333
2,858,974-
1,280,383
7,814,176
8
8
8
0
21,065,1%
8,889,438
2,692,995
4,772,513
639,148
8
8
8
0
8
0
16,739,982
0
8
0
6,312,425
7,583,263
8
5,755,217
6,198,656
15,314,252
8
8
3,186,669
-, ~f f
0
910,899
8
11,523,927
0
13,469,151
553,853
0
15,838,933
8
2,763,626
17,224,789
1,318,246
5,683,768
8
8,661,953
4,812,307
0
f
0
2,349,558
3,292,399
8
4,812,715
0
36*
SI*
21*
64*
64*
15*
15*
52*
8*
28*
8*
28*
28*
31*
5*
71*
25*
23*
44*
33*
45*
39*
23*
15*
18*
28*
31*
59*
49*
33*
74*
29*
75*
7*
52*
8*
48*
33*
21*
22*
33*
25*
2*
34*
33*
31*
33*
57*
57*
36*
14*
24*
44*
26*
59*
0
181,811
1,886,453
2,345,188
339,581
1,566,361
0
1,372,182
8
82,385
0
1,592,844
1,836,682
3,216,899
57,733
1,171,835
8
2,174,651
2,278,268
1,481,514
0
0
429,135
£40,396
8
8
2,233,795
2,583,172
2,916,989
512,616
2,869,985
'242,889
1,115,389
0
1,463,834
512,624
3,924,422
398,148
368,414
1,366,295
649,133
8
8
0
447,711
8
8,039,672
552,852
840,880
197,738
980,913
822,112
1,899,269
741,253
755,426
2,525,183
0
0
0
8
3,158,779
1,333,414
1,488,357
381,881
127,830
0
8
8
0
0
8
4,189,996
8
8
8
2,848,591
2,926,273
8
863,443
819,866
3,062,858
8
3
1,522,268
8
8
263,917
0
806,675
e
1,877,532
221,221
8
3,326,176
9
911,997
4,306,177
26,365
1,905,281
0
2,665,285
1,324,861
8
0
8
328,938
798,176
8
1,251,386
8
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)
0
24
230
536
78
358
8
313
8
19
8
364
428
735
13
268
8
497
520
338
8
8
98
55
8
8
518
572 *•
666
117
473
55
255
8
334
117
896
91
84
312
148
8
,0
8
102
8
1,837
126
44
45
224
188
251
169
173
e
124
1,181
2,752
398
1,838
e
1,618
e
97
0
1,86B
2,156
3,775
66
1,375
0
2,552
2,674
1,739
0
0
584
282
0
0
2,622
2,938
3,423
682
2,429
284
1,309
8
1,716
682
4,606
467
432
1,683
762
8
0
0
525
8
9,435
649
227
232
1,151
965
1,2%
878
837
175,922,029    280,291,398
56,858,939
44,368,799
12,656
65,823
                              F-II

-------
                                  Table  F-3.   BULK  PUNT BASELINE  EMISSIONS
                                                    (continued)
        STfiTi
fflabaia
Rlaska
Arizona
Arkansas
  PuUski
California
  Bay flna.
Colorado
Ccmntcticut
District of Columbia
Fltrida
  Brcword
Btorgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Ktntticky
Loaisiana.
^lint
Maryland
Kassaehttscfcts
Nichigait
mmnota
Histiuippi
Hisuuri
Montana
Ntiraska
Nevada
(4ht HiKJshire
HIM Jirsey
HkwMtxico
North Carolina
North DaJwta
Chio
Oregon
Pmaylvania
fiiodt Island
South Carolina
South Dtteta
Ttxis
Utah
  Davis
Virginia
Hashimton
Hist Virginia.
Hiscorairr
HATIONUIDE
wamum
ST8STK
DftfllNING
LOSS
tK|/yr)
8
59
472
1,181
153
735
8
644
3
39
8
747
862.
1,518
27
558
8
1,821
1,878
635
a
8
281
113
8
a
1,849
1,175
1,363
241
S7E
114
524
8
687
241
1,842
187
173
641
385
a
8
8
218
8
3,77*
26*
9£
93
468
386
516
348
355
26,089
UNCaNTOlED UNCONmUD
TK TRUCK
SPLflSH
LOSS
lM|/yr)
a
51
487
1,135
8
758
8
664
8
49
8
778
8
1,557
28
567
8-
1,052
1,183
717
8
8
289
534
8
&
1,831
1,211
1,412
248
1,082
117
54*
8
788
248
LS39
193
178
661
314
ft
ft
8
217
8
3,SJl
268
ft
96
475
338
532
359
366
26,884
TK TRUCK
SU8&SED
LOSS
(Mi/yr)
8
S4
&§5
1,489
272,
141
267
&24
8
49
a
9%
1,471
1,333
35
784-
8
1,386
1,359
&98
i
8
25fi
663
9
ft
1,342
1,514
1,7SS
388-
i,244-
145
678
8
879
388
2,358
239
221
821
39i
8
a
8
263
ft
4,838
332.
1SI
lit
583
494-
6£i
445
454
34,545
CONTROLLED
SIRS TflNK
BRTHIN6
LOSS
{»i/yrt
577
a
a
a
a
788
385
328
87
29
a
a
a
a
8
0
957
a
a
a
649
668
8
137
187
78ft
A
ft
348
8
8
69
8
184
8
246
51
0
768
0
288
384
6
435
a
613
382
a
148
8
75
181
ft
286
0
18,283
CONTROLLED
STRSTflNK
FILLJNS
LOSS
CMa/yrt
148
0
a
a
9
185
78
82
22
a
§
a
a
a
3
8
246
a
a
a
167
172
a
51
48
188
8
8
89
8
8
15
a
47
8
63
13
a
195
8
54
253
2
112
8
158
78
a
38
0
89
46
8
73
ft
2,711
CCNTSGLiH' CONTROLLED
STSiTflW
DRAINING
LOSS
$g/yr)
119
8
a
8
8
148
31
66
18
6
a
0
a •
a
a
a
1S7
a
a _
a"
133
137
a
41
38
144
0
8
71
ft
, a
12
8
'38
0
51
18
8
156
-9
43
282
1
83
a
126
&2
8
3i
8
36
37
a

8
2,843
TK TRUCK
LOSS

JKg/yrt
337
a
0
8
8
421
134
187
51
17
9
a
a
0
a
8
593
0
0
0
373
391
a
a
'109
409
0
0
283
0
0
35
8
188
8
J144
38-
8
444
9
122
175
4
254
0
358
177
0
5E
8
• 181
105
0
167
0
5,872
TQTH.
8TOTE
LOSSES

(«i/yr)
1,181
314
2,975
• 6,333
987
6,184
815
4,711
179
303
9
4,7%
4,909
9,510
171
3,464
1,359
6,429
5,735
4,3&8
1,328
1,36B
1,269
1,936-
383
1,432
6,684
7,408
9,335
1,515
6,119
833
3,297
377
4,327
2,019
11,785
1,177
2,644
4,833
2,345
2,813
12
891
1,324
1,256
24,386
• 1,634
784
585
3,208
2,808
3,258
2,718
2,233
185,227
                                                                F-12

-------
               Tifale F-3.  BULK PLANT BASELINE EMISSIONS
                             (concluded)
STOTE




fllabaaa
Alaska
ftrizona
Arkansas
Pulaiki
California
Bay ftrea
Colorado
Cowwcticut
Delaware
District of Colwbia
Florida
Broward
Sierfia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lotw
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Main*
teryland
Massachusftts
Michigan
Hiranwota
Missisiippi
gtsiotiri
Start am
Nebraska
Nevada
MB* Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Itew York
ftorth Carol in*
forth Dakota
Ohio
QklahQBa
Dragon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee ~
Texas
Utah
Davis
VBrwjj't
Virginia
Washington
Heat Virginia
Wisconsin
Hycaing
8BSE YEW EMISSIONS fiFTER mEMENTflTIW OF NO
SflSTflNK
BRMN6
LOSS
ttii/yrt
177
24
£38
536
7S
1,876
315
633
S7
48
a
364
429
735
13
268
S57
4f7
520
338
649
KB
%
252
IS?
70t
5iS
572
1,814
117
473
llfi
SS
184
334
3S2
S47
91
844
312
3S7
§84
&
435
162
613
2,139
121
132
45
239
3&8
251
455
173
STRiTfiNK
FILLING
LOSS
(Kg/yr)
148
&
59
138
21
277
78
1S3
22
IE
0
33
198
189
3
62
248
128
134
87
1S7
171
25
65
48
188
131
14?
2fit
3t
121
3*
65
47
86
93
243
23
217
80
92
253
2
112
S£>
158
549
32
4f
12
77
95-
G5
117
44
STSSTftW
DRftlNING
LOSS
«^l/yr)
119
5
47
lie
16
221
31
13ft
18
18
8
75
86
151
3
55
If?
i«a
10?
78
133
137
2t
52
38
144
105
118
286
24
97
24
52
38
69
75
195
19
173
64
73
232
1
83
a
126
44*
26
39
9
61
76
52
94
35
EX. CONTROL
TKT8UCK
LOSS

<«g/yr>
337
14
134
313
43
638
178
378
51
.28
fr
213
245
429
8
156
559
29t
384
138
379
391
S7
14?
183
489
298
334
533
6S
276
•68
149
188
195
212
553
53
493
162
286
575
4
254
6»
358
1,253
74
us
26
175
215
14?
266
181
OPTION
TOTAL
STflTE
i iyy^
Wg/yr)
1181
50
471
1096
153
2206
592
1296.
179
38
0
744
659
1504
27
548
1959
1017
1965
692
1328
1368
281
516
383
1432
1044
1170
2876
248
969
237
522
377
684
744
1938
186
1727
639
' 730
2013
12
891
219
1256
4378
258
393
92
612
754
514
932
353

TOTAL
BENZENE
LOSSES
(Mg/yr)























































mnmim               22,940       5,892       4,683       12,406       46,922      282
                                               F-13

-------
                              Table  F-4.   SERVICE STATION  IN-USE BASELINE EMISSIONS

Arizona
flrkansas
California
  Bay fire*
  San Ditgo
  South Coast
  Other Stast  II
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Colu*bia
Florida
Georgia
Ha*aii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Nairn
Karyland
Kassachttsttts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Ha»pshir»   '
New Jersey
ten Mexico
NeMYork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Qftgon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina,
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Iftait
Venont
Virginia
Hasnington
Kest Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1912 1982, 1912 1982 1982 ' 1982 198£
NflTIONHIBE fiLL flLL "87 flRfflS" "27 "11 flRiftS"
imWTmifB CONTHJLLEB IWBTTfllNHENT NONflTTfllNMENT NONflTTfllJlMENT NONflTTOIWOT NQNflTTfllWlENT
THRQUSHPUT THSQU6HPUT 'UNCONT80LLED8 "CONTROLLED" UNCONTROLLED CONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
U800'5 liters) (1000' s liters) THROUBHPUT THROUSHPUT THROUGHPUT : THROUSHPUT ' THROUGHPUT
(1000's liters) (1000*5 liters) U000's liters) (IttW's liters) U«ft»»s liters;
0
513,677
2,355,567
3,770,707
0
0
0
0
0
2,715,332
0
423,897
8
8,191,527
10,678,632
1,188,202
1,638,519
0
7,390,080
5,328,341
4,619,892
0
0
1,920,021
1,649,208
0
0
7,415,178
4,365,348
4,771,413
1,538,513
2,878,561
265,654-
1,530,400
8
2,264,452
11,030,033
10,035,995
1,241,544
1,805,332
6,390,893
2,024,223
0
0
0
1,395,124-
0
IS, 454,602
396,100
890,183-
7,210,118
3,525,004
2,570,935
2,933,818
1,317,589
147,435,232
7,217,995
8
2,575,333
545,884
4,497,287
9,147,739
2,984,120
18,631,443
6,248,552
2,771,248
4,911,193
657,719
1,028,116
9,450,263
8
8
1$
17,246,396
2,339,667
0
8
6,495,651
7,721,234
0
5,323,554-
8,428,661
15,753,252
0
0
4,544,547
0
0
1,523,614
0
11,858,731
632,413
9,364,505
569,124
0
16,299,183
0
2,843,932
17,725,227
1,356,552
5,766,603
0
8,913,652
12,744,871
1,516,506
0
2,417,832
3,308,071
615,328
4,952,563
8
241,621,481
0
8
0
0
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
0
0
3,164,595
8
8
0
534,480
0
085,274
0
0
1,372,066
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
0
1,287,138
0
8
218,94?
0
0
8
773,038
51,333
8
8
0
0
8
8
0
0
870,751
0
0
0
0
9,917,661
1,324,398
0
2,575,333
8
2,253,254
9,147.739
2,384,120
li, 631, 443
6.248,552
2,771,248
4,911,133
657,713
1,028,116
9,458.263
' 8
8
0
10.074,016
2j 339, 667
8
0
1,582,505
3,454,766
8
5,630,390
8,428,661
13,617,890
0
8
4,544.547
' 8
0
936,504
0
11,858,731
0
7,531,768
563,124
0
11,525,344
8
2,318,453
16,516,888
1,356,552
133,921
0
3,132,148
11,105,343
1,010,122
8
1,855,813
3,388,871
8
2,455,432
8
187,328,494
0
0
8
8
0
0
8
8
i
Q
8
8
'8

3,537,537
0
8
0
8
8
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
8
181,165
8
8
0
773,838
0
8
8
0
8
8
266,551
• 0
0
444,392
8
0
0
0
5,262,653
1,831,239
' ' d
i 2,575,333
0
8
«
0
0
8
£.771.248
8
657. 71S
i
0
8
8
8
18.181.764
1,195,772
8
0
' 1,805,622
bia,594
8
5.323,554
5,365,641
6,041,339
0
8
3,1%. 943
0
8
0
0
. 11,858,791
8
3,362.233
0
': 0

i
0
' &,&83,2l8
8
0
8
0
8,222,651
1,810,122
0
• 1,426,287
0-
8
2,274,888
0
i 84,203,505
8
8
8
^
8
0
8
0
8
0
i
0
y
0
3,537,537
0
8
8
u
8
if
8
8
Q
8
0
0
)
8
0
8
0
8
0
0
$
181, Had
0
8
0
8
0
8
8
u
0
V)
0
V
0
0
0
0
8
4,223,004-
                                                            F-14

-------
                          Table  F-4.   SERVICE  STATION  IN-USE  BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                                     (continued)
                          1982
        STflTE           '11
                       CONTROLLED
                       THROUGHPUT
                     UM8»s liters)
ftlabasa               •           0
Alaska                           0
Arizona                   £,575,333
Arkansas                         0
California                       0
  Bay flrea                       0
  San Oieeo                      0
  South Coast                     0
  Other Stane II                  8
Colorado                         $
Connecticut                      0
Delaware                         0
District of Colunoia              0
Florida                          0
Seoroia                          0
Hawaii                           0
Idaho                            0
Illinois                 18,181,764-
Indiana                    919,641
Iowa                             0
Kansas                           0
Kentucky                         0
Louisiana                        0
Maine                            0
dryland                  £,021,549
Massachusetts                     0
Michigan                         0
Minnesota                        0
Mississippi                      0
Missouri'"                 3,196,943
Montana                          0
Nebraska                         0
Nevada                           0
Me* Hampshire                     0
Nat Jersey               11,858,791
Mem Mexico                       0
Ne* York                  9,352,235
north Carolina                    0
North Dakota                      0
Ohio                             0
Oklahoma                         0
Qreoon                           0.
Pennsylvania               4,479,627
Rhode Island                      0
South Carolina                    0
South Dakota                      0
Tennessee                        0
Texas                     8,222,851
Utah                      .       0
Vermont                          0
Virginia                  1,426,207
Washington                       0
West Virginia                     0
Wisconsin                        0
Wyoning                          0

NATIONWIDE               54,244,742
                                                            F-15

-------
                        Table F-4<   SERVICE STATION IN-USE BASELINE  EMISSIONS
                                               (continued)
STflTE





ftlabana
fllasSa
ftrizona
flrkansas
California
Bay flrta
San Diego
South Coast
Other- Stage II
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Baxali
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Icwa
Kansas
Kentudqr
Louisiana
Haint
iteryland
Kauachusitts
rfichigan
Hinnesota
Missisiiopi
Kisiouri*
.Montana
He&raska
Nevada
New Bamshire
New Jersey
He* Mexico
NwYork
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Ompn
Pennsylvania
8wdt Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Ttxas
Utah
Vtramt
Virginia
Wasfiinqton
Htst Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoaing
1984
THROUGHPUT
UNCONTROLLED
FOR SlfBS. I


(10e0's liters)
0
505,154
2,290,712
3,665,333
0
0
0
0
0
2,633,451
0
412,851
0
7,962,611
10,380,213
1,154,997
1,651,053
0
7,183,551
5,179,438
4,498,787
0
0
1,866,365
1,603,120
8
0
7,287,957
4,243,340
4,544,884
1,553,848
2,738,118
258,238
1,487,532
8
2,201,171
10,780,117
9,813,858
1,205,848
1,754,881
6,212,235
1,957,551
0
0
0
1,357,109
0
15,934,778
970,208
865,306
7,008,628
3,426,495
2,499,089
2,851,831
1,280,768
1S84
THRQySHPUT UNCOfffRQLLEB UNCONTROLLED
CONTROLLED SERVICE STN
FOR STflBE 1


( 1 ft&ft' C 1 1 ^QWS^
\4UlfV a 4*VKiS*/
7,016,285
0
2,503,354
530,629
4,371,608
8,892,101
2,308,727
18,118,779
6,873,933
2,633,804
4,773,347
633,339
393,385
9,186,171
8
0
8
16,755,021
2,274,284^
8
8
6,314,321
7,585,519
8
5,758,818
8,133,118
15,318,852
3
8
4,417,547
8
8
1,485,868
8
11,527,391
614,748
3,182.809
553; 228
8
15,843,695
8
2,754,457
17,229,887
1,318,543
5,685,453
8
8,554,555
12,388,710
1,474,127
8
2,358,265
3,233,398
598,132
4,B14,1S1
8
TflNK
SPLftSH
LOSS
tHn/yr)
8
427
1,337
3, 108
8
8
8
8
0
2,232
8
348
0
6,734
8,779
977
1,335
0
6,875
4,388
3,798
8
0
1,578
1,356
0
8
6,895
3,589
3,928
1,314
2,367-
218
' 1,258
0
1,862
9,117
8,308
1,021
1,484
5,254
1,654
0
0
0
1,148
0
13,528
821
732
5,928
2,898
2,619
2,412
1,083
SERVICE STN
TflNK
SUBMERSED
LOSS
twg/yr)
8
87£
1,232
2,541
8
8
0
0
0
1,419
8
£22
0
4,281
5,581
'621
888
0
3,862
2,785
2,414
8
8
1,083
652
8
0
3,875
2,232
2,497
835
1,584
139
800
8
1,183
5,736
5,276
649
944
3,348
1,058
8
8
8
738
8
8,608
522
465
3,768
1,842
1,661
1,533
589
SERVICE STN
TflNK
F1U.INS
LOSS

(Mf/yr)
842
51
575
3(84
525
149
49
3*4
102
. 648
573
1£6
45
2,858
1,245
139
198
2,012
1,135
. 62£
539
758
901
£24
883
3B3
1,838
865
589
1,087
186
33b
£09
179
1,383
338
£,385
i;244
145
2,112
745
558
2,068
158
673
163
1.048
3,415
. 293
104-
1,1£3
806
372
320
154
CONTftflLLffl
SERVICE STN
TONK
BALANCED
LOSS
tMo/yr)
344
8
123
8
£14
435
142
887
2i7
132
£34
31
49
735
8
8
8
821
111
0
0
3B9
1.W1
8
282
4(41 "
758
8
8
£16
8
8
73
0
564
65
445
27
8
776
8
135
844
55 •
274
' • 8
424
1.784
* 72
0
115
161
0
£36
0
SERVICE
STRT1QN
TttNKb'
STBTt
TOTftL
<«i/yrt
1,186
- 753
j,B67
6,145
739
585
131
. 1,131
399
4,4£3
807
728
98
13.808
15,606
1,736
£,482
2,633
11,184
7,787
6.751
l.BbZ
1,381
2«8li!6
,4,383
l,3tJ*
£, SStt
l8,83b
b,i88
7,738'
£,336
4, £^7
639
£.237
1.94*
3,468
17,745
14fS4tt
1,814
5,315
9,344
3,485
2,911
££3
547
£4840
1,454
£7,317
1,786
1,301
11,934
5,708
4.655
5,181
1,326
NATIDNUI1E
143,370,432    234,863,255
121,761
77,376
41,602
13,677    255,815
                                                  F-16

-------
                     Table F-4.  SERVICE STATION  IN-USI BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                          (continued)
STATE Nfl NA Nft Nfl flTT ftTT HTT
VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE
REFUELINS & REFUEL!!® REFUELIN6 REFUELM REFUB.1NS REFUEUffi REFUELINS
FILLINS DISPLflCEMENT SPILLABE STATE DISPLACEMENT SPILLABE STATE
CONTROL LOSS LOSS TOTAL LOSS LOSS TQTflL
LEVEL («g/yr) (iw/yr) («g/yr) <«i/yr) (Hg/yr) Wn/yrt
fllaoama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Bay Area
San Dieno
South Coast
Other Stage II
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Seoraia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iota
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hannshire
New Jersey
New texico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
f&jode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Viroinia
UasJnntjton
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoaing
0*
0S
0k
0*
0*
86*
86*
86*
86*
0*
0*
0JS
62*
0*
0*
0*
a*
0*
ox
0$
&
9*
0*
W
0%
3*
0Jt
8*
0*
9%
0£
0k-
•*•
0^
0$
0*
0%
0*
0$
0&
0*
8*
0$
0Jt
$£•
0£
«*
«*
0£
0X
8*
0*
0*
W
10,891
0
3,386
824-
6,786
I,i32
630
3,936
1,320
4,181
7,410
992
595
14,259
0
0
e
26,023
3,539
0
8
S&nt
,£»!
11,650
0
8,938
12,718
23,778
0
0
6,857
0
' 0
2,338
0
17,8S3
954-
14,130
859
0
24,593
0
4,291
26,745
2,847
8,781
0
13,443
19,239
2,268
0
3,648
5,112
928
7,473
0
589
0
210
45
367
747
244 '
1,521
510
226
401
54
84
772
0
0
0
1,408
131
0
0
530
630
0
484
688
1,287
0
0
371
0
0
125
0
968
52
765
.46
0
1,331
0
232
1,447
111
471
0
721
1,041
124
0
197
277
50
404
0
11,480
V
4,096
868
7,153
2,679
874
5,457
1,830
4,4@8
7,811
1,046
679
15,031
0
0
0
27,431
3,721
0
0
10,332
12,281
0
9,421
13,466
25,265
0
. 8
7,228
0
0
2,433
0
18,861
loiSJb
14,894
905
0
25,924
0
4,523
28,192
2,158
9,172
0
14,177
20,271
2,412
0
3,846
5,389
979
7,877
0
0
784
3.556
5,689
0
0
0
0
0
4,097
0
tM
0
12,368
16,113
1,733
2.563
0
11,151
8, Mi
6,971
0
8
2,897
2,488
<6
0
11,188
6,589
7,E1»
2,412
4,343 v
4tl
2,3*9 "
H
3,417
16,733
15,233
1,873
2,724
9,643
' 3,054
0
0
9
2,187
0
24,828
1,506
1,343
10,879
5,319
3,879
4,427
1,988
0
42
132
3k)B
g
0
a
8
0
222
0
35
0
669
872
97
133
0
603
435
377
0
0
157
135
0
0
6K)
3%
390
131
£35
22
125
a
185
906
824
101
147
222
165
0
2
0
11*
0
1,344
81
73
589
288
210
249
108
d
&£•!
3,748
5, 99?
e
0
9
0
0
4,319
e
674
@
13,023
16,984
l,8iV
2,702
0
11,754
8,475
7,348
0
1
3,054
2,623
Sj
i
11,794
6,34*
7Ǥm
£, S42
4,57tt
423
£,434
§
3.602
17,639
16,030
1,975
£.871
18, 16S
3,220
9
0
1
2,221
^
26,171
1,587
1,416
11,468
5,607
4,089
4,666
2,0%
NATIONWIDE
333,318
234,587
                                                 F-17

-------
                     Table F-4.  SERVICE STATION IN-USE  BASELINE EMISSIONS
                                           (concluded)
      STflTE          VEHICLE
                    REFUB.I.N6
                     STftTE
                     TOTflL
Alabejia
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Bay ftrta
San Diego
South Coast
Other Stage II
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Colinoia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lotta
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Hontana
Nebraska
Nevada
NiM Buoshin?
tot Jersey
NtwHfXico
HIM York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Olio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhods Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoning
11,488
827
7,844
6.666
7; 153
2,679
874
5,457
1,830
8,726
7,811
1,729
679
28,853
16,984
1,899
2,702
27,431
15,475
8,475
. 7,348
10,332
12,281
3,65*
12,045
13,406
25,865
11,734
6,344
14,82a
2,542
4,578
2,855
2,434
18,861
4,607
32,533
16,963
1,975
28,795
10,165
7,743
23,192
2,153
9,172
2,221
14,177
46,442
3,999
1,416
15,313
10,995
5,068
12,543
2,096
WTI9MDE              569,905
                                                 F-18

-------
       APPENDIX G



NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA
          G-l

-------
                               APPENDIX G
                        NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA

     As discussed in Section 2.3.3.4 of Chapter 2, regulatory strategies
were evaluated for several groupings of ozone nonattainment areas.
The tables in this appendix itemize the counties that are included  in
each area grouping.  Population data came from the 1980 Bureau of Census
Publications and gasoline consumption data came from county-by-county
fuel consumption information presented in EPA's National Emission Data
System (NEDS).  A description of each of the nonattainment area groupings
can be found in Section 2.3.3.4.
     Table S-l presents gasoline consumption and population data for
six nonattainment area groupings.  Counties included in each (grouping
are designated with an "x".  Table S-2 summarizes the data for each
grouping.  Table S-3 compares nonattainment area groupings between  the
NA and NA* designations used in the July 1984 analysis, and the 27  area
and 11 area groupings*  Table G-4 presents the composition and gasoline
consumption for the 61-area nonattainment area grouping.
                                  G-2

-------
Table 6-1.  COMPREHENSIVE NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA
NQNATTRISBJT am STOPS
STATE
1 ALABAMA
2
3
S
6ftSlZONft
7
8CH.IFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
29
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
29
ff
m
32B
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
49 •
41
430108810
44
45
46
47
48
59 CONNECTICUT
SinawsE
S2 D1STR. OF COL.
S3RJ3RIDA
54
S
56
57
58
S
69
ft
53 GEORGIA
64
65
66
67
68-
69
27 U
COUNTY flREflS AREAS
SALDUIN
ETOHAH
JtJ-FtHyjN X
H08ILE
RUSSELL
NAR1CQPA X 8
PDA
ALAKEDA
BUTTE
COHTRA COSTA
ELDORADO
FRENO
IMPERIAL
XEBi
KBJ6S
lOSftNeaS
XADERA
MflSlN
HERCED
MKTEREV
NAPS
ORANSE
PLACER
RIVERSIDE
SflCRflKSHTQ
SANBBttTO
SAH BERNARDINO
SflN DIES)
SAN FRANCISCO
SAM JOflBJlN
SflN MATS]
SANTA BARBARA (M/ St. II)
SANTA BARBARA (11/0 St.II)
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
SOUND
SONOMA-
STANISLAUS
SUTTER
TOLAS
VENTURfi
YOU}
HfflA
AOAW X
RfiflPflHOE X
fioues x
DOUBLPS X
JEFFHSSDN X
fiU.
hSMCSSTlE X
DISTRICT IF COUKBIA
BREVflJa
BfS3MfiRD
DflDE
ESCfl>SIfl
HILLSBCROB4
ORflNSE
PflLM BEflCtt
PINB1AS
SWA ROSA
OflYTCN X X
COBB X X
CONETA X X
DEKflLS X X
DOJ6US X X
FU.TDN ] X
URBAN RWH. URBAN
NA NA JUST ATT
(NA-U (MM!) (Nfl-3)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
jj
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1382
RURflLM THfiUPUT
SELF-SEN. (1300
(Sfl-4> SftUVS)
48,702

272,479
134,712
25,417
689,405
227,848
499,261
75,363
384,844
59,289

46,951
168,446
X 36,449
3,347,921
X 36,511
119,889
X 68,796
118,965
54,024
933,296
33,167
289,851
368,936
14,639
360,464
788,487
247,113
X 146,574
320^471
66,999
66,99»

82J596
95,772
167,587
X 144,773
29,463
X 124,919
226,154
47J 893
26,979
92,264
91,639
94| 527
339,665
16,990
134,788
97171
1,297,541
173,779
271,629
124,832
482,935
646,936
£53,167
185,154
277,927
£49,719
248,311
337,772
34,539
64127
171,621
'26,339
133,636,
33,987
22,338
338,216
1989
POPULATION
73,556
133, '557
671,324
364,980
47,356
1,599,052
531,443
1,105,379
143,351
656,380
85,812
114,621
92,119
493,989
73,738
7,477,583
63,116
22^568
134,560
290,444
99,199
1,932,709
117,247
663,166
783,381

895,816
1,861,846
678,974
347,342
587,329
149,347
149,347
1,295,071
181,141
235,293

i£5«9§(-
52,246
2*5,733
529,174
113,374
491733
245,944
293,621
189,625
492,365
all 153
399,424
371,753
3,197,576
398,115
638,333
272,959
1,318,299
1,625,781
571,092
233,794
. 646,969
471,916
576,863
728,531
55,988
159,357
297,718
39,268
483,024
54,573
a, 943
589,994
SESVICE
STATION
EXBVT.
STAGE I
WE
NCN£
NONE
NONE
NONE
UNC
UNC
(18k
(19k
(19k
<18k
(19k
U0k
(10k
(19k
(19k
(19k
(19ft
U9k

(19k'
O0k

(10k
(10k
(19k
(19k
(19k
(19k
(16k
(19k
(19k
(19k

(19k

uek
U9k

(19k
(10k
NONE
(10k

(19k
(19k
UC
(19k
(19k
NONE
NONE
UNC
(19k
(19k
(19k
UNC
(19k
(10k
(19k
UNC
UNC
UNC
UNC
UNC
UNC-
UNC
SERVICE
STATIQl
siise h
use •
ilC
UNC
UNC
UNC
we
UC
(19k
UNC
iHh
UNC
NONE
UC
NONE
NONE
U9k
NONE
(10k
NONE
UNC
!19k
(10k
UNC
(19k
NONE
UNC
(19k
HOE

NONE
U#»
NONE
UNC
(10k
UNC
(10k

-------
Table G-l.  COMPREHENSIVE NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA
                  (continued)
tWSTTBIW6HT flKEfl 6RQUP9
STRTE
7i
71
72
n
7*
7SWBH
77OUM11I
71
71
U
I
it
83
at
17
n
83
9£ '
n
*
32
StlNUMt-
58
|
st
9j^
IMP
ut

111
It*.
10 MMRfc
IK
117
lit
m
MtNflWGW
lit
Ult
113
m
USUXflSUM
u*
117
HI
12*-
Ipt
air
M.
U£f«
Hfff
!£6
UT
US
fg^
13t
at
m,
i» me
m
as
137
M*
17'
COKTY MEflS
E4IMETT X
HEW* X
WOTEE
PMUIW X
flinSSo X
HDNEUUI
Hne
COOK X
DrfflEE. X
HEW
Kfie X
MC I
HfiCDUPH
HRDISON X
IBNROE X
PEODfl
raxiaflfi
ST. CLfilR X
THBBL
UEL X
uwoaa
UXXFORS.
OflfiK X
am x
UKE X
NflKHII*
j^j'j[|yi* j
ST. JOBBH
PBX
Hjmwllmit
una
B3£Mtt
JOICQK
sisaiicx
iffRNDOTIE.
acoe
nats
CflWEBJL
KENTW
oti-ttraX X
ftBEENSItll
BBUEEfiffl
BDB^ES*
onxi
CflLCflBIHl
BET BfiTOK HOUSE. I
BfifW
H^^unig'
^^^fcMMjy
LflFBYETTE
*UV*CUEC£.
QBLBW
POUrrECOPE
sr» aae
ST. CKMQ.
ST. JflfB.
ST. JOtt-TtEEflPnsr
9T. HW
UEHT BfiTWODUBE X
HMBEOBBOf
QJMEIU1O
FnM9^IM
l@IG£tX
LBCOUI
umw
it m
WB8 OO-U
X K
JC
X
X
X X
X X
f X
X £
X
X
X X

X X


X

X

X
X




X
X
X

X
X
X




x .


X


X
X







HUSO. URBAN
Nfl JUST HIT
fttfWSi niiwii
141rf ill ITw^df
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X






X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
x'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1982

RUHflLNfl -WUWT
SELNXN* (!M 19M
(Nft-4) SflLrtR) FOPULflTIIM
96,838
78,833
18,323
39,137
197,441
1SB.S22
5,297
1271715
79,128
„ 79,313
133,414

141^713

13J975
44,144
68,948
28,81*
117,612
3i2,218
55,358
88,993
1^799
37,383
77,711
26,974
21,119
122, 1»
83,221
25,403
29,487
29,817
47,371
253,636
28,69*
IT; 433
42,831
113,763
X 74,338
152,941
18,441
18,561
13,871

41 S14-
isalsfifi
13,197
27,766
22,619
11,143
13,999
33,823
It, 492
37,489
193, 3»
12,195
49; 733
12,27*
13J747
166,903
178, IBB
3^7*7
181,629
762, 5f5
5,233,653
698,833
57,968
270,415
444^372
49,384
247,691
», 117
147,897
2M,46S
165,963
267,531
132^878
32^46t
25t,a84-
33,321
294,33!

137| 33»
61,169
922,96!!
763,233
I19,8irj
241,617

«i,SBt
16i,82!i
44i78i!
67,64ft
271,269
366,23s
172,331!
iisSi
55*512t
33,317
137,851
ga ocg
aJ69J;
88,721
252, 33£
3«1 191
16,7K
32, IK
454, 39£,
151,017
82,483
337; 515
24,M5
S^tfl^lT
37,259
21 495
31,324
64,253
19,866
99,637
215*789
27t §9S
1^,S§9
32,941
23,691
SERVICE
STflnON
EXEMPT.
STflGEI
UMC
UNC
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
UNC
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
toe
NONE
NONE-
NONE
NONE'
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
HONE
UNC
(25k
UC
<23k
(25k
{25)t
(c5k

UC.
UNC
UC
UC
IMC
UNC.
UC
IMC
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE

(23k
(25k
(23k
(23k
<23k
(25k
(23k
05k
(25k
(23k
(85k

(23k
(£5*
(25k
UC
UNC
. UNC
UC
UNC
UC
SERVICE
STATION
EXEMPT.
STfi6E II
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UC
UC
UNC
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
IMC
UNC
IMC.
UC
IMC
UC
UNC.
UNC
EMC
UNC
UNC
UNC
' UC
UC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UC
UNC
UC
UC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UC
UNC
UC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
IMC
UNC
UNC
UC
UNC
UC
UNC
UNC
UC
UC
UNC
UC
IMC
UC
UC
                            S-4

-------
             Tablt  S-l.   COMPREHENSIVE NONATTAINMENT AREA  DATA
                                        (continued)
                                         joBrmweir turn mat
                                27
                                      11
       Slim
                    count
                               AREAS  AREAS
                                           usa»
                                             m
                                            (MM)
                                   Bust
                                     Nfl
                                   (Nfl-ai
  mam
•JUSTUTT
 (Nft-3)
                                                                           ISE
                                                                            UHE
SEWS!.
 £3   ijSSft
                             31,315   
-------
               Tafele  6-1.   COMPREHENSIVE  NONATTAINMENT  AREA  DATA
                                            (continued)
                                           NWHriBMBfr fiiSS fflQUPS
                                 27
                                             mm   ma.
       sums
                     awry
                                AIOS  MEK   «fM)  Qfra
  tnani
JUSTfiTT
 INA-3)
                                                                              1982
                                                                            3ftSOUJ€
                                                                   3UM.W   THfMOT
                                                                    (NO-*)     SflUYR)
   ISftl
PGPUU1TIDN
SERVICE SEMIS
sffincN srflncN
&,&<&.  SBST.
SfflGE I 3TSSE II
212
213
21*
215
21t
217

mmmm
8*
stiHEWBi
2tE ffit HfiHKQK
223
                RSMIM
                cunr
                F8MUN
                JflDSW
                PUTTIE
                siv was
                ST. lOOS
                ST. umsent
                CUM
                KUMP
                OESHIBE
                HIUS8WUEH-
               STHflFRSa
               aiuvsw
               01,
               V
               ilBBW
               MWS
               uwm
               BUM
               KMC
               KIKE

               H6JYOW
               CXtEBS
               csrai
               BOMflB
2+5

247
24ft
2«9
2»
ess
£34
a
SB
257
£35             SUFHXJt
2ia             ime^

asznnHCRiDUMCiMeuw '
2£3             ffmnfTIKI^
**\             Ud£
253 anu         famatiA
2£t             BUTl£S
257             OfiW
2§a             OEautr

01*             OXJJHC9H.
271             OWKHft
272             msuem
273             FJSMtOH
274             EB3U89
273             ffigyi^
271             Hgam

278             L*t
sn             uoo»
                    33,223
                    13,337
                    45,169
                   324,735
                    36,333

                    88^6*7
                   148,149
                   475,83S
                   163,117
                    32,612
                   2*7,423
                    22,355
                    23,327
                   117,74*.
                    34,135-

                    «.?§?
                                                                               13, MR
                                                                            3,133,182
                                                                              379,3*9
                                                                              139,174
                                                                              134,212
                                                                              273,368
                                                                               94,54«
                                                                              133,781
                                                                              135,152
                                                                              183,129
                                                                              78,995
                                                                              251,775
                                                                              iS'as*-
                    23,94*
                    33,371
                   249,331
                                                                              24,436
                                                                              47,264-
                                                                              94,798
                                                                              57,346
                                                                             493,613
                                                                              47,417
                                                                             321,343
                                                                             121,891
                                                                              43,558
                                                                              94,289
                                                                              74,533
                                                                              53,957
                                                                             343,132
                                                                              43,727

                                                                              2»«?
   69,427
  t3S,4ai
   71,233
  623,26ft
  146,183
   46,341
  144,1*7
  973,396
  453,385
  337,931
   .16,415
  4S3,S87
                                                                                        62,116
                                                                                       ®£m
                                                                                       191,343
                                                                                     7,354,823
  WC

 1«HE

 i'OE
 'UK
 HOE
 0€
 MM
  UNC.
  UNC
 aft
  UK
  UNC
  UHC
  UHC
  UNC
  UNC
  UNC
                             352,342
                             *B,S»
                             139,317
                             554,372
          NONE
           as
          HOC
          NOME
  5*3,173
  497,S3t
  4*7,283
  211,123
  £44,49*
  419, 7»
 1,154,972
 2,23t,336.

   63|l5»
  79E,23«
                           1,428,265
                             4Si3£»
                              34,486
                             113,311
                              77,133
                             299,511
                             149,346
                           1,254,231
                             .§*»3L
 NONE
 OE
 me
 1«HE
 MM
 am
 roc
 a*
 tax
 a*

 UHC
 UC
 UHC
 a*

 UHC
 UNC
 (MB
 UNC
 (ilk

 (Uk
 UNC

 UNC,
                             247,169   UMC
                             4$*,27t   llik
                             381,327
                             184,219
                             238,787
                             131,236
                             128,483
                             34,£«3
                             113,572

                           !.*»»
           UMC


          129k

          (25k
                             1£3,763
                             s&m
                                                                                               tSSk
                                     :Z3n
                                     •!25k
                                     :2Sc
 UNC
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 UNC
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 UC
 UC
 UNC
 UNC.
 UNC
 UNC
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 IK
 UNC
 UiC
 UNC
 UC
 UC
 ue
 UNC

 'JC
 UNC
 UNC
 IMC
 UK
 UC
 UNS
 UNC
 ISC
 uc
 UNC,
 UC
 UC
 we
 uc
 uc
.ue
 UMC
 ue
 UNC
 uc
 UG
 uc
 uc
 UNC
 UHC
 uc
 ire

 uc
 uc
 UNC
 uc
 UNC
 UC
 UNC
 UNC
 UNC
 UNC
                                                            6-6

-------
Table 6-1.  COMPREHENSIVE NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA
                  (continued)

STHTE
2S9
231
£82
233
234
283
236
m
m
289

291
2S20KUWBW
293
294
2B
296 SSSBi
297
291
299
382 PBSBYLVflNM
383
394
388
396
387
3M
399
319
311
312
313
314
319
31S
317
318
319
32t
321
322
323
m
323
32S
327

329
33ft

333
334
33
33t
33T
338
339
34f.
341
348
343
34+
345
346-
34T
349

COUNTY
L08M
LUOS
matm
mm
mass*
POflTflSE
PSEBLE
STWX
SMUT
TMMUU.
HMREN
HMO
cflwaiflN
OEVaPMJ
CKUwm
m»
JfiCHSCfr
NMION
WLTSH*
pcm
HfiSBIWfW
MMS
SliCOlMSIW
MMSTHBN8
SEWER
BBJfMS
BEWS
WM8
BUCKS
BUftER
CftffiSIfl
CBSBtK
CENTS
CHESTER
BfiUWM
ERIE
FOTCTTE
MSWLBi
WESS
MlfiKfl
LACKfi^@i&
tajgflgfl-ll
UWECE
IfiWSM
LSilH
UJZEBe
LWEMOB
MERCER
NEMEE
MNTsaer
NDfnWWTW
ncHTHu«ea»a>-
PERRY

PIKE
SCMfllKIU.
SW1ER-
SOPBSET

WWS4
«6HIWSTt9t
WVNE
IfiSTJWEJKD
wrajHte

27
fliBS


X



x
X
X


X
X

X
x




X



X
X


X
X


X





X
MNRTWM
WSfitt
11 NR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X


X X
X

X Xr
X
X
X X




j£



X
X


X X
X

X.
X X





X
X
3JTWB1 SHOPS
WHfiL URKW
Nfl JUSTftTT
(NR-2) (Nft-3)
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X

X
X
X
X
x

X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X


X


X
X
X
X
X
X
x.
X
1982
WRM.M THRUPUT
SELF-SEN. (1998
iNA-4) ffil/Yfl) P
91,127
174,2*9
116,347
sr,a7S
59,3*6
25,447
SS(43&
48,831
24,733
58,286
249,819
2*4,253
37,833
§9.33^
113,477
39,321
4?3ȣSJ'
47,015
68J393
28,042
144,949
X 57,991
176^612.
75,618
77.9W
24,536
48,246
163,189
40,713
91,961
eajesa
191, SM-
91,173
83,622
^•ISS
fi'ZS,
43,928
67,795
X 1S8,7B7
48,151
53)6@S^
93*i£t
116,133
S?659
37,837
25^2SS'
1 17; Silt
42,259
21, £29
39?; 9»
19,263
69,799
18,352
48,488
20,969
2%4M
23,478
§m

1989
CPULftTIGH
274,5*9
471,741
289,487
99381
S7l|697
123,856
38,223
378,823
324,472
241,863
99*0^5
187,372
55,452.
13% 173
563,933
479,533
241,919
132,456
562,649
45,283
243,688
£3,292-
i»4SSt@33
77,7»
214,441
46*^1-
312,519
147^912
53,35
31S.669
83,573
33,669
17?,S*1
23|3i7
5S5,M7
279,709
159,«7
Jt3tfi5^
49,476
19,188
227, SS8
&£,348
117,259
130-5^
272,349
343»079 '
U&41&
123, ^9
fi9,43f
S43f6£l
££3f4!d
lttt|3SJl
35,718
Lslalgis
18, £71
1S$}639
33,534-
§1*2^3
37,876
47,449
£17,874
35,237
3^294
2^*33
SE5V!C£
mmtM
EXEMPT.
STDESI
(2»
(HSk
(25k
<2Sk
(25k
(25k
(25H
i%$U
ffiSt
UC
UC'
NONE
MBS
(Itk
(19k>
(ISh
(19k
UC
USk
NDNE
me
NONE
MQtE
M»E
NONE
me
NOfE
NBC •
K9E
toe
NONE:
NONE
NCE.
NONE,
NETC
(06
NES
NONE

nee
WNE
S8BS
HOC
MGNE
NONE
N@e
Mae .
HZ*
KONE
fffl£
NS£
NONE
KSC
NONE
NffiE.
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
fffiNE
HONE
NONE
me
NONE
SERVICE
EXEMPT.
STC6E11
UC
UC
uc
uc
uc
UNC
UNC
UC
uc
ue
uc
uc
uc
we
uc
uc
IMC
UC
uc
ue
uc
ue
uc
uc
ue
uc
uc
uc
ue
ue
uc
we
ue
uc
uc
UNC
uc
UNC
uc
' UNC
UC
UNC
UC
uc
uc
UNC
UC
ue
uc
uc
uc
uc
uc
uc
uc
ue
uc
uc
uc.
uc
ue
UNC
uc
we
uc
UNC
UNC
UC
UC
uc
                            S-7

-------
Table 6-1.  COMPREHENSIVE NONATTAINMENT AREA DATA
                   (concluded)
NONBTTBtW&T ftffifl SHIPS


STSIE
33t
331 RHODE taSNB
3St
3S3
33*


COMTY
YORK
saisra.

sewn1

27

AREAS







AREAS





333 UPaflNgTM
3* mm cmim AUBI
357
331
339
36*
361
g||> t©H3KJE
S3
36*
33
3fifc
367
361
369
371
371 TDSB.
37£
373
37*
371
376
377
371
379
3*»
3JU
3*Z,
3JHJI yuif-
3H-
3l3vaEws>

317
3»
3»
39*
391
3SC
393
33*- '
335
3SS
337
393
399
4*&
4*1
**£
4*3.
4*4-
4ttS unflHQMTOMh
4*
4*7
***•
Of __^
4lS^ •ilSCCIHDt''
411
412
413
41V
415
41K
BHKaBf
osusinji
aewoic
nose
YSK
WOJET
wrasoi
HHII1.19I
HOWE
HUTHESraB
SHSiSY
9MCX
UUJLlflMSlI'
UBjSQN
MUMM
mini
CBfflM
iL. PflflB
jllLVIF3TBfr
WSJ
HfWB
J'iF^f'ffffly'
Nuezi
OBTWE
tiwu^r
VICTOPTfi"
DfWIS
SO.TU1C
tea
flLEKMOCBCnT
nci-^L^cnT
FSIBFfiX
RUfFBX CTTV
F?ii3 OMCH crrr
HRHPTQICny
HBKICO
LOBO1J
W»S66fl8 CITY
WWBEBBPWKCITY
l^ypy^f NBC COY
NDSFCLX crrr
PCKTEWUIH crrr
PRDCEUULIflB
HIDKIBCITY
VlflBINXfl S3DI ClIY
VOW
CUXK
KMI
PIEHS
SNdHQKliH'
SPfiK3C
oflwe
Ksmfl
KIOiHUK&£
SZflUK^E
warn
9CBOyQPH>
HPUEHfl-















X
X



X



X

X
X

X
X
X
X


X
X
X



X









s
X
X
X

X















X




X



X




X
X
X
X
X


X
X




X















URBAN fiUSflL URBAN
.MA HA JUST ATT
(Nft-U !NA-3 (NO-3)

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X
X




X
X

RSALNA TBRUPUT
SELF-SEN, 
-------
Table G-2.  DATA FOR NA AREA GROUPINGS
982 TWUT £ 1988 POPULATION FOR NONATTAIWiENT
URBAN flREAS DESIGNATED NQNflTTAINMBfT (NA-1):
ALL AREAS
ARSIS WITHOUT STAGE II CONTROLS
AREAS WITHOUT STA6E I OR STABE II CONTROLS
ALL CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNM flREflS WITHOUT II CONTROLS
ftLL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AREAS (ALL UITH STA6E II)
27 SONfiTTAIitBnr ftREAS jflLL H/Q STABE II
11 ;ALL W/0 II
RURAL AREAS DESIGNATED NGNATTAIKJOT (!tt-2):
ALL AREAS
MITKOUT II CONTROLS
AREAS WITHOUT I OR STABE II CONTROLS
ALL CALIFORNIA AREAS
GflLIFQSNlfi flREAS WITHOUT STABE II CONTROLS
ALL DISTRICT OF (ALL UITH II)
27 NQNATTAINMENT AREAS ;ALL W/0 STASE II
11 NQNATTAINMENT AREAS sftLL H/0 STABE II
MAJOR AREAS JUST ATTAINMENT (Nft-3)s
flLL AREAS
flREAS WITHOUT STABE II CONTROLS
WITHOUT STABE I OR II CONTROLS
ALL AtEflS
CALIFORNIA flREAS WITHOUT STABE II CONTROLS
flLL DISTRICT OF COLUHBIA flREAS (fiLL WITH STABE II)
27 fALL H/0 II
11 WWTTAINHENT AREAS jfiLL WO STASE II
RURAL SELF-6B€RfiTIN6 mTTAINiCMT AREAS 
-------
                         Table 6-3.   NONATTAINMENT  AREA  DATA
                                                                                  UU  •
                                                                                  man
               KMWUIM-
                                     COUNT
mam     aa-
mm i «i raa
EffiM". «M am
 27
AREAS
                                                                            u
                                                                            AREAS
                                                                                  itwair
                                                                                   «•
                                                                                  an/Till  fonmat
                                                          !Qg  X
                                                                                  375.471    671.324 I
          PHflBllX
                                 MNTSEY
                                                          (1*
                                                                                           351:444
                                 swrairm
                                                          (19k
                                                                                            a.ag!
                                 s»fTn can
SUBS-
                                JBBS.
            JMa*_
                                 ftSRPfiHOE

                                                          NCJE
                                                  HI-3H
                                                                                  JSsiS-
                                                                                    *
                                                                                           JJ9.S3JL
                                 DBWEH
                                                                                  ^.ag,,- .498.368.1
                                                                                           _aiaj.
                                                 1W1-2W
                                                          me
                                                                                  JZrJU'JL
                    JZkSJ.
ewspsir
                                 U.
                                                                                                 1
                                                                                          1.831.886I
                                                                                           223. 4
                                               )£S< IMCtt.
                                                                                           249. Ml t
          MBtvox ass
                                                                                          JiUiLl
          WJLflHSTW
                                                                                           399.115 1
RIFIM
          moot
                                                                                          JE.3i8.at 1
S2512-
                                 cunrrm
                                                 JM-3XH
                                                                                          -STJlLi

                                                         UN
                                                                                     W
                                                                                            S4.5T3 1
                                                 UW-SW
                                                                                            a. 843 1
                                 RJLTC»
                                                                                           539.934 ;
                                                                                           166.5«3
                                                         we
                                                                                            38.389 !
                                                                                            as. 119 i
                                 BffifflMUE
                                                         LW;

UAMB...'«u,,.WffB.
                                 03GK
                                                                                           6SS.835
                                 XBSS

                                                                                           S78.MS t
                                 me
                                                    SSM
                                                                                           W3.37S i
                                                         ass

         ..ST^IUP,.
                                 waisna
                                                                                           147,897 I
                                                                                           247.6il .1
                                                         W5S
                                                                                           £67,531 1
BSiaa.
                                 oww
                                                233B-1W
                                                                                  .44.144.
                                                                                           88.336 t
                                 FURB
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                  187.612:
                                 8JS6,
                                 CUNPSBJL
                                                        ^Niag^
                                                         NOC
                     45,848 I

                     83.317 (
                                               G-10

-------
                         Table  G-3.   NONATTAINMENT AREA  DATA
                                           (continued)
                                                                  MMnRMGff IMS
                                                1988
                    SBMg-
                    sisnai
                    8TOKI
   SBBI
SMUT-
                  sa-             iwupur
              Aueen  27    u     urn
ma,   05W. m OHM AREAS AREAS
                                                                                                 1988
                                                             ?«£
                                                                                        47.379
                                                                                                ...l&JOLL
           UUISUILLB
                                                                                       cfiS.SSS
                                                                                                 SB3.234 t
UJUISIS^^
           Bflffi «X6E
                                   £. SITOI ISSEE
                                                   2SW-1
                                                                                        1S.S4J    3S8.191 I
                                                                                        1 '4,^32
                                                                                                  13JW
           n_cniM_
                                                                                        I3.S7J
                                   ST. 3ESWKD
                                   ORS8S
                                                    UN-SSI
SffiSHJSB
                                   memst®.
                                                    19M-3HI
                                                                                       218.149S79.773
                                   BflLTUSS
                                                                                        87.7SI
                                                                                                 655.615
                                   CfffifflLL
                                                                                        38.81+
                                                                                                 9S.35S
                                   HAND
                                                                                        82. 95
                                                                                                 145.938
                                   HUM)
                                                    1W-3MH
                                                                                        7*. 183
                                   BaLTIHKE CITY
                                                    1MI-3KR
                                                             (SSk
                                                                                       A6S.1S5    785.773
           VJflSHHgTO
                                   MHJHS6W
                                                     IN SHSfl
                                                                                       244, §83
                                                                                                 579.353
                                                     :IM.9a>....-iZgt...
                                                                                       31L257
                                                                                                 ^5.37!
                                                  (sssa IN ass esst.
                                                                                        77.48*
                                   flLL
                                                             NONE
                                   SO.
                                                   asw-im
                                                        UZKJil
                                   au.
                                                      m
                                                             HCf€
                                   ill
                                                  \gm m CO.
                                                                                                 212.242
                                   flLL
                                                   (tan mco.
           CEOTB8. SSSSaCHUSETTS (SCE
                                   IMWOJDi
                                                                                       333. £71
          ...giag»..«AUflr flro
                                   utmrn
                                                             Nffig
          _MBSfflJfcBHHKE'*a'8!S__K»PPffl_
                                   HiKPSHIfE
                                                 >39@l IN S!SI
                                   avwum
                                                 >3NN IN SffiS
                                   31FFDUC
                                                 !3H IN =338
                                                                                                 5S3.142
»imis»     JSTBOIT
                                                     CT S?Sa  (35k
                                                                                       S9S.SA3
                                                     p
                                                                                               1.811.7B
                                   lBYf«
                                                     ilj SBS3  (5k
                                                                                       898.185
                                                                                                  7 JS1
asaag     ST. uais
                                   sr.
.N6H.Jg8ffiL
                                                     iNSSfl
                                   au.
                                  _aj.
                                  _aL
                                                  (Sw IN sxsa sag
                                                  fi-11

-------
                           Table G-3.
           NONATTAINMENT  AREA  DATA
           (continued)
                                                        sins-
   rant
NDBfQUM'iWI
    nun
               nmumr MB sun  ISM

                   aa-  „         TMunr
KHMflrW SIM I flU. EBTEB  Z7    n    (IMl!
             T. aw MM «»s UREAS  nyn)
                                 BSEES
                                                                                           843.383 !
                                 MiBUTH
                                                          NONE
                                                                                           595- 29^ !
                                 SBBHS
                                                          SHE
                                 IMON
                                                 isw-sm
                                 PflSSUC
                                                          WE
                                                                                           H7.IS3 i
                                 OWJBt
                  IN ssa  KSE
                                                                                           199t3l3LL
                                                                                           massi.
                                 BRONX
                                                        _klitJS_L
                                 KDO8
                                                   D
                                                          (1ft
                                 (SI TOM
                                                          dfflt
                                                 JffiJE,.
                                 PUTS*
                                                           *
                                                                                            77.193 1
                                                                                          1.S91.32S I
                                -SIESBtSL
                                                                                   98.70B   39.53) I
                                                          (1ft
                                 won

                                 SFHILX
                                                          itlk
CH10
                                                                                           13S.S5R 1
                                                                                           £4.472 1
                                 suite
                                                                                           858.7871
                                                          (SH
                                                                                           129.483 1
                                 WWILTM
                                                                                           873.22* I
                                                                                            J5.275 I
                                 OiWHBI
                                                          (2St
                                 LAKE
                                                                                   77,
                                                                                  JkJSL,
          TULSfl
                                 WLS8
                                                                                           47B.S3U
                                                                                                 1
                                 JU.1NMHH
                                                 1W-3W
                                                                                           563.5+* !
                                 Mfl6HIN8TW
                                                 1W-2M
                                                                                           2«.39fl 1
          PITTSUHH
                                 wersnw

                                                          HONE

                                                                                            7T.768 I
                                 BBW3
                                                          NONE
                                                                                           294.441 1
                                 HJTl£B
                 ! IN'OL   NONE
                                                                                   7S.il j.
                                                                                           147. 91Z I
                                 W6HIN9TTM
                                                          NONE
                                                                                           317.874 !
                                 kESTWJEJMJ
                                                         JfflE
                                                                                           392.23* f
8UOJ8.....   ,

OtSIEH
                               ^Jil.WSMlL, JOI6
                                              jajja.
                                                                                           4T3.211 1
                                                  IN SMS)
                                               )3J»t INSSfl
                                                                                  2W.246
                                                                                           S43.621 !
                                                G-12

-------
                  Table G-3.   NQNATTAINMENT AREA DATA
                                (concluded)
                                                        net eon issa
yum
ECWTY
8IAIIUI    9BL-
StRRI fttEGTED
BEST. no am
 27   It
MBS (SERB
                                    itwwr
                                     UfN
                                                                       19Bt
BMUfflELPHIS
atPHTOm-BETHLSSM LJEHISf

NMTWWTQH
SCSWTW IfiCXflWWW
MILKES EflRRE UHSSS
TOflS BOIftS-ffiRT WSTH MULftS
DBfTOH
TflfififlNf
EL PfBQ EL PftS)
• HOUSTON HflRRIS
um SS.T UKE cm DAVIS

)2M IN 96ft NONE
23B-1I* Nd€
258H-1W NONE
tsm-im NONE
25SH-M NEWE
! X X
( X
t X
( X
( X
l(«-3f« (18k X X

iwi-3m tic
X
1WI-3H (18k X X



Sa.TU*E
yiRBMIft UASHINSfW iSUWTffl
RH8BK
UHOW
1


5^tttwlUU /1fitt
CiJfH iWl \tOK
tm-3M (19k
u3Cn""lnN NONE
259)»-!»! NO£
>3HR IN S»3ft (22k
)3W IN 9SI (25k
i^ikt m ^^fl liS*
PRINCE UILLlf^ )3P8% 18 SM9B UNC
MJBW8RIB CITY >3MM'!N9MA '<25k
FMflRtt CITY
FflUS OWED CIW
MfiUKSSCITY
BSSHSSS
MSH!@nM SS5TTLH KIN6
MBS
HSSCITY

!3MIN9«B <25k

X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
>3M IN aea esk x x x
>3» IN SHSR  HITHG/T msm i CONTSOS
SELECTED NOWftTTfllWeiT fliSB (NA»I
SEKIED «mrraiwe«- RSBB INMI KITHCSJT STDE r comas
2?Ntwr»Meir«sfls
27 NGNRfTRINNSir AIER^ MITHOUT STflSE ! CQJTRGLS
uMMmnMirMM
11 NONOTTflntMENr fUSflS HmflUT STiSE I CONTROLS
TtTfflL U.3. RSfflES
im$w
(tew en.)
38,652.463
1.273.116
19.685.436
117.383
23,814,959
1.39*. 397
15.4*7.223
1.115.721
182.7E9s.8e8
POPULffTION PSSZHT CF PERCENT OF
(18811
B1.08S
2.563
32,538
2tS
84.271
2.683
42.797
2.189
236.546
.U.S. THWPUT U.S. POP
38*
l.SS
13»
8. IS
23%
1.4*
15*
US
Nfl
annai
36*
1.W
14*
8. IS
£9%
1.3.
19S
1.8S
«
                                    G-13

-------
             Table 6-4.  COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
                 NONATTAINMENT AREA GROUPING*
 1.  Boston Metropolitan Area
 2.  Greater Connecticut Metro. Area
 3.  New York City Metropolitan Area
 4.  Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
 5.  Miami Metropolitan Area
 6.  Cincinnati Metropolitan Area
 7.  Dayton Metropolitan Area
 8.  Chicago Metropolitan Area
 9.  Milwaukee Metropolitan Area

10.  Portland, ME
11.  Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-ME
12.  Providence, RI
13.  Worcester, MA
14.  Atlantic City, NJ
15.  Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ
16.  Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ
17.  Baltimore, MD
18.  Erie, PA
19.  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
20,,  Lancaster, PA
21.  Pittsburgh, PA
22.  Reading, PA
23.  Richmond-Petersburg, VA
24.  Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA
25.  Washington, DC-MD-VA
26.  York, PA
27.  Atlanta, GA
28.  Birmingham, AL
29.  Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
30.  Chattanooga, TN-GA
31.  Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
32.  Louisville, KY-IN
33.  Memphis, TN-AR-MS
34.  Nashville, TN
35.,  Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,  FL
36.  Akron, OH
37.  Canton, OH
38.  Cleveland, OH
39.  Detroit, MI
40.  Grand Rapids, MI
41.  Indianapolis, IN
42.  Muskegon, MI
43.  Baton Rouge, LA
44*  Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
45.  Brazoria, TX
46.  Dallas, TX
47.  El  Paso, TX
48.  Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
49.  Galveston-Texas City, TX

                             6-14

-------
                 TABLE G-4.   COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
                      NONATTAINMENT AREA GROUPING3
                               (continued)
 50.  Houston, TX
 51.  Lake Charles, LA
 52.  Long view-Mars hall, TX
 53.  New Orleans,  LA
 54.  San Antonio,  TX
 55.  Tulsa,  OK
 56.  Kansas  City,  MO-KS
 57.  St. Louis, MO-IL
 58.  Denver, CO
 59.  Boulder-Longmont,  CO
 60.  Salt Lake City-Ogden,  UT
 61.  Phoenix, AZ
State and  County Breakdown
   Alabama
     Jefferson
     St. Clalr
     Snel by
     Walker

   Arizona
     Maricopa

   Arkansas
     Critt'enden

   Colorado
     Adams
     Arapahoe
     Boulder
     Denver
     Douglas
     GUpin
     Jefferson

   Connecticut
     Fair-field
     Hartford
     Middlesex
     New Haven
     New London
     Toll and
1982 Gasoline
 Consumption
 U.OOO gal.)

   272,470
    23,806
    37,132
    49,300
   680,405
    20,207
    92.264
    91,639
    94,527
   -339,66S
    16,900
     1,518
    97,171
   319,799
   309,367
    78,164
   275,649
   109,064
    60,271
Florida
  8 reward
  Oade
  Hi 11 sborougii
  Palm Seach
  Pasco
  Pinellas

Georgla
  Butts
  Catoosa
  Cherokee
  Clayton
  Cobb
  Dade
  Oe  Kalb
  Doug]as
  Fayette
  Forsyth
  Fulton
  Gwi nnett
  Henry
  Mewton
  Paul ding
  Rockdale
  Walker
  Walton
1982 Gasoline
 Consumption
 {1.000 gal.)


   482,938
   646,936
   277,927
   248.311
   90 {034
   337,772
    8,238
    12.557
    29,749
    64,127
   171,621
    7,685
   133,636
    33,987
    22,338
    17,348
   338,216
    96,838
    26,152
    21,328
    15,209
    22,009
    40,327
    18,614
    Delaware
      New Castle            173,770

    District of Columbia     271,629
                                    S-1S

-------
Table 6-4.  COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
    NONATTAINMENT AREA 8ROUPIN63
            (continued)



Illinois
Clinton
Cook
Ou Page
Kane
Lake
Madison
McHenry
Monroe
St. Clalr
wm

Indiana
Boons
Clark
.Dearborn
Floyd
Hamilton
Hancock
Handrlcks
Johnson
Lake
Marlon
Morgan
Porter
Shelby

Kansas
Johnson
Hyandotte

Kentucky
Boone
Boyd
BulUtt
Canpbell
Greenup
Jefferson
Kcnton
Oldham

Louisiana
Ascension
Calcasieu
East Baton Rouge
Jefferson
Livingston
Orleans
St. Bernard
St. Tawany
West Baton Rouge
Maine
Cumberland
Sagadahoc
"fork
1982 Gasoline
Consumption
(1,000 gal.)
- -•-•
12,493
1,664,920
2i8,643
107,441
158, S22
127,705
48,764
8,908
133,414
141,713


20,3Si
44,144
17,203
28,810
44,463
2S,S49
36,887
38,044
187,612
302,218
29,104
55,358
21,554


122,150
83,221


25,403
29,487
17,956
29,017
19,655
265,686
47,370
13,028


28,6itt
74,388
152,941
13,871
37,109
182,566
27,766 .
69,101
10,492

103,520
11,460
63,975



Maryland
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Carrol 1
Cecil
Charles
Harford
Howard
Montgomery
Prince George's

Massachusetts
Bristol
Essex
H amp den
Hampshire
Middlesex
, _ Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
Worcester

Michigan
i Kent "
' Lapeer
I Livingston
i Macomb
Muskagon
Oakland
Oeeana
Ottawa
St. Clalr
Wayne

Mississippi
Oe Soto

Missouri
Cass
Clay
Franklin
J ackson
Jefferson
Platte
Ray
St. Charles
St. Louis

New Hanpshlre
Rocki ngham
Strafford




1982 Sasollne
Consumption
(1,000 gal.)

196,401
. 82,019
84,873
38,712
49,285
77,509
69,255
228,676
198,091


1,037,1000
b
250.00QC
c
b
b
b
, b
303,671


175,119
38,801
52,839
295,945
76,327
408,170
13,800
95,545
76,401
892,186


25,323


31,189
19,837
45,169
328,795
36,835
7,406
11,273
38,647
148,148


99,162
24,687




              6-16

-------
Table 6r4.  COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
    NQNATTAINMENT AREA GROUPING3
            (continued)



New Jersey
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Mo mouth
Morris
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Union
Warren

New York
Bronx
Kings
Nassau
New York
Putnam
Queens
R1 chmond
Rock land
Suffolk
Westchester

North Carolina
Gaston
Mecklenburg
Union

Ohio
Butler
Carrol 1
. Champaign
Clark
Cl ertnont
Cuyahoga
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Lake
Lawrence
Medina
Miami
Montgomery
Portage
Preble
Stark
Summit
Warren
1982 Gasoline
Consumption
(1,000 gal.)
-
70,748
379,349
139,074
188,212
66,513
275,860
94,540
152,461
133,761
247,280
209,687
185,152
185,128
32,238
76,99S
2Sl,77i
47,913


140.9S2
276,753
548,607
120,657
47,864
382,686
100,191
98,708
483,613
321,343


62,341
150,363
30,7§1


94,289
11,115
18,501
74,593
53,967
546,964
35,135
52,719
345,136
77,435
28,834
56,747
51,275
236,001
59,346
25,447
204,832
209,515
52,438



Oklahoma
Creek
Mayes
Osage
Rogers
Tulsa
Wagoner
Pennsyl vani a
Adams
Allegheny
Beaver
Berks
Bucks
Carbon
Chester
Cumberland
Dauphin
Delaware
Erie
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lehigh
Luzerne
Monroe
Montgomery
Northampton
Perry
Philadelphia
Washi ngton
Westmoreland
York

Rhode Island
Bristol
Kent
Providence
Washi ngton

Tennessee
Cheatham
Davidson
Oickson
Hamilton
Marlon
Robertson
Sequatchie
Shelby
Tipton







1982 Gasoline
Consumption
(1,000 gal.)

35,022
23,486
28,402 .
33,568
204,253
30,540
39,920
478,290
68,393
144,040
176,612
24,356
163,189
91,961
88,869
191,584
91,173
69,795
158,787
93,001
110,133
37,837
254,206
117,612
21,629
397,930
114,155
168,346
143,944


11,749
61,842
195,687
59,427


12,492
208,711
17,706
121,985
15,874
20,589
4,482
284,425
19,234







              G-17.

-------
                       Table 6-4.   COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
                            NONATTAINMENT AREA  GROUPING3
                                     (continued)
         Texas
           Bexar
           B razor! a
           CoH1n
           Coma!
           Dal las
           Denton
           El 11s
           El Paso
           Fort Bend
           Salveston
           Bragg
           Guadalupe
           Hardln
           Harris
           Harrison
           Hood
           Jefferson
           Johnson
           Kaufman
           Liberty
           Montgomery
           Orange
           Parker
           Rockwal1
           Tarrant
           Mailer
           Wise
1982 Gasoline
 Consumption
 (1,000 gal.)

   433,163
    73,262
    54,089
    26,506
   673,196
    70,423
    46,860
  ' 174,309
    57,864
    91,866
    55,781
    33,912
    22,749
  1,090,858
    40,667
     9,434
   136,290
    33,356
    38,314
    31,270
    70,023
    47,700
    32,488
    13,208
   408,377
    17,398
    24,257
 Utah
  Davis
  Salt Lake
  Tooele
  Weber

 Virginia
  Arlington
  Charles City
  Chesterfield
  Fai rf ax
  fioochland
  Hanover
  Henri co
  Loudoun
  New  Kent
  Powhatan
  Prince William

West Virginia
  Cabell
  Wayne

Wisconsin
  Kenosha
  Milwaukee
  Ozaukee
  Racine
  Sheboygan
  Washington
  Waukasha
1982 Gasoline
 Consumption
 (1.000 gal.)


   51,890
  214,985
   20,312
   65,276
   67,§34
    2,922
   35,106
  197,318
    5,558
   35,013
   78,185
   35,759
    6,640
    7,696
   81,626
  43,258
  16,801
 • 55,552
 333,638
  34,770
  66,407
  47,723
  47,540
 110,637
Also included  in the 61-area groupings are five cities not  covered in
the  counties listed  above.  These are:
                   Baltimore, MO
                   St.  Louis, MO
                   Alexandria, VA
                   Fairfax,  VA
                   Richmond, VA
                   453,413  (1,000  gal.)
                   475,836
                    96,127
                    15,426
                   112,668
Total  1982 gasoline  consumption  fop  the 61 NA  areas  = 36,213,900
(1,000 gal.).

1982 nationwide consumption *  102,718,987  (1,000 gal.)-

61-area percentage of total consumption =  35.3  percent.
                                         6-18

-------
                Table G-4.   COMPOSITION OF "61-AREA"
                    NONATTAINMENT AREA GROUPINGa
                            (concluded)
 Notes
alncludes non-California areas only.  Metropolitan areas (1 through 9)
 generally conform to Standard Consolidated Statistical Areas defined
 by OMB.  Other areas (10 through 61) generally conform to Standard
 Metropolitan Statistical Areas or New England County Metropolitan
 Areas defined by OMB.

bThe Boston Metro Area, composed of Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk,
 Plymouth, and Suffolk Counties, had a total consumption of 1,037,100 x
 103 gallons.

GNo data were available for these two counties.  The total  of 250,000 x
 10-3 gallons is an estimate.
                               G-19

-------

-------
                    APPENDIX H

A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK TO
      SERVICE STATION ATTENDANTS EXPOSED TO
           BENZENE AND GASOLINE VAPORS
                       H-l

-------
          A Preliminary Estimation of Occupational Risk to Service
         Station Attendants Exposed to Benzene and Gasoline Vapors

                                     By

                 David H. Cleverly, Environmental Scientist
                    Pollutant Assessment Branch (MD-12)
                Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
                     Research Triangle Park, M.C. 27711

                                October 1986

Introduction,

     In accordance with a request of the Office of Policy Analysis, OAQPS
has estimated the risk of benzene and gasoline vapor exposure to service
station attendants.  While occupational exposure studies are within the
administrative purview of NIOSH and OSHA, this analysis 1s but a crude
estimation of occupational risk and is not Intended to usurp the>
responsibilities of other regulatory agencies.  The purpose of the analysis
1s to give EPA an approximation of lifetime individual risk and annual
cancer Incidence resulting from long-term exposure to gasoline vapors 1n
the occupational setting.

Methodology

     In 1979 the Shell Oil Co, repprted the results of an analysis of
service station attendants exposed to benzene and gasoline vapors (American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal (405, April, 1979).  Seven service
stations were evaluated on the following criteria:  large sales volume of
gasoline; at least some full service sales because self service statiorr
exposures to employees were believed to be minimal, and geographical
distribution throughout the U.S.  One service station was equipped with
vapor recovery nozzles on the pumps (a balance system).  Sampling was done
from March to July* and each location was sampled on six different days.
Vapor samples were collected using battery powered personal  pumps and
reusable stainless steel tubes containing Bendix PMCC, an activated carbon.
Long-term samples during the regular work shift were conducted at a pumping
rate of 50-75 cc air per minute.  Tubes were changed after 4 hours of use.
The sampling tubes were attached to the attendant's collar in a position
close to his/her breathing zone.  Field blanks were used each day for
quality control.  Sampling pumps were calibrated daily.  Benzene and other
hydrocarbons comprising the vapor portion of the gasoline that ms adsorbed
onto the tubes were analyzed using gas chromatography.  The terra "pumping"
gasoline, for purposes of Shell's exposure study, referred to filling cars,
checking under the hood, washing car windows, and collecting cash or filling
out charge slips.  It was noted that some attendants used the hold-open
latch on the fill nozzle more frequently than others, and, therefore exposure
to gasoline vapors varied widely even among attendants spending a large
percentage of their shift pumping gasoline.  The location of the sampled
stations is,shown in Table 1,  When possible at least two service station
attendants were monitored at each location.  A total  of 84 time weighted
averages (TWA) of attendant's exposure to benzene and gasoline vapors were
derived at the 7. service stations.  Table 2 summarizes the TWA exposure to


                                 H-z

-------
benzene vapor, and Table 3 shows the attendant's TWA exposure to total
gasoline vapor.  The volume percent concentration of benzene 1n the liquid
of regular, unloaded, arid premium were 0.47 to 1.17%, 0.42 to 1.74%s and
0.41 to 1.69%, respectively.  In the Shell study no correlation was found
between the exposure to benzene and the following parameters:  auto fill
opening location, benzene content of the gasoline, gasoline storage tank
temperatures, or the gasoline volatility as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure.
The Investigators speculated that the factors effecting exposure were vapor
dilution caused by the movement of air, and the total time spent near the
auto fill opening during pumping.

     For purposes of this preliminary occupational risk assessment, the
benzene and total gasoline vapor exposures were assumed by averaging the mean
TWA concentration measured at 7 service stations.  Therefore the estimated
exposure was calculated as the arithmetic average for 7 service stations*
The Shell report had loosly defined the term pumping gas to Include, among
other activities, collecting cash and filling out charge slips.  By this
definition personnel employed at 100% self service stations may be expected
to be exposed to similar TWA concentrations as reported In the Shell study.
However, no estimates of risk to attendants at 100% self-service satlons  was
made 1n this report.  The purpose of this preliminary risk assessment is  to
grossly estimate the potential risk In the occupational setting at public
service stations.

Exposure Analysis

     The TWA's for benzene and gasoline vapor exposure are adjusted to  a
continuous exposure 1n ppm using the following assumptions:

     (1)  There are 6 attendants at each service station 1n which the
labor 1s divided by 3 attendants each shift for 2 shifts.

     (2)  The attendants work 8 hours per day, 5 day/week, SO weeks/year.

     (3)  The attendants work a total of 50 years In the same occupation.

The TWA 1s adjusted to a lifetime exposure by:

     TWA (ppm)  x  { 8 hrs  x  5 days/wk  x 50 wk/yr  x  50 yrs        )
                   (2* hrs     7 days/wK    52 wk/yr     /u yr lifetime).

The maximum Individual lifetime risk 1s calculated by the exposure times
the unit leukemia risk of benzene or the unit cancer risk of gasoline vapors.

     The unit risk of benzene 1s 2.6 x 10 ~2 (ppm)""1

     The unit risk of gasoline vapor 1s 3.1 x 10"3 (ppm)-*

     The annual Incidence of cancer resulting from a work-life exposure to
either benzene vapor or gasoline vapor 1s determined by:  the number of full
service stations x 6 attendants per station times the maximum Individual
risk divided by a 70 year Hfespan.  For purposes of estimating annual  cancer

                                  H-3

-------
Incidence from exposure to benzene or gasoline vapor, ft is assumed there
are 190,000 public -gasoline service station outlets 1n the U-.S. „ and 30% of
these outlets are estimated to be 100% full service.  Therefore for purposes
of this analysis, 57,000 service stations are assumed to be full service.

Results

I.  Service Stati on Attendant Exposure to Benzene Vapor.

     Average concentration 1s estimated to be 0.08 ppm benzene from 8-hour
TWA measurements taken at seven service stations geographically distributed.

     a.  Therefore the Individual lifetime cancer risk from benzene exposure
1s estimated by:

Individual lifetime- cancer risk »
              ( 8 nrs   b days/wk   50 wk/yr   50 yrs        )
0.08 ppm Bz * (24- nrs x > days/wk x 52 wlc/yr x /6 yr lifetime) x "2. 6x10-

Individual lifetime cancer risk » 3.4 x 1(H*, or the probability of contracting
cancer from a lifetime of exposure to the average Bz concentration of about 3
chances 1n 10,000.

     b.  Annual cancer Incidence 1s estimated by the formula:

Annual cancer Incidence nationwide * (57,000 full -service stations x
6 attendants per station x 3.4x10-* Individual lifetime risk) * 70 years.

Annual cancer Incidence * 1.7 cases per year*

II.  Service Station Attendance Exposure to Gasoline Vapor.

     Average concentration 1s estimated to be 8.28 ppm gasoline vapor (GV)
from 8 hr-TWA measurements taken at seven service stations geographically
distributed,

     a.  The Individual lifetime cancer risk from gasoline vapor exposure
is estimated by:

individual lifetime risk.*
"""               18 hrs    5 days/week   50 wk/yr   50 yrs )
   8.28 ppm iV * (24 nrs * / days/week * 52 wk/yr * /I) yrs) * 3.lxlQ-3(ppm)-l
Individual lifetime cancer risk » 4.1xlQ~3 or a probability of about 4 chances
TiT~100Q of contracting cancer from a lifetime exposure to the average concen-
tra.tion of gasoline vapor.

     b.  Annual cancer incidence is estimated by the formula.

Annual cancer Incidence * (57,000 full -service stations x 6 attendants
per station x 4.1x10"^ individual lifetime risk) * 70 years.

Annual cancer incidence =» 20 cases per year.


                                   H-4

-------
                                  TABLE 1
                     Service Station Sampling Locations
     Location
                Type of Station
Houston, TX



Manhattan Beach, CA



New Britain, CT


New Orleans, LA



Plantation, FL



Stickney, IL



Walnut Creek, CA
40% Full Service, 60% Self Service,  Carwash
2 attendants spend 25-50% of time pumping
gas

100% Full Service
2 attendants spend 40-65% of time pumping
gas

100% Full Service, Carwash
1 attendant spends 50% of time pumping gas

35% Full Service, 65% Self Service,  Carwash
2 attendants spend 30-50% of time pumping
gas

60% Full Service, 40% Self Service
2 attendants spend 70-80% of time pumping
gas

100% Full Service
2 attendants spend 75-80% of time pumping
gas

45% Full Service, 55% Self Service
(vapor recovery nozzles)
2 attendants spend 50-75% of time pumping
gas
                                    H-5

-------
                 TABLE 2
Attendants' TWA Exposures to Benzene Vapor
Location
Houston, TX
Manhattan Beach, CA
New Britain, CT
New Orleans, LA
Plantation, FL
Stickney, IL
Walnut Creek, CA
No. of TWA
Exposures
12
10
19
10
12
10
11
TWA Exposure
Range
<0.01-0.17
<0. 01-0. 18
<0.01-2.08
<0. 01-0 .15
<0.01-0.17
<0. 01-0 .84

-------
                                 TABLE 3
             Attendants' TWA Exposures to Total Gasoline Vapor
Location
Houston, TX
Manhattan Beach, CA
New Britain, CT
New Orleans, LA
Plantation, FL
Stickney, IL
Walnut Creek, CA
No. of TWA
Exposures
12
10
19
10
12
10
11
TWA Exposure to
Range
0.62- 7.24
1.65- 14.72
0.46-114.29
0.73- 10.89
2.33- 20.79
0.81- 40.42
0.42- 14.51
Total Gasoline
Median
2.97
5.99
5.31
6.02
8.89
2.42
2.30
Vapor, ppm*
Mean
3.63
6.23
22.30
5.87
9.26
6.97
. 3.71
* Includes benzene vapor
                                                      Average
                                                      Concentration:  8.28
                                  H-7

-------

-------
       APPENDIX I

  ANALYSIS OF STAGE II
DISPENSER CONFIGURATIONS
          1-1

-------
                               APPENDIX I
             ANALYSIS OF STAGE II DISPENSER CONFIGURATIONS

I.I  INTRODUCTION
     Several comments were received during the public comment period
concerning the Stage II costing procedures used in the July 1984
analysis of gasoline marketing facilities.  Comments were received on
both sides of the issue; some felt that the EPA Stage II cost estimates
were too high, while some felt the estimates were too low.  In an
attempt to present a more detailed, "documented cost approach, EPA
conducted a component-by-component analysis of Stage II systems (found
in Appendix B of this document).  A preliminary draft of this analysis
(dated July 30, 1986) was released under a Freedom of Information Act
request and put into the public docket (I-C-59).
     A public comment was received in November 1986 indicating an
apparent error in the preliminary draft analysis (I-D-250).  Upon
review of the calculations, an error was found in the number of nozzles
used to calculate annual maintenance costs for existing stations and
the analysis was corrected.  At the same time, it was determined that
two Stage II dispenser hardware scenarios (co-axial hose configura-
tions and multiproduct dispensers) were underestimated in tfte analysis.
Since early 1985 when this detailed Stage II cost estimate was completed,
use of the higher cost co-axial hoses and multiproduct dispensers have
become the industry trend.  Multiproduct dispensers consist of equip-
ment where each grade of gasoline is available on each side of the
dispenser (see Figure 1-1).  Assuming the use of multiproduct dispensers
increases the costs because more nozzles are involved than with conven-
tional  dispensers.  Through observations of new Stage II installations
and through discussions with Stage II operators and equipment vendors,
it is apparent that most, if not all, new Stage II installations would
tend toward co-axial hose configurations and that a significant
portion of the existing and new service stations will  be using multi-
product dispensers.
                                  1-2

-------
                                  Location of vapor check
                                  valve, if required.
                                Coaxial Hose Assembly
Figure 1-1.  Multiproduct Dispenser
              1-3

-------
1.2  STAGE I! DISPENSER CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS
     Several  cases were analyzed concerning dispenser configuration to
estimate the impact on Stage II costs.  The base case, to which the
other assumptions were compared, consisted of many of the same assump-
tions regarding nozzles for different model station sizes used in the
July 1984 EPA analysis.  Table 1-1 summarizes the dispenser configura-
tion assumptions for each model plant.  With the exception cif Model
Plant 5, all  dispensers were considered to be single nozzle dispensers.
Dispenser hardware was considered to be evenly distributed between twin
hose assemblies and co-axial hose assemblies (see Appendix 8, Figures
B-l through B-4)» since both were certified in California and both were
being used in Stage II installations.
     Five dispenser configuration assumptions were analyzed as varia-
tions from the base case.  These assumptions were as follows:
     Assumption 1 - All new stations would use co-axial hoses, while
                    existing (retrofit) facilities would be split
                    evenly between co-axial and twin hose configurations.
                    One-half of the new stations would use multiproduct
                    dispensers.
     Assumption 2 - Hose configurations are the same as Assumption 1.
                    All new stations would use multiproduct dispensers.
     Assumption 3 - All new and existing stations would use co-axial
                    hose configurations.  All new stations would use
                    multiproduct dispensers.
     Assumption 4 - Hose configurations are the same as Assumption 3.
                    All new and one-fourth of the existing stations
                    would use multiproduct dispensers.
     Assumption 5 - Hose configurations are the same as Assumption 3.
                    Three-fourths of, the new and one-fourth of the
                    existing stations would use multiproduct dispensers.
     For purposes of this analysis it was assumed that each island
shown in Table 1-1 was replaced with a multiproduct dispenser (a
conservative estimate).  Two variations of multiproduct dispensers were
evaluated.  A 6-nozzle multiproduct dispenser would have a nozzle for
                                  1-4

-------
Table 1-1.  DISPENSER CONFIGURATIONS ASSUMED
             FOR THE BASE CASE

Number of Islands
Number of Dispensers
Number of Nozzles
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
Model Plant
3
2
6
6
4
3
9
9
5
4
12
15
                    1-5

-------
leaded regular, unleaded regular, and unleaded premium on each side.
A 4-nozzle multiproduct would only have unleaded regular and premium
on each side.  The 4-nozzle multiproduct dispenser represents the
scenario of a two-product distribution system after the phase-out of
leaded gasoline.  Table 1-2 summarizes the dispenser configurations
considered for multiproduct dispensers.

1.3  RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
     Table 1-3 summarizes the results of the analysis.  The base case
and corrected base case are calculated in the same manner as in the
July 30, 1986 draft analysis (equipment installation start-date of
1989).  The calculations for each assumption reflect an equipment
installation start date of 1990.  Shown in the table are costs for a
Stage II nationwide strategy assuming an exemption for all facilities
less than 10,000 gallons per month and independent facilities less than
50,1)00 gallons per month.  Costs are presented for both annual and mini-
mal enforcement scenarios.  In addition, cost effectiveness, in dollars
per megagram of VOC reduced, is presented.  As is expected, the costs
and cost effectiveness val.ues increase as the assumptions on the use of
multiproduct dispensers increase.

1.4  CONCLUSIONS
1.4.1  Hose Configurations
     Observations of the newest co-axial hose configuration (I-B-36)
indicate that these hoses are extremely light and flexible.  These
hoses eliminate the visual impact on the consumer of two hoses and
eliminate the twisting and kinking problems associated with the twin
hose assembly.  In addition, California now requires co-axial con-
figurations on all new Stage II installations.  Therefore, £PA assumes
for this analysis that all new and retrofit systems installed will  be
co-axial hose configurations.
1.4.2  Pispenser Confi gurations
     Many service stations are currently converting their existing
gasoline dispensing equipment to multiproduct dispensers.  Vendors of
                                  1-6

-------
                Table 1-2.   DISPENSER CONFIGURATIONS  ASSUMED
                        FOR  MULTIPRODUCT DISPENSERS



Number of Islands
Number of Dispensers
Number of Nozzles



Number of Islands
Number of Dispensers
Number of Nozzles
L

1
1
1
4


1
1
1
4b
t-Nozzle \

2
1
1
4
6-Nozzle

2
1
1
6
1ulti product
Model Plant
3
2
2
8
Multi product
Model Plant
3
2
2
12
Dispenser

4
3
3
12
Dispenser

4
3
3
18


5
4
59
20


5
4
53
30
aNumber of dispensers exceed the number of islands  to account  for  dual
 dispensers assumed in the base case.
      four nozzles assumed for consistency with  the assumption  of only
 two products available for Model  Plant 1.
                                    1-7

-------

-------
    Table 1-3.  SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF STAGE II DISPENSER CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS
                                      (concluded)
                                           Nationwide Stage II (Ex. <10, <50)
                                  Annualized Cost
                                  (w/enforcement),
                                     $ Million
                              Annual
                Minimal
                                          Cost
                                     Effectiveness,
                                          $/Mg
            Annual
                  Minimal
Assumption 3a

All new stations MPD (4)       188
All existing & new stations
coax

Assumption 3b

All new stations MPD (6)       222
All existing & new stations
coax
                  163
             803
                  194
             947
                  1,051
                  1,248
Assumption 4a

All new stations MPD (4)
All existing & new stations
coax
1/4 existing stations MPD (4)
195
168
  829
1,088
Assumption 4b

All new stations MPD (6)
All existing & new stations
coax
1/4 existing stations MPD (6)
244
213
1,040
1,375
Assumption5a

3/4 new stations MPD (4)       190
All existing and new stations
coax
1/4 existing stations MPD (4)
                  165
             811
                  1,063
Assumption5b

3/4 new stations MPD (6)       231
All existing and new stations
coax
1/4 existing stations MPD (6)
                  202
             985
                  1,330

-------
multiproduct dispensers indicate that these dispensers make up  25  to  50
percent of the current dispenser market (I-E-62,  65,  66).  Vendors also
indicate a higher percentage (60-90 percent of the market)  for  new
facilities (I-E-66).  The EPA believes, therefore, that by  the  time a
Stage II regulation is implemented, a significant portion of the
existing dispensers would have already converted  to multiproduct dis-
pensers and an even higher percentage of brand new facilities will
incorporate this technology.  Thus, Assumption 5  (25% existing, 75% new
stations with multiproduct dispensers) represents a reasonable  (if not
understated) representation of future gasoline marketing dispenser
procurement.
     Further, EPA believes that the ban on leaded gasoline  will be
complete by the late 1980's.  Since there is little information avail-
able on the development of a mid-grade unleaded and since in the EPA
analysis Stage II essentially begins after the projected ban on leaded
gasoline, a two-product, 4-nozzle multiproduct dispenser configura-
tion appears to be best suited for use in the Stage II analysis.
                                  1-10

-------
1.5  REFERENCES
I-B-36   Trip Report.   Norton,  Bob,  PES,  Inc.,  to  Shedd, S. and Weigold,
         J.,  U.S.  EPA,  Office, of  Air Quality  Planning and Standards.
         December  15,  1986.   Trip to observe  Stage II installations in
         St.  Louis,  MO.

I-C-59   Letter and  enclosure from Emison,  Gerald  A., U.S. EPA, to
         Crabtree, William H.,  Motor Vehicle  Manufacturers Associa-
         tion.  September 29, 1986.   Transmittal of edited version of
         gasoline  marketing analysis.

I-D-250  Letter from Ferland, Kathy, Radian Corporation, to Shedd,
         Steve, U.S. EPA.  November  14,  1986.  Comments on Stage  II
         cost analysis.

I-E-62   Telecon.  Osbourn,  Scott, Pacific  Environmental Services,
         Inc., with  Rayne, Michael,  Dresser-Wayne. January 7, 1987.
         Costs for multiproduct dispensers.

I-E-65   Telecon.  Osbourn,  Scott, Pacific  Environmental Services,
         Inc., with  Rumble,  John, Emco-Wheaton. January 7, 1987.
         Costs for nozzles and  flow  limiters.

I-E-66   Telecon.  Osbourn,  Scott, Pacific  Environmental Services,
         Inc., with  Zepoli,  Frank, Gilbarco.  January 8, 1987.  Cost
         difference  between conventional  and  multiproduct dispensers.
                                  1-11

-------

-------
        APPENDIX J





STAGE I PER-FACILITY COSTS
           J-l

-------
                               APPENDIX J
                       STAGE I PER-FACILITY COSTS

     In EPA's new analysis, per-facillty control cost estimates have
been developed for each source category within the gasoline marketing
network.  This appendix presents cost tables for bulk terminals (Tables
0-1 through 0-4), storage tanks (Table 0-5), bulk plants (Tables J-6
and 0-7), tank trucks (Tables J-8 and 0-9), and Stage I control at
service stations (Table J-10).  The costs of service station Stage II
control are examined in detail in Appendix B of this document.
     The tables in this appendix are updated versions of several of the
tables in Chapter 7 of EPA's Ouly 1984 analysis document (I-A-55).
In that analysis, the costs were estimated in terms of 4th quarter 1982
dollars.  The new baseline for the tables presented in this appendix is
3rd quarter 1984 dollars, in order to be consistent with the Stage II
cost data collected in the new analysis.  In general, the 1982 costs
have been increased by multiplying them by a factor of 1.024, as indicated
by the plant cost indices of 323.6 (August 1984) and 316.1 (December
1982) in the CE Economic Indicators (I-F-79, I-F-112).
     In addition to the general cost increase using cost indices,  some
assumptions have been revised which affect certain cost parameters in
these tables.  In general, the recovery credits for all per-facility
costs were changed due to changes in the cost of gasoline used 'in  the
recovery credits and in the RVP used in the emission reduction calculation,
These revisions are discussed in detail in Section 2.5.2 of Chapter 2.
0.1  NEW ASSUMPTIONS AFFECTING PER-FACILITY COSTS
     The average purchase cost estimate for carbon adsorption type
vapor processors at bulk terminals was reduced based on more current
capital costs for the units of one manufacturer (I-H-27).  This cost
revision represents a 20 percent decrease for this vendor's equipment,
and an approximate 8 percent decrease in the average cost of a carbon
adsorption system.
     In the new analysis, an error was corrected in the calculation of
product recovery credits for bulk plants resulting from vapor balance
                                  0-2

-------
controls.  This change corrected an omission in the 1984 analysis,  in
which the recovery credit associated with tank emptying losses was  not
considered, by now adding this recovery credit and lowering the net
annual control cost and cost effectiveness for bulk plant controls.
                                  J-3

-------
                               Table 0-1.   BULK  TERMINAL BOTTOM LOAD CONTROL  COSTS
                                       (Thousands of 3rd  Quarter 1984 Dollars)
Gasoline Throughput
Vapor Processor
Capital Investment
Unit purchase cost
Unit Installation cost
Truck vapor recovery cost"
Annual Operating Costs
c_ ElectricityS
^ Propane (pilot)*1
Carbon replacement^
Maintenance^
Operating labor*
Truck Testing'
Subtotal (direct operating cost)
Capital charges" (16.3X)
Taxes, Ins. (4%)
Gasoline recovery"
Net Annual 1 zed Cost
Total VOC Controlled (Mg/yr)°
•. Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)

380,000 I/day
CA«

125
106
10

6.8
._
1.2
5.6
5.6
1.4
20.6
39.2
9.6
28.3
41.2
88.6
464
TOO

118
100
10

3.1
3.1
5.3
5.6
1.4
18.5
37.0
9.1
—
64.6
88.6
729
REFC

146
124
10

19.6
-»
6.5
5.6
1.4
33.1
45.7
11.2
28.3
61.6
88.6
696
950,000 I/day
CA

152
129
20

10.0
_—
1.8
6.7
5.6
2.8
27.0
48.8
12.0
70.8
17.0
221
77
TO

129
110
20

7.9
5.5
5.8
5.6
2.8
27.6
42.0
10.3
--
80.0
221
361
REF

150
128
20

22.1
__.
6.6
5.6
2.8
37.2
48.5
11.9
70.8
• 26.8
221
121
1,900
CA

160
,136
29

15.5
«
1.8
7.0
5.6
4.2
. 34.2
52.9
13.0
141
-41.5
443
-P
,000 I/day
TO

129
110
29

14.6
10.1
5.8
5.6
4.2
40.4
43.6
10.7
--
94.7
443
214
REF

150
128
29

22.1
—
6.6
5.6
4.2
38.6
50.1
12.3
141
-40.5
443
-P
3,800,000 I/day
CA

209
178
65

29.0
..
2.1
9.0
5.6
9.4
55.1
73.5
18.1
283
-136
886
— P
TO

133
113
65

27.9
13.3
5.9
5.6
9.4
62.3
50.7
12.5
—
125
886
141
REF

191
163
65

29.3
	
8.3
5.6
9.4
62.6
68.2
16.8
283
-145
886
-P
*Source: Updated from bulk terminal NSPS cost estimates (I-A-44) using the CE Plant Cost Index (I-F-79, I-F-112).

-------
                               Table J-2.  BULK TERMINAL TOP LOAD CONTROL COSTS
                                     (Thousands  of 3rd  Quarter  1984 Dollars)
Gasoline Throughput
Vapor Processor
Capital Investment
Unit purchase cost
Unit Installation cost
Rack conversion cost6
Truck conversion cost'
Annual Operating Costs
C-i
i Electr1c1ty9
01 Propane {pilot}"
Carbon replacement'
Maintenance!
Operating labor11
Truck Testing'
Subtotal (direct operating cost)
Capital charges" (16.3*)
Taxes, Ins. (4%)
Gasoline recovery (credit)11
Net Annual 1 zed Cost
Total VOC Controlled (Mg/yr)°
Cost Effectiveness ($/Hg) 1

380,000 I/day
CA«

125
106
436
21


6.8
—
1.2
5.6
5.6
1.4
20.6
112
27.5
33.0
127
103
,231
T0b

118
100
436
21


3.1
3.1
._
5.3
5.6
1.4
18.5
109.8
27.0
•
155
103
1,504
REFC

146
124
436
21


19.6
*•*>
—
6.5
5.6
1.4
33.1
118
29.1
33.0
148
103
1,429
950,000 I/day
CA

152
129
654
42


10.0
..
1.8
6.7
5.6
2.8
27.0
159
39.0
82.5
142
258
552
TO

129
110
654
42


7.9
5.5
_.
5.8
5.6
2.8
27.fi
152
37.4
—
217
258
841
REF

150
128
654
42


22.1
—
—
6.6
5.6
2.8
37.2
159
39.0
82.5
152
258
590
1,900,000 I/day
CA

160
136
654
63


15.5
—
1.8
7.0
5.6
4.2
34.2
16S
40.5
16S
74.4
516
144
TO

129
110
654
63


14.6
10.1
.»
5.8
5.6
4.2
40.4
15S
38.2
..
234
516
453
REF

150
128
654
63


22.1
—
—
6.6
5.6
4.2
38.6
162
39.8
165
75.4
516
146
3,800
CA

209
178
872
139


29.0
—
2.1
9.0
5.6
9.4
55.1
227
55.9
330
8.6
1,033
8
,000 I/day
TO

133
113
872
139


27.9
13.3
—
5.9
5.6
9.4
62.3
205
50.3

317
1,033
307
REF

191
163
872
139


29.3
—
—
8.3
5.6
9.4
52.6
222
54,6
330
-0.5
1,033
:.p
'Source;  Updated from bulk  terminal NSPS cost estimates (I-A-44) using the CE Plant Cost Index (I-F-79, I-F-112).

-------
                       Notes for Tables J-l and J-2


aCarbon Adsorption Unit.

bThermal Oxidation Unit

Refrigeration Unit.

^Cost of installing vapor collection equipment on existing  bottom
 loading tank trucks, $3,255 per truck.

eCost of converting top loading packs to bottom loading and vapor
 recovery, $205,000 per rack.
      of retrofitting existing top loading tank trucks  with  bottom
 loading and vapor collection equipment, $6,945 per truck.

SElectricity costs are based on average consumption rates  reported  by
 manufacturers.

^Propane for pilot burner estimated at 12.5 liters per  hour,  at $U.19
 per liter.

"•Estimated activated carbon replacement period is ID years,  at $3.85
 per kilogram carbon cost.

JEstimated as 4 percent of unit purchase cost, plus annual rack vapor
 collection maintenance of $200 per rack and $200 per terminal,

^Daily system inspections at one hour per day, plus a monthly inspection
 for liquid and vapor leaks in the vapor collection and processing
 systems .

^Cost to perform annual vapor tightness testing, including one-half
 day downtime, $461 per truck.

"'Total  capital investment x (capital  recovery factor +  0.04), vifhere
 interest rate = 10 percent, equipment economic life =  10 years (0.163
 capital recovery factor).

"Amount recovered per year, at $0.21 per liter assuming a density of
 0.67 kg/liter.

°Difference between uncontrolled and controlled emission level,

PCost effectiveness not calculated because net annualized costjs a
 negative quantity (cost credit).
                                    0-6

-------
c_
I
                                     Table J-3.   AVERAGE BULK  TERMINAL  CONTROL  COSTS8»b
                                           (Thousands of 3rd Quarter 1984 Dollars)

Throughputs (000 I/day)
Capital Investment
Unit purchase cost
Unit Installation cost
Rack conversion cost
Track conversion cost
Truck vapor recovery
Total Capital Costs
Net Annual lied Costs
Total VOC Controlled (Hg/yr)
Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)


380

130
110


10.0
250
55.8
88.6
630
Bottom
9SO

144
122


20.0
286
41.3
221
186
Load
1,900

155
132


29.0
316
-41.0
443
	 C

3,800

200
171


65.0
436
-140
886
— c

380

130
110
436
21.0

69?
143
103
1,388
Top
950

144
122
654
42

962
170
258
661
Load
1,900

155
132
654
63

1,004
74.9
516
145

3,800

200
171
872
139

1,382
4.0
1,033
4
                aAveraged from cost values In Tables J-l and J-2.
                DCosts represent average of all processing units for 380 and 950 throughputs using bottom load and top load.
                 All other costs represent' average of CA and REF processing units only (exclude TO costs).
                cCost effectiveness not calculated because net annuaUzed cost Is a negative quantity (cost credit).

-------
                                          TABLE J-4.  BULK TERMINAL AVERAGE HEIGHTEl)  COSTS
                                              (THOUSANOS OF THIRD QUARTER 1984  DOLLARS)
Model Plant %
Size
(103 liters /day)
380
95U
1,900
3,800
of Facilities
Each HP
Category
48
27
21
4
Average value
(weighted by MP)
Totalb
Net Annual 1 zed
Bottom
Load
55.8
41.2
-41.0
-141
23.7
Costs3
Top
Load
143
170
74.9
4.1
130
87.9
Capital
Bottom
Load
249
285
316
435
281
Costs3
fop
Load
696
961
1,004
1,381
860
628
Recovery
iottora
Load
.18.9
47.1
142
283
62.8
Credit3
Top
Load
22.0
b4.9
16 b
330
73.2
69.1
co
       aAverage costs per model plant taken from Tables J-l through J-3.

       ^Obtained by multiplying the average values weighted according to  model  plant  by the 601 of
        terminals assumed to practice bottom loading and 40% assumed to be  in the  top load configuration.

-------
    Table J-5.   COST  OF  INSTALLING A  BOLTED  INTERNAL
  •   FLOATING  ROOF ON AN EXISTING  FIXED-ROOF TANKa»b
                  (Third Quarter  1984 Dollars)


Capital  Cost  &  Installation

  .   Degassing^                                             $ 7,515'
     Basic  Roof Costd                                       $17,188
     Liquid-Mounted Primary Seal6                           $ 4,699
     Controlled Deck Fittings                        '       $   250
     5%  Retrofit Adderf                                     $   859

                              Total  Capital Cost            $30,511


 Annual 1 zed Cost

   .  Maintenance (5%)                                        $1,526
     Taxes, Insurance,'GM (4%)                              $1,220,
     Inspections (1%)                                        $  305
     Capital  Charges9                                        $3.584

                              Total  Annualized Cost          $6,635
                              Product  Recovery Credit"      $18,006

 Net Annualized Cost (Savings)                              ($11,371)


aTank parameters for fixed roof tank:  Volume   = 16,750 bbl  » 2,680 m3
                                       Diameter -     50 ft - 15.2 m
                                       Height   -     48 ft - 14.6 m
 "References  (I-A-43, I-A-45).   •

 cFor an existing tank, the first step  is to clean and degass the storage
  vessel  before installation of the floating-roof.  Cost for this procedure
  is based  on the following-relationship:

      Total  Cleaning Costs - 130.8 (tank capacity » 2.680)0-5132

 dEstimated from the equation:   Cost  ($) - 1,069 0 + 939 where 0  =» tank
  diameter  in meters.  References  (I-A-43, I-A-45).

 eThe cost  of the liquid-mounted primary seal is estimated to be  $98.40
  per linear  meter of circumference.

 fRetrofit  costs (Installing an Internal floating roof in an  existing
  fixed-roof  tank) are the cost of additional work (i.e., cutting roof
  vents)  and  is estimated as 5  percent .of the installed capital cost of
  new construction.

 gCapital recovery factor of 0.1176 1s  based on a 10 percent  interest
  rate and  20 year lifetime for the tank and floating roof.

 "Amount recovered per year, at $0.21 per liter assuming a density of
  0.67 kg/liter.  Based on emission factors  between controlled [internal
  floating-roof losses if (7.3285 x lO^Q) +• 2.4 Mg/yr, where q is the
  weighted  throughput for all model plants]  and uncontrolled  (fixed-roof
  breathing loss of 8.8 Mg/yr and working loss of 34.2 Mg/yr).
                                J-9

-------
   Table J-6.   AVERAGE CONTROL  COSTS  FOR BULK  PLANTS
                        (NO EXEMPTIONS)
                  (3rd Quarter  1984 Dollars)
Model Plant No.                 1234
Throughput (liters/day)        11,400     34,600     47.30U    64,400
Weighted Average Top  S Bottom Loading Costs
Balance Incoming &
uutpoi ng Loads on •
uncontrolled Plants3
     Capital  Cost°'c           29,223     29,223     29,223    a, 2251
     Annual 0 S H (3%)           877        S77        877       877
     Capital  Charge (13.1X)     3,842      3,842      3,842     3,842
     Taxes, Ins. (4%)          1,169      1,169      1,169     1,169
     Recovery Credit1*          1,905      4,111      7,904    10,761
     Met Annu'al 1zed            3,983      1,777     -2,016    -4,874
     Emission Reduction  (Mg/yr)     9.4       20.2       38.9       52:. 9
     Cost Effectiveness  ($/Mg)    425         88       — e       — e

Balance Outgoing Loads on
Plants with
Load Bat adced"
     Capital  Costb»c          21,750     21,750     21,750     21,750
     Annual 0 & M (3$)            6S3        653        §53   ,     613-
     Capital  Charge (13.12)     2,860      2,860      2,860      2,860
     Taxes Ins. (4%)             870        870        870        370
     Recovery Credit11          1,905      4,111      7,904     10,761
     Net Annuallzed            2,477        271     -3,522     -6,379
     Emission Reduction (Ng/yr)     5.6       12.0       23.0      31.4
     Cost Effectiveness ($/Mg)    446         23        — a        -«e

*Includ@s tht cost of retrofitting two account trucks for use in vapor
 balance service.
DTop Load Cost - $19,952 (91%), Bottom Load Cost - $39,895 (9J), Incoming
 Load Cost - $7,473.
^References (I-A-9, I-A-14,  I-A-28).
^Recovery credits are based  on a control efficiency of 90 percent on outgoing
 loads from a balance system (or storage tank emptying losses), and a product
 cost of $0.23 per liter.
eCost effectiveness not calculated because net annual i zed cost is a negative
 quantity (cost credit).

                                 J-10

-------
   Table J-7.   ESTIMATED  CONTROL  COSTS FOR  BULK PLANTS
                 .    (EXEMPT    4,000  gal/day)
                   (3rd Quarter  1984 Dollars)


Model  Plant No.                 1234

Weignted  Average Top and Bottom  Loading Costs

Throughput (liters/day)        ll,4yo     24,600     47,300     64,400
Balance Inconrihg Loads
and Install Outgoing Submerged
Fil
1 on Uncontrolled Plants




witn < 4.UOO gal /day*








To
Capital Cost°«c
Annual 0 & M (3%)
Capital Charge (13.1%)
Taxes Ins. (4%)
Recovery Credit
Net Annual 1 zed
Emission Reduction (Mg/yr)
• Cost Effectiveness ($/Ng)
Install Outgoing
8,702
261
1,144
34B
1,332<*
421
7.7
5b

29,223
877
3,842
1,169
4,llie
1,777
20.2
88

29,223
877
3,842
1,169- '•
7,904e
-2.01S
38.9
..f

ffl, 223
877
3,842
1,169
10,761*
-4,874
52.9
— f

Submerged Fill on Plants
with Incoming Load
Balanced < 4,UUO gal /day*








Capital Costb»c
Annual 0 & M (3%)
Capital Charge (13.1%)
Taxes Ins. (4%)
Recovery Credit
Net Annual 1 zed
Emission Reduction (Mg/yr)
Cost Effectiveness ($/Ng)
1,228
37
162
49
1,332<*
-1,084
3.9
—f
21.7SO
653
2,860
870
4,111«
271
12.0
23
21,750
' 653 ;.'.
2,860
870
7,9046
-3,522
23.0
~f ' ''
21,750
653
2,860
870
10.7616
-6,379
31.4
.— f
alnc1udes the cost of retrofitting two account tracks for use in  vapor balance
 service.

"Top Load Costs (91%) - $19,952. Bottom Load Costs (9%) - $39.895,  Incoming
 Load Cost  - $7,473.

^References (I-A-9, I-A-14,  I-A-28).

^Recovery credit is based on control efficiency of 58 percent for conversion
 from top splash loading to  submerged fill.

Recovery credits are based  on a control efficiency of 90 percent on
 outgoing loads from a Balance system (or storage tank emptying losses), and
 a product  recovery value of $0.23 per liter.

'Cost effectiveness not calculated because net annual 1 zed cost 1s a
 negative quantity (cost credit).


                                 J-ll

-------
     Table J-8.  CONTROL COSTS FOR FOR-HIRE TANK TRUCKS AT TERMINALS*
                        (3rd Quarter 1984 Dollars)
 No. of Affected Trucks
   580
5,220
 Bottom Loading &
 Vapor Recovery
      Capital Investment per Truck
      Total Capital Costs
      Capital Charges (13.1%)
      Annual Maintenance/Testing
        (9 $1,484 per truck)
      Product Recovery Credit
      Net Annualized Cost

Vapor Recovery Only

      Capital Investment per Truck
      Total Capital Costs
      Capital Charges (13.1%)
      Annual Maintenance/Testing
        (@ $1,484 per truck)
      Product Recovery Credit
      Net Annualized Cost
    6,945
4,028,078
  529,587
  860,954

     NA
1,390,541
                       3,255
                  16,993,453
                   2,234,193
                   7,748,587

                   ;    NA
                   9,982,781
 TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR 5,800 FOR-HIRE TANK TRUCKS AT TERMINALS =
                                                        $21.0 mil lion.

 TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST FOR 5,800 FOR-HIRE TANK TRUCKS AT TERMINALS =
                                                        $11.4 million.
 Reference (I-A-28), updated by the CE Plant Cost Index, shows that
  bottom loading conversions average about $3,690 per tank truck and that
  addition of vapor recovery is about $3,255 per tank truck.  Also,
  maintenance costs average $1,023 per year and tank truck testing
  averages $461 per year.
                                   J-12

-------
 Table J-9.  CONTROL COSTS FOR FOR-HIRE TANK TRUCKS AT BULK PLANTS
                     (3rd Quarter 1984 Dollars)
NO EXEMPTIONS
No. of Affected Trucks                        16,300
Weighted Average Costs - Top or Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery
     Capital Investment per Truck3             3,590
     Total Capital Cost               58,517,000 or $58.5 million
     Capital Charges (13.1%)               7,693,451
     Annual Maintenance/Testing           24,195,780
       @ $1,484 per truck)
     Total Annualized Cost            31,889,231 or $31.9 million
EXEMPT BtJLK PLANTS < 4,000 gal /day
No. of Affected Trucks                         9,400
Weighted Average Costs - Top or Bottom Loading and Vapor Recovery
     Capital Investment per Truck3             3,590
     Total Capital Cost               33,746,000 or $33.7 million
     Capital Charges (13.1%)        '       4,436,714
     Annual Maintenance/Testing           13,953,394
       (@ $1,484 per truck)
     Total Annualized Cost            18,390,109 or $18.4 million

aTop Load Costs (91%) - $3,255, Bottom Load Costs (9%) - $6,945.
                                J-13

-------
          Table J-10.  SERVICE STATION STAGE I CAPITAL AND
                   NET ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES3
                     (3rd Quarter 1984 Dollars)
Capital Cost and                               1,738
  Installation

AnnualizedCosts

  Maintenance (3%)                                52.1

  Taxes, Insurance                                69.5
    and G&A (4%)

  Capital Charges'*                               228
    (0.131)
  Annualized Cost                                350

  Recovery Credit                                NA

  Net Annualized Cost                            350

$/Mg, Cost Effectiveness0

      MP1 (18,950 liters/mo.)                  1,400
      MP2 (75,800 liters/mo.)                    354
      MP3 (132,650 liters/mo.)                   202
      MP4 (246,350 liters/mo.)                   109
      MP5 (701,150 liters/mo.)                    38.2


References (I-A-9, I-A-44).

^Capital charges are based on a 10 percent interest rate and on
 equipment life of 15 years.

GSince the number of underground storage tanks at service stations
 do not vary considerably with throughput (storage capacity would
 vary more), costs to comply with Stage I at affected facilities
 were assumed to be independent of facility size.

 Sample emission reduction calculation:

 (1,130 - 40) mg   246.350 liters   12 mo.      %g
  	ntep       x      —	— x -jp—  x  109% - 3.22 Mg/yp.
                                J-14

-------
J.2  REFERENCES

I-A-9    Study of Gasoline Vapor Emission Controls  at Small  Bulk
         Plants.  Pacific Environmental  Services,  Inc.,  for  U.S.  EPA
         Region VIII.  EPA Contract No.  68-01-3156, Task No. 5.   October
         1976.

I-A-14   Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
         Plants - Guideline Series.  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle Park,
         NC.  December 1977.

I-A-28   The Economic Impact of Vapor Control  Regulations on the  Bulk
         Storage Industry.  Arthur D. Little,  Inc., for  U.S. EPA.
         Research Triangle Park, NC.  EPA-450/5-80-U01.   June 1979.

I-A-43   VOC Emissions from Volatile Organic Liquid Storage  Tanks -
         Background Information for Proposed Standards.   U.S. EPA.
         Research Triangle Park, NC.  EPA-45Q/3-81-OU3a.  June 1983. '

I-A-44   Bulk Gasoline Terminals - Background  Information for Promul-
         gated Standards.  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle  Park, NC.
         EPA-450/3-80-038b.  August 1983.

I-A-45   Control of Volatile Organic Compound  Emissions  from Volatile
         Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed-Roof Tanks  -
         Guideline Series.  U.S. EPA.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
         August 1983.

I-A-55   Evaluation of Air Pollution Regulatory Strategies for Gaso-
         line Marketing Industry.  U.S.  EPA.  Office of  Air  and Radi-
         ation.  Washington, O.C.  EPA-450/3-84-012a. July  1984.

I-F-79   Economic Indicators:  CE plant  cost index.  Chemical Engineering.
         Vol. 90, No. 6, p. 7.  March 21, 1983.

I-F-112  Economic Indicators:  CE plant  cost index.  Chemical Engineering,
         Vol. 91, No. 26, p. 7.  December 24,  1984.

I-H-27   D. Buxton, McGill, Inc., to Gasoline  Marketing  Docket No.
         A-84-07.  October 4, 1984.  Comments  on EPA analysis, including
         purchase costs of McGill, Inc.  carbon adsorption systems.
                                  J-15

-------

-------
                APPENDIX K

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE UNDERGROUND
        STORAGE TANK (UST) PROGRAM
            ON STAGE II COSTS
                   K-l

-------
                               APPENDIX K

               Analysis of the Impacts of the Underground
                       Storage Tank (UST) Program
                           On Stage II Costs

K.I  INTROUUCTIUN
     The purpose of this Appendix is to analyze the cost impacts of a
simultaneous implementation of the EPA Underground Storage.Tank (UST)
program and a Stage II program.  The following items are analyzed and
will be discussed in detail in this Appendix:
     . Estimate of leaking tank systems and assumed corrective action
       taken by tank owners;
     . Analysis of a 5-year Stage II phase-in rate to coincide with
       UST implementation;
     . Effect on service station costs when considering a simultaneous
       Stage II/UST program;
     , Effect on emission projections caused by new phase-in rates;
     . Impact on cost effectiveness calculations.
     Coordination with an UST phase-in schedule would tend to slow
deployment of a Stage II program, compared to an "optimum" Stage II
deployment not linked to UST.  The longer Staye II implementation
takes, the more it approaches the implementation of an onboard option,
thus reducing a potential  advantage of Stage II.  In this analysis, a
five-year phase-in period is assumed, keyed to the UST provisions
requiring that all UST systems must comply with release detection
requirements within 5 years.  It also is assumed that release detec-
tion and immediate corrective action at service stations occur at a
relatively linear rate over this 5-year period, such that an avail-
ability problem does not arise with regard to qualified contractors.
This may be an unrealistic assumption.  For example, it is likely that
                                  K-2

-------
tank owners will wait until the last moment to determine if tanks are
leaking, in which case there would be a high demand for contractor
support, leading to a delay in corrective action and a stretch-out of
Stage II implementation.  Moreover, to be very conservative, this analysis
assumes that about 35 percent of the nation's tanks are leaking,  .even
though more recent information suggests that a more realistic value is
about 10%,  It is further assumed that this percentage is uniformly
distributed, i.e., that any given urban area will have leaks in 35 percent
of its gasoline tank population.  Obviously, the actual  percentage of
leaking systems may vary substantially from area to area, as well as the
potential  savings to be derived from a combined implementation program.
K.2  IMPACTS OF STAGE II/UST PROGRAM ON STAGE II PER-FACILITY COSTS
     Per-facility costs are affected by a simultaneous Stage II/UST   •
program by considering the cost savings of installing Stage II at the
time underground tanks are being repaired or replaced.  The potential
cost savings are realized in reduced trenching and paving costs that
would have been attributed to the Stage II installation in the absence
of any UST activity.  This section presents the changes to the per-
facility cost model (discussed in detail in Appendix B) when incorporat-
ing these potential cost savings.
     The key items for determining the impacts of a simultaneous  Stage II/
UST program on per-facility costs is to determine how many tank system
leaks will occur and what equipment will be excavated during repairs or
replacement.  Due to the lack of data, the number and type of equipment
repairs at service stations required under an UST program calls for
several assumptions.  In discussions with members of EPA's UST program
office, the following estimates were made:
     (1)  A past survey has shown that about 35 percent of all tank
          systems (i.e., an individual tank and it's piping) were not
          tight due to the tanks or piping, or both.  Some more recent,
          but limited, information suggests a lower value.  UST models
          predict about 10 percent of all tank systems leak.
     (2)  Data on types of equipment leaking is very scattered.  A
          reasonable estimate is that 50% of stations with leaks  have
          only piping leaks and the others have either all or one tank
                                  K-3

-------
          leaking.  Twenty-five percent that have tank leaks also have
          piping leaks.
      (3)  Of stations with a leaking tank, a best estimate is that 50%
          have all tanks leaking and the others have only one tank
          leaking.
      (4)  Table K-l estimates the likelihood of various actions being
          taken if a leaking tank is found.
      (5)  For piping leaks, it is estimated that 25% excavate all the
          piping and the rest either dig up the piping at the end of
          the tank (90%), or dig up the piping at the end of the tank
          plus the piping under the dispensers (10%).
      (6)  Although some States and localities have recently set UST
          regulations, it is assumed for this analysis that little
          implementation already has taken place (leaks still estimated
          as discussed in item 1) and that leaking tank systems are
          distributed evenly across the nation, ownership and size
          categories.
      The assumptions above and the data presented in Table K«l can be
simplified by the use of a flow-diagram decision tree shown in Figure K-l,
Percentages shown in parentheses in the figure represent the resultant
percentages of all tank systems for each remedy.  Table K-2 further
summarizes the possible actions taken in response to finding a leak in
either the underground piping or underground tank.  For each remedy
action, the percent of all tank systems assumed to use that remedy is
listed.  A description is added that summarizes the resulting savings
in Stage II trenching associated with each remedy.  As can be seen in
Table K-2, several repair actions result in the same savings ;in Stage
II trenching.  By recombining Table K-2 into like Stage II installation
savings categories, a summary of the Stage II per facility cost savings
scenarios can be developed.  For example, both Actions 1 and 4 (dig up
all piping, and dig up all piping and-tanks) result in the savings of
all trenching costs.  Combining these results in 16.9 percent of all
systems realizing a savings in all  trenching costs.  As shown in Table
K-3, almost half of the leaking tank system remedies could result in
savings of all  costs associated with Stage II trenching and repaving,
     Table K-4 summarizes for each  model plant and for each scenario
the length of trench assumed saved and the percentage of total  trench

                                  K-4

-------
                 TABLE K-l.  ESTIMATES UF ACTIONS TAKEN
                        IF ANY TANKS ARE LEAKING
% Occurrence if:
Action

Dig up al 1 tanks:
Dig up al 1 piping:
Repair**
Uig up one tank:
One Tank
Major*
75
75
10
Ib
Leaking
Other*
25
25
50
25
All Tanks Leaking
Major* Other*
100 100
100 100
-
- —
 *For this analysis, "other" = privates and independents, all remaining
  stations are considered majors.

**Repair a tank by just digging up the end of the tank, in order to cut
  manhole.
                                  K-5

-------
                     Figure K--1.  Decision Tree for Tank Systei Leak Randies
                          Assuming  35X of all
                          Tank Systats Leak.
One half W7.BX of
 all tank system)
 have leaks in one
  of wire tanks.
                                                   ana half (17.IS of
                                                    all tank systeial
                                                    have piping leaks
                                                          only.
 One half of these
 (B.TSt of all tank
system) have loaka
   in all tanks.
 One half of these
 (8.75X of all tank
system) have leaks
   in one tank.
  If leaks in all
tanks,  all (8.75X)
 dig up all piping
  and all tanks.
 15X of Mjora and
251 of others* dig
up ont tank (i.eai
    of all tank
     syateu).
    of leaking pipe
 system {4.38% of
 all tank system)
require digging up
    all piping.
7Si» of leaking pipe
synten (13.121 of
 ail tank systessl
require digging up
part of the piping.
                          sox  (ii.aix of an
                          tank systeu) dig
                           up end of tank
                                only.
                           .10*  U.31X of an
                           tank system) did
                         up and of tank and
                           under1 dispensers.
 71X of aajors and
  25X of others*
replace all piping
 and tanks even if
  only one leaks
   Q.75X of all
     systens).
 iOX of all lajors
and 5056 of others*
  repair leaking
tanks  O.iSX of  all
     system).
Wthera - Privates  and Independents
                                           K-6

-------
                TABLE K-2.  ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TU
             FINDING'A LEAK IN AN UNDERGROUND TANK SYSTEM3

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Action
Dig up all piping
Dig up end of tanks
only
Dig up end of tanks
and under dispensers
Dig up all piping
and tanks
Dig up only one
tank
Repair one leaking
tank
Percent of
al 1 Systems
4.4%
11.8%
1.3%
12.5%
1.9%
3.1%
35%
Description of Savings
in Stage II Piping
Installation
All trenching costs
Trenching costs over
end of all tanks
Trenching costs over
all tanks and under
all dispensers
All trenching costs
Trenchiny costs over
one tank
Trenching costs over
one tank
aSee also Figure K-l.
                  TABLE K-3.  SCENARIOS FOR ESTIMATING STAGE II
                              TRENCHING COST SAVINGS
            Description of
            Stage II Piping
            Instal lation
            Savings Scenario
Percent of Leaking
  Tank Systems
          and under all dispensers

      4.  Trenching costs over
          one tank
      14.3

     100
Percent of All
 Tank Systems
1.
2.

3.

All trenching costs
Trenching costs over
ends of al 1 tanks
Trenching costs over
end of all tanks
48.3

33,7

3.7
16.9

11.8

1.3
      5.0

     35

-------
                                     TABLE K-4.  PERCENT TRENCHING SAVED BY EACH MODEL PLANT
00
Cost Savings
Scenario9
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Trenching Saved
MPlb MP2
HI HI H
8b 100 lOb 100 165
19 22.4 26 24.8 26
29 34.1 42 4U.O 7b
19 22.4 20 19.0 2U
MP3 MP4
1 HI
100 20b 100
lb.8 26 12.7
4b.b 104 60.7
12.1 20 9.8
Weightedc»d
Average Trenchin
Saved
MP5 %
ft %
26b 100 100
26 9.8 20.6
106 40.0 37.8
20 7.6 18.9
      aCost savinys scenarios described in Table K-3.
      bMP = Model Plant as described in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.
      GWeiyhted averaged trenching saved based on distribution of facilities presented in Chapter 2, Table 2-3.
      ^Assumed 2 tanks for Model Plant,1, 3 tanks each for Model Plants 2 through 5.

-------
length the savings represents.  The weighted average savings for each
scenario shown in Table K-4 was based upon the model plant diagrams
found in Appendix B and the facility distribution shown in Chapter 2,
Table 2-3.  Because there is no information to the contrary, the frequency
of occurrence for each underground piping system leak was assumed equal
across all plant sizes.  Therefore, the revised trenching cost for
each model plant was calculated using the following equation:
                  CT (1 - Lp) +   CT (Lpi x (1-Ptsi))
where: Cj   =  Trenching cost for each model plant found in Tables B-9
                through 8-13.
        Lp   =  Percentage of piping systems that leak (3b%)
        Lp-j  -  Percentage of piping systems that leak under scenario i
        Ptsi  ~  Percent trenching cost saved under scenario i
For example,  for a Model Plant 3 with an individual balance system, the
above equation would look as follows:
     $4,950 (1 - 35%) + [$4,950 (16.9% (1 - 100%) + 11.8% (1 - 15.8%) +
       1.3% (1 - 4b.b%) + 5.0% (1 - 12.1%))] = $3,963.
where:  $4,95U = Trenching costs from Table B-ll, Appendix B (165 ft x
                 $30/ft).
After adding  pipe assembly cost ($6/foot of trench) and the piping
purchase cost ($1,779), the total underground piping installation cost
would be $6,732 ($3,963 + $6/ft x 165 ft + $1,779).  This represents a
potential average cost savings of $987 dollars for Model Plant 3 under-
ground costs (savings of 13 percent of underground costs and 8 percent
of total capital costs).  The maximum savings potential for a Model
Plant 3 would include all the underground trenching costs ($4,950).
This maximum savings represents 64 percent of the underground costs and
39 percent of total capital costs.
     A similar calculation was made for each model plant.  Table K-b
and K-6 summarize the impacts of a simultaneous Stage II/UST program on
the Stage II  per-facility capital and annual costs.  These tables are
presented in a format identical to Tables B-16 and B-17 of Appendix B

                                  K-9

-------
Table K-5. Generic Stage irCapital Costs Including OST Impactsf^
COMPONENT

MODEL PLANT  1

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT  COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL  COST
        COST OF COMPONENT

BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST
1,568
O
3.3SO
4,950
. o
4,950
1,88O
0
3, ISO
5,O4G
O
5.O4O
1,211
5 , 238
3,5OO
9,950
O
9,95O
MODEL PLANT 2

DISPENSER DIRECT  COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT  COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT  COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT  COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
2,040
O
4.28O
6,32O
O
6,320
2,44O
O
4,14O
6,580
0
6,580
1,570
5,238
3 , 93O
10, -74O
O
10,74O
MODEL PLANT 3

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
4,OSO
0
6,87O '
1O,95O
'O
.10,950
4,8SO
O
6,73O
11 ,61O
O
11,610
3,150
5,238
6,O3O
14,42O
0
14,420
MODEL PLANT 4

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST .
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOUAL CAPITAL COST
  6,110
      O
  S,49O
 14,6OO
      O
 14,6OO
 7,310
     0
 8,45O
15.76O
     O
15.760
 4.72O
 5,238
 7,920
17-,SSO
     O
17,88O
MODEL PLANT 5

DISPENSER DIRECT COST
AUXILIARY DIRECT COST
PIPING DIRECT COST
  TOTAL DIRECT COST
  TOTAL INDIRECT COST
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
 10^.190
      0
 11., ISO
 21*34O
      O
 21,34O
12,190
     O
11,220
23,41O
     0
23,410
 7,870
 5,238
1O,09O
23.2OO
     0
23,20O
                              K-10

-------
 Table K-6. Generic Stage II Annual Costs Including UST Impacts: No Discounts
COMPONENT
MODEL PLANT 1

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 2

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 3

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 4

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST

MODEL PLANT 5

CAPITAL RECOVERY COST
MAINTENANCE COST
INSPECTION COST
OTHER INDIRECT COSTS
RECOVERY CREDIT
ADDITIONAL CREDITS
   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
    ANNUAL COST OF  COMPONENT

BALANCE      HYBRID      ASSIST






1
644
475
0
198
129
0
,190
679
497
0
201
129
0
1,2SO
1,57G
436
0
398
65
b
2,340






1
326
617
0
253
518
0
,180
S9O
646
O
263
518
0
1,2SO
1,690
537
0
43O
259
0
2,4OO
1,430
1,23O
O
433
9O6
0
2.24O
1,610
1,292
O
464
906
0
2,460
2,200
970
0
577
453
O
3,29O
  2,03O
  1,852
      O
    585
  1,683
      O
  2,78O
  3,07O
  3,090
      O
    854
  4,79O
      0
  2,220
2,250
1,938
    O
  631
1.663
    0
3,14O
3,4SO
3.23O
    O
  936
4,790
    0
2,83O
2,69O
1,41O
    O
  715
  841
    0
3,970
3.5OO
2,280
    O
  928
2,4OO
    0
4,310
                               K-ll

-------
to enable a direct comparison. 'Table E-7 presents a comparison of "*
weighted average capital and annual costs by model plant for a Stage  II
system with and without coordination with an UST program.
K.3  ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS
     The purpose of this section is to estimate the impacts of a
simultaneous Stage II/UST program in nonattainment areas (27 areas and
61 areas).  To allow for a true comparison, the estimates for costs,
emissions, and cost effectiveness for a Stage II program with and
without UST will be made using the same phase-in and cost assumptions.
     First, an evaluation of the implementation schedule had to be
performed.  The current estimate by members of EPA's UST program pre-
dicts the UST standard to be final  by mid-1988.  The existing UST
proposal package requires all existing bare tanks {70% of the popula-
tion) to be monitored for leaks by mid-1991 and corrosion-resistant
tanks monitored by mid-1993.  Once leaks are found by monitoring,
repairs to the tanks or piping must begin.  For purposes of this analysis
it was assumed that the Stage II piping would be installed at the time
of the UST repairs. . Therefore, it was- assumed that 70% of the Stage  II
facilities would be installed in 3 years with the remainder installed
by the end of 5 years.
     This revised phase-in schedule was used in the same cost and emis-
sions prediction models discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document.
Table K-8 summarizes the results of the comparison for cost, emissions,
and cost effectiveness.  This analysis indicates that, by combining the
Stage II program with the UST program, and assuming a conservative
35 percent leakage rate and a linear phase-in of both programs, a
savings in Stage II costs of about 6 percent would occur.  If you use
the more recent estimate of leakage (10 percent), a savings of about
2 percent would occur.
                                  K-12

-------
            TABLE K-7.  COMPARISON UF WEIGHTED3 STAJE II CAPITAL AND
                  ANNUAL COSTS WITH AND WITHOUT A SIMULTANEOUS
                     UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) PROGRAM


Model           Total Capital Costs, $             Total Annual Costs, $

Plant	H/U UST    W/UST..    % Ulff	W/0 UST    W/UST     % U1ff

  1            b»750      5,210     9.4          1,340     1,260      6.0




  'I            7,250      6,580     9.2          1,360     1,260      7.4



  3           12,210     11,220     8.1          2,470     2,330      5.7




  4           16,140     14,940     7.4          3,070     2,890      5.9



  5           23,240     21,740     6.5          2,630     2,420      8.0
aWeighted Stage II costs were estimated based on 8U percent balance systems,
 15 percent hybrid systems, and 5 percent vacuum-assist systems, as in the
 remainder of the document.
                                      K-13

-------
                             TABLE K-8.  IMPACTS OF THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
                                 (UST)  PROGRAM ON STAGE II INSTALLATION COSTS
                                         IN N0NATTAINMENT AREASa»b»c

NA
Areas
27 Areas
61 Areas
Emission^
Reduct! on » " Mg/yr
Avg.
Ann. Annual! zed
46-64 43-60
71-98 66-92
Annual! zed Cost
Costs, $ Million Effectiveness, $/Mg
W/UST W/0 UST W/UST W/0 UST Diff
43.47 45-49 990-780 1,050-820 5.7%
66-72 70-76 990-780 l.ObO-820 5.7%
a.  With (w/} and without (w/o) UST projections for costs and emissions  use the same phase-in rates  (start
    mid-1988, 70% complete mid-1991, remainder complete mid-1993).

b.  Range of values is from minimal enforcement to annual enforcement.

c.  Values reflect the <10, <50 size exemption, percentage change.for other exemption levels is about the
    same.

d.  Emission reductions are the same for both the w/ and w/o UST scenarios.

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read lastruelnns on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-450-3-87*001 a
             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO,
 'ffraft Regulatory Impact Analysts: Proposed Refueling
 Emission  Regulations for Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles-
 Volume  I  Analysis of Gasoline Marketing Regulatory
 Strategies	       		
             5. REPORT DATE
               July  1987
             S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                           S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
». PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Director* Office of Air Quality Planning  and Standards
 Director, Office of Mobile Sources
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
 Washington,  D.C,  20460
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                             68-02-3060
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
 Washington,  D.C.   20460
             13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Interim Final	'
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                             EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
      The gasoline marketing industry  (bulk  terminals, bulk plants, service station
 storage tanks,  and service station vehicle  refueling operations) emit  to  the atmo-
 sphere several  organic compounds of concern.   These include:  volatile organic
 compounds  (VOC),  which contribute to  ozone  formation; benzene, which has  been listed
 as a hazardous  air pollutant based on human evidence of carcinogencity; and gasoline
 vapors, for  which there is animal evidence  of carcinogencity.  This draft Regulatory
 Impact Analysis document 1s the first volume  of a two-volume set that  was prepared by
 EPA to fulfill  the objectives of Title  3  -  Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193,
 February 19, 1981) as they apply to future  rulemaking on onboard control  technology
 for controlling vehicle refueling air emissions.   Volume 1 desribes changes to an
 environmental and economic analysis published by EPA in 1984 (EPA-450/3-84-012a and 6).
 Volume II  summarizes the results of more  extensive supporting analyses of onboard
 costs and  benefits that were prepared in  the  course of developing the  onboard rule-
 making (EPA-450/3-87-001b).
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                           c. COSATI Field/Group
 Gasoline                  Refueling
 Air Pollution             Onboard
 Pollution Control         Stage II
 Stationary  Sources
 Mobile Sources
 Volatile Orgini c "Compounds Emissions
 Benzene
Air Pollution Control
Regulatory Impact Analysi
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tills Report)
  Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
    358
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
  Unclassified
                           22. PRICE
EPA FOMB 2220—1 (Rav. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------

-------

-------
  United States
  Environmental Protection
  Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
(ANB-443I
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private USB
$300
                                                                     toa r off; and return 10 tfn above wMrMS.
                                                                     II you do not dosira (ocominua racnivinj \his i«ehnl»t report
                                                                     saws, CHECK HERE D. mr ott labol. and rolurn il to flit

-------