EPA REGION VII IRC
160285
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of General Enforcement
Washington DC 20460
EPA-340/1-80-013
July 1980
stationary Source Enforcement Series
Development of VOC
Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement
Strategies: The
Wholesale Gasoline
Marketing Chain-
Volume I
EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
340-
1-
80-
013
-------
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA-340/1-80-013
1 301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Bo,
Development of VOC Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Strategies:
The Wholesale Gasoline Marketing
Chain—Volume I
by
Harold R. Winslow, Jr.* Richard L Goen, Richard A. Ferguson,
Roy L Hays, and Perrin Queries (Perrin Queries Associates)
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Contract No. 68-01-4137
TaskNos. 11 and 14
US EPA Prepared'°r
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
Headquarters and Chemical Libls&RNvmoNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA West Bldg Room 3340 O^'08 of General Enforcement
MailCOde 3404T Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
1301 Constitution Ave NW Washington. DC 20460
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........ .................. v
LIST OF TABLES .. ......................... vii
ABSTRACT ............................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................... xi
I INTRODUCTION ......................... 1
Background .......................... 1
Scope ............................ 2
Method of Approach ...................... 3
Organization of Report .................... 4
II SUMMARY ........................... 5
The Gasoline Marketing Chain ................. 5
VOC Emissions and Emissions Controls ............. 6
VOC Emission Regulations ................... 6
Findings from Survey of Agencies Experienced in
VOC Compliance Activities ................. 7
Organization and Staffing ................ "I
Inspection Techniques and Strategies ........... 8
Enforcement Techniques and Strategies .......... 8
Remaining Problems in Undertaking Compliance Activities ... 8
The Development of Compliance Strategies: Conclusions
from the Survey .............. • ....... 9
III FINDINGS FROM SURVEY OF AGENCIES EXPERIENCED IN VOC
COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES .................. • H
Organization and Staffing .................. H
Agency Types ....................... H
Staff Types ........ . .............. 12
Inspection Techniques and Strategies ............. 14
Types of Inspections ................... 15
Comprehensive Inspections ................ 17
Routine and Spot Check Inspections ............ 19
Agency Approaches to Developing Inspection
Strategies ....................... 20
Enforcement Techniques and Strategies ............ 22
Adversarial Strategies .................. 23
Joint Enterprise Strategies ............... 26
iii
-------
IV REMAINING PROBLEMS IN UNDERTAKING COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES .... 31
Control Effectiveness 31
Downtime of the Vapor Recovery Unit 32
Belching 33
Switch Loading 33
Top Loading 33
Operations and Maintenance 34
Handling Minor Violations 35
Recordkeeping 36
V THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES: CONCLUSIONS
FROM THE SURVEY 39
Developing Compliance Strategies . 39
Assembling Compliance Techniques 41
Stages of Implementation 46
Initial Source Contacts . . . . 46
Workshops to Inform Companies of Rules and Policies ... 47
Increments of Progress 47
Plan Reviews and Equipment Installation Inspections ... 47
Multiplying Effectiveness 48
Intergovernmental Roles Among Pollution Control
Agencies 48
Use of Agencies Not Directly Involved in Pollution
Control 48
Planning for New VOC Sources . 49
APPENDIX
A. CASE STUDIES OF AGENCIES EXPERIENCED IN VOC COMPLIANCE
ACTIVITIES .' . A-l
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM REVIEWERS B-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Factors Influencing the Design of Inspection Strategies .... 21
2 Compliance Strategy Development 40
3 Types of Interactions Between Agencies and Sources 42
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1 Types of Inspections 16
2 Incentives and Sanctions 41
3 Examples of Assembling Compliance Techniques 45
vii
-------
ABSTRACT
This study addresses the development of compliance monitoring and
enforcement strategies for one major source category of VOC emissions —
the gasoline marketing chain. The study draws on the enforcement
practices of agencies with several years of experience in implementing
VOC rules for the gasoline marketing chain to suggest a framework for
the use of state and local agencies in developing appropriate compliance
strategies geared to local conditions. Rather than providing technical
assistance on particular control techniques, the report highlights the
factors that agencies should consider in deploying their enforcement
resources. Volume I of the study presents the results of our survey of
experienced agencies as well as the framework for development of compli-
ance strategies. Volune II provides technical detail on the components
of the gasoline marketing chain, the emission sources and control tech-
niques, and the status of state emission regulations applicable to the
chain.
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Undertaking a study covering a broad spectrun of specific subjects
such as this one requires individuals with diverse kinds of expertise to
work together in addressing the overall questions. Work on this study
was greatly facilitated by the following individuals on the SRI project
team.
The regulatory analysis was conducted by Richard A. Ferguson,
Manager of SRI's Regulatory Analysis and Management Program (RAMP). The
survey of regulations was conducted by Perrin Quarles, of Perrin Quarles
Associates. Carl A. Trexel and Claudia Grill from the SRI Energy Center
participated in collecting information on the gasoline marketing chain.
Dr. Edward M. Liston from the SRI Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory
developed information on emissions and emission controls. Harold R.
Winslow, Jr., also from RAMP and Susan H. Russell from the SRI Center
for Quantitative Social Sciences designed the procedures and format for
conducting the interviews with enforcement agency staff. Those who con-
ducted the interviews and interpreted and analyzed the results besides
myself were Mr. Winslow, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Quarles, Dr. Liston, and Mr.
Roy L. Hays from the Center for Resource and Environmental Systems Stud-
ies. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the thoughtful critique and sug-
gestions for improving the final version of this report made by Ms.
Elizabeth H. Temkin from RAMP.
Beyond the resources of the SRI project team, much of the informa-
tion on inspection and enfocement practices presented in Volume I came
from interviews with staff of state and local air pollution control
agencies, as well as EPA Regional Offices. We are especially grateful
to these individuals who agreed to be interviewed and who provided us
with insights and information on the topic that was otherwise unobtain-
able. In keeping with our assurances to interview respondents, we have
not attributed any information in this report to specific agencies or
individuals.
Richard L. Goen, Project Leader
Center for Resource and
Environmental Systems Studies
-------
I INTRODUCTION
Background
Over the past 10 years, as air pollution control agencies have suc-
cessfully established control programs to meet initial air quality
goals, enforcement efforts have turned to previously unregulated emis-
sion problems. Thus agencies have had to grapple with new types of con-
trol techniques, often with virtually no increase in resources, while
maintaining and monitoring existing programs.
The promulgation of regulations designed to control emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) in'a wide variey of source categories
highlights the problems of agencies confronting this paradox of suc-
cess. Once the VOC regulatory process is complete, agencies will be
responsible for enforcing control requirements involving invisible and
hard-to—detect emissions from an almost bewildering array of large and
small industries and processes. Necessarily then, VOC control tech-
niques represent a significant departure from the more familiar SC>2
and TSP control approaches and agencies may well need technical assis-
tance to master these new types of compliance monitoring and enforcement
techniques.
In terms of the effectiveness of an agency's overall enforcement
effort, however, technical assistance on source-specific enforcement
problems is valuable only to the extent that it is structured in terms
of: (1) the need for flexibility in ensuring initial control and con-
tinuing compliance across disparate groups and sizes of sources; and (2)
the fact that the main objective of an enforcement program in a time of
expanding responsibilities and shrinking resources must be to achieve
source compliance and not necessarily to maximize the number of lawsuits
filed.
Given these requirements, the need arises to design what we term
"compliance strategies," which, as used in this report, include not only
formal inspection and enforcement techniques, but also the manner in
which agency resources are deployed, the use of incentives and nontra-
ditional enforcement mechanisms, as well as the strategic use of formal
sanctions. The characteristics of the VOC problem—the number and types
of sources, the nature of the pollutant, and the nontraditional mix of
required control techniques—highlight the importance of planning an
individually appropriate compliance strategy as the key to a successful
VOC enforcement program.
-------
EPA's Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) asked SRI to
study the development of compliance monitoring and enforcement strate-
gies for one major source category of VOC emissions—the wholesale gaso-
line marketing chain.
The gasoline marketing chain was selected from the various VOC
source categories lor a number of reasons. First, it is one of the
major sources of total VOC emissions. Second, several state and local
agencies have been involved in controlling gasoline marketing emissions
for a number of years, an important consideration given that we wanted
to examine, firsthand, strategies presently in use. Third, the gasoline
marketing chain is in many ways a useful starting-point for understand-
ing the VOC area as a whole. While sharing several characteristics of
other VOC source categories—invisible emissions, many sources, problems
of minor violations (leaks, fugitive emissions)—-gasoline marketing pre-
sents a somwhat more familiar compliance problem. For example, the use
of add-on control techniques plus attendant operations and maintenance
requirements have been integral to past enforcement efforts. Thus, we
see gasoline marketing not so much as an example of the most challenging
or least familiar of the new VOC sources, but rather as a useful vehicle
for beginning to understand the nature of the transition from tradi-
tional control efforts to the new area of VOC control. In this context,
we believe that the ideas presented on compliance strategy development
for the gasoline marketing chain are a highly useful tool in approaching
the general VOC control problems.
In addressing the question of compliance strategy development, this
report presents a substantial body of information on technical aspects
of inspection, enforcement and problems encountered with the control
techniques. Inspection manuals and technical assistance are expected
from EPA. However, the more immediate need is to assist state and local
agencies in planning how to use these external resources to effectively
implement a gasoline marketing compliance strategy within the context of
other responsibilities and constraints affecting the availability and
magnitude of local resources that may be applied to gasoline marketing
chain enforcement.
We believe that national-level guidance can play a significant role
in the development of individual strategies so long as that guidance
focuses not on creating uniformity but rather on the important factors
and relationships to be considered in designing local enforcement pro-
grams. Thus, no all-encompassing strategy is specified in this report
(and was not apparent among the agencies we studied). Rather, the re-
port sets forth factors for consideration in assembling various tech-
niques and relationships among them, aimed at assisting state and local
agencies in developing locally useful and appropriate strategies.
-------
Method of Approach
The method for this study involved three major sets of activities:
a detailed description of the gasoline marketing chain, including its
components, emissions and controls; a survey of pre-existing and new
state regulations for controlling these sources; and an interview survey
of agencies with experience in compliance activities for these sources.
The gasoline marketing chain consists of refineries, bulk gasoline ter-
minals, bulk gasoline plants, tank trucks, and service stations. Our
study excluded refineries and service stations because we wanted to con-
centrate on a related set of sources having operations and controls of
similar complexity.
On this basis, we began by describing the gasoline marketing chain,
the emissions sources, and control techniques with some specificity.
After identifying the number of elements in the chain, we describe how
many of them are in areas where controls are or will be required. State
regulations affecting components of the chain are summarized, and the
older regulations are contrasted with the more stringent and comprehen-
sive requirements under the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.3 Using
this information, we then designed and conducted an on-site interview
survey of staff members at agencies that had several years of experience
implementing and enforcing regulations for vapor control along the gaso-
line marketing chain.
The survey was conducted in six states contained in three EPA re-
gions selected on the basis of experience with VOC regulations and geo-
graphic diversity. In all, 19 EPA regional, state, and local agencies
were visited with an average of three to six interviews conducted at
each site. Our procedure was first to visit the EPA regional office to
discuss our study and get the regional perspective on the issues in-
volved. Next, we visited the state agency, conducting a round of inter-
views there before proceeding to the selected local agencies. The local
agencies were the primary focus of our interview effort.
To achieve as broad a perspective as possible, we conducted inter-
views with various kinds of agency staff, including directors of inspec-
tion and enforcement, inspectors, engineers, attorneys, and field super-
visors. We discussed staff functions, the agencies' organization, in-
spection practices and strategies, enforcement activities, and the par-
ticular incentives and sanctions used by and available to agencies.
Finally, we asked our agency respondents for their ideas on strategies
that might be pursued by others just commencing VOC enforcement. Work-
ing from a topical outline, we structured the interviews around the par-
ticular respondent so as to focus on the respondent's area of exper-
tise. In all, we sought to achieve a comprehensive look at what
material is contained in Volume II of the report.
-------
experienced agencies are doing to enforce VOC rules along Che gasoline
marketing chain.
Although we generated a wealth of interesting and useful informa-
tion, the reader should keep in mind some important caveats. First,
this study describes a survey involving a limited sample, which is not
statistically or otherwise representative of agencies in general. It
does provide, however, a good range of the experiences of agencies con-
sidered to have a good or active program. Second, as indicated above,
our method was to conduct personal interviews with a diverse set of
agency staff. On this basis, our activity was not and should not be
considered a program audit or evaluation. Rather, we attempted to soli-
cit ideas and approaches for devising practical solutions to enforcement
problems.
Organization of the Report
This report is divided into two volumes. Volume One contains a
summary of the entire study (Chapter II), and findings and conclusions
from our interviews with personnel in agencies across the country exper-
ienced in VOC enforcement (Chapters III through V). Appendix to Volume
One presents case studies of four agencies to show how representative
agencies have combined the elements discussed in the body of the re-
port. Appendix B presents reviews of the draft of this report.
Volume Two contains the information we developed on the gasoline
marketing chain and the status and content of state regulations. In-
cluded is a description and inventory of the components of the chain
(Chapters I and II), the magnitude of VOC emissions and the applicable
controls (Chapter III), and the status of VOC emission regulations among
the states (Chapter IV).
-------
II SUMMARY
The Gasoline Marketing Chain
The gasoline marketing chain consists of terminals, bulk plants,
service stations and other gasoline-dispensing facilities, and trans-
portation components, including pipelines, tankers, barges, tank trucks,
and rail tank cars.
Terminals are large facilities for the wholesale marketing of gaso-
line, kerosene, and fuel oil. They receive gasoline from refineries by
pipeline, tanker, and barge, and distribute gasoline by tank truck to
bulk plants, service stations, and other gasoline-dispensing facilities.
Bulk plants are smaller facilities for the wholesale marketing of
gasoline, kerosene, and fuel oil. They receive gasoline from refineries
or terminals by tank truck and distribute gasoline by tank truck to ser-
vice stations and other gasoline outlets.
Service stations receive gasoline by tank truck from refineries,
terminals, or bulk plants, and dispense gasoline into fuel tanks of
vehicles. Other retail outlets not defined as service stations and pri-
vate facilities for fleet operations also dispense gasoline.
The following tabulation shows the nimber of these components of
the gasoline marketing chain and their annual gasoline throughput:
Terminals
Bulk Plants
Service Stations
Other Gasoline-
Dispensing
Facilities
Number
1,800
21,000
170,000
240,000
Annual Gasoline
o
Throughput (10 liters)
4973
148
340
103
Of the terminals and bulk plants combined, 31Z of the facilities and 732
of the throughput are in areas that are not in compliance with the
0.12-ppm standard for oxidants.
throughput of the terminals exceeds the total consumption of
gasoline because of transfers betweezt terminals.
-------
VOC Emissions and Emissions Controls
The principal sources of VOC emissions within the gasoline market-
ing chain are (1) working losses from vapor displacement during transfer
between storage tanks and tank trucks or water carriers, (2) vapor dis-
placement during fueling of vehicles, and (3) breathing losses from
storage tanks.
These emissions can be controlled either by reducing the production
of vapor or by collecting and processing the vapor. The production of
vapor can be reduced by submerged fill rather than splash loading of
storage tanks*, tank trucks, and water carriers. Floating roofs on gaso-
line storage tanks at terminals also reduce the production of vapor.
At terminals, the vapor from storage tanks and tank trucks can be
collected and converted back to liquid gasoline (by either refrigeration
or adsorption/absorption systems) or burned. The control of emissions
from tankers and barges at marine terminals is more difficult and the
technology is less developed.
At bulk plants, the vapor displaced from the storage tanks as the
tanks are filled can be transferred to the truck that is filling the
storage tank for return to the terminal or refinery for processing.
When trucks are loaded, the displaced vapor from the truck can be trans-
ferred to the storage tank from which the truck is being loaded.
At service stations, while storage tanks are being filled, the
vapor displaced from the tanks can be transferred to the truck for re-
turn to the bulk plant, terminal, or refinery. When gasoline is pumped
into vehicles, the vapor displaced from the vehicle fuel tanks can be
transferred to the service station storage tank using either a vapor
balance system or a vacuum-assist system. Alternatively, a canister can
be installed on the vehicles to capture the vapor.
The total annual VOC emissions at the terminals, bulk plants, ser-
vice stations, and other outlets, without vapor control other than sub-
merged fill of all tanks and transport vehicles, would be 1.8 million
metric tons. If splash fill were used with all tank trucks and tanks at
service stations and other outlets, the annual emissions would be ap-
proximately 2.5 million metric tons. Actual current emissions fall
somewhere within that range. With vapor control for all elements other
than tankers and barges, annual emissions could be reduced to 160,000
metric tons, if all equipment were working properly, or to 110,000
metric tons with controls on tankers and barges also.
VOC Emission Regulations
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require states to adopt and
submit revised State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to meet the oxidant
standard by 1982, with a possible extension to 1987. Where a state
cannot reasonably attain the standard, the plans must require the
-------
application of reasonably available control technology (RACT) to
existing sources of VOC emissions. The EPA guidelines for RACT
applicable to terminals and bulk plants specify submerged fill of tanks,
vapor controls on storage tanks with capacity greater than 152,000
liters (this excludes most tanks at bulk plants, but includes most tanks
at terminals), vapor recovery or equivalent systems at terminals, and
vapor balance systems at bulk plants.
All but 7 states have oxidant nonattainment areas. Officials in 37
states have indicated to us their intention of meeting RACT for VOC
emission sources, and as of November 28, 1979, approximately 38 states
had submitted offical revised SIPs for approval by EPA which contain
oxidant provisions.
Before this year's SIP revisions, few states had existing regula-
tions covering ships, barges, rail, and pipelines, but most had regula-
tions applying at least to storage tanks at terminals. However, as a
matter of state law, only 15 states have required vapor recovery or
equivalent systems at terminals, and only 6 states currently require
vapor controls at bulk plants.
With the new SIPs, many more states are incoprorating more sub-
stantial controls on terminals and bulk plants in their regulations.
The states requiring vapor recovery systems for terminals are increased
to 36, and the states requiring vapor balance systems for bulk plants
are increased to 29. Also some states with existing controls expanded
the number of sources to which the controls apply by reducing the mini-
mum storage tank capacity or facility throughput for which the controls
are required.
Findings from Survey of Agencies Experienced in VOC Compliance Activities
In our interviews of agency personnel, we determined what actions
had been taken to address specific enforcement problems, and why. We
obtained information both on inspection and monitoring as well as com-
pliance and enforcement strategies. At each agency, we identified or-
ganizational and staffing arrangements, inspection practices, enforce-
ment tools available, and formal and informal enforcement action that
had been or was being taken against sources in the gasoline marketing
chain.
Organization and Staffing
Organizational arrangements and staff types were very important in
determining the approach taken to ensure compliance. Organizational
arrangements could determine, for example, which staff would be availa-
ble to undertake the source inspections and the manner in which notices
of violation (NOVs) were processed. The type of staff devoted to VOC
enforcement affected the degree of rigor with which the inspections were
conducted and the extent to which violations were processed through
formal enforcement mechanisms.
-------
Inspection Techniques and Strategies
Because of the cost and expertise required to conduct source tests,
the number of sources involved, and the varying priorities among pollu-
tion types and source categories, the agencies we visited had developed
various forms of field inspections of sources within the gasoline mar-
keting chain. We classified these into four types:
o Source tescs
o Comprehensive inspections without source tests
o Routine inspections
o Spot checks.
The techniques used for each were similar, although less comprehensive
(in terms of such factors as emission points checked and documents re-
viewed) and more frequent moving down the list from the source test to
the spot check.
We found that experienced agencies employ more than one type of
inspection, depending on the characteristics of the source and the
agency itself. In addition, type and frequency of inspection technique
will vary among individual sources, with problem sources tending to
receive both more frequent and more comprehensive checks. The agency's
evaluation of these elements tended to change markedly with circum-
stances.
Enforcement Techniques and Strategies
A mix of formal and informal enforcement techniques are used by
persons responsible for enforcement. Enforcement strategies could be
categorized in the following way:
o Adversarial strategies which assume little or no voluntary
compliance and rely on existing inspection and enforcement
staff employing sanctions (rather than incentives) to produce
the desired source response
o Joint enterprise strategies which assuae some level of will-
ingness of the source to comply with the rules once promul-
gated and involve ways of identifying or creating incentives
for the sources to comply.
These sets of strategies were found to involve varying combinations of
tools such as the deployment of inspection staff, the appliction of both
formal and informal sanctions, creation of incentives, and opening lines
of communication with both the sources and other agencies.
Remaining Problems in Undertaking Compliance Activities
Even for those agencies highly experienced in enforcing VOC rules
for the gasoline marketing chain, numerous problems exist that inhibit
8
-------
fuller realization of the regulatory goals. These problems include the
effectiveness of the control equipment, the difficulties in processing
minor violations, the need for acceptable operations and maintenance
practices by sources, and some issues involving agency recordkeeping.
The major problems associated with control effectiveness were iden-
tified as being downtime of the vapor recovey unit, belching (release of
vapors through the pressure relief valve when unit capacity is ex-
ceeded), switch-loading (loading of uncontrolled fuels not having vapor
return lines on the racks, resulting in loss of previously collected
gasoline vapors), and top-loading of gasoline trucks. Significant con-
troversy exists over the actual extent of downtime on VRUs. Technical
resolution of the question is needed to specify the amount of inspection
and enforcement resources that should be applied to this problem. The
belching problem can be alleviated through better information about
proper sizing as well as the installation of a cut-off switch on the
racks to prevent exceeding VRU bladder capacity. Switch-loading
problems could be resolved through requiring vapor return lines on racks
used for loading uncontrolled fuels. Although the industry trend is
toward bottom-loading, agency activities to speed this transition are
recommended.
/
Our agency respondents generally agreed that the large number of
minor violations identified through their inspections could not each be
handled through the formal enforcement process, not only because of the
time and expense involved, but also because of the problems of proof and
of obtaining a meaningful penalty. Thus, either several violations by
the same source were processed simultaneously or, more basically, solu-
tions to the underlying problems that result in minor violations were
conceived.
One major problem is the low quality of operations and maintenance
(O&M) practices. Analyzing patterns of minor violations to ascertain
specific O&M problems is one approach. To address this problem, local
rules should authorize actions on the basis of a requirement that the
equipment be "in good repair" or "in good working order," Violations of
such rules can be remedied by placing the source on a maintenance plan
or by attaching conditions to operating permits where they exist in the
agency's rules. Such strategies for helping to remedy the ntsnerous
minor violations were perceived to be more effective than either indivi-
dual processing or the banking of notices or violation for processing at
one time.
The Development of Compliance Strategies! Conclusions from the Survey
Based on our study of the organization, staffing, inspection and
enforcement activities of experienced agencies, we reached a nuober of
major conclusions that we believe should be given serious attention by
any agency in the process of developing compliance strategies for VOC
regulations. Although these conclusions relate most directly to the
gasoline marketing chain, we believe that many of the concepts are also
applicable to other VOC sources.
-------
1. Both because source tests are expensive and do not identify
all existing problems and because of the large number of sources
generally present within an agency's jurisdiction, a system of frequent
on-site inspections less than a source test is needed. Agencies should
determine resources available and overall enforcement strategies to
serve as the basis for determining the types and frequencies of inspec-
tions they will conduct, as well as the manner in which inspection re-
sources will be targeted to particular sources.
2. An agency's development of a compliance strategy should irr-
volve less the adoption of an ideal design and more the commencement of
a process of relating conditions and characteristics of VOC, the source
category, and the agency itself toward the development of individually
satisfying and appropriate strategies. In other words, there is no
single, ideal compliance strategy that will apply to all agencies.
3. In enforcing VOC regulation, informal or nontraditional means
of achieving compliance are as important (if not more so) than formal
ones. Different combinations of enforcement techniques are appropriate
depending on such factors as agency type and style, staff available, and
source characteristics.
4. Stages of implementation of new regulations require differing
approaches and emphases. Besides those commonly thought of (rulemaking,
compliance scheduling, equipment installation) there exist fairly dis-
tinct stages following installation, e.g., equipment shakedown, early
continuing compliance, and later continuing compliance phases. Dif-
ferent inspection strategies and enforcement approaches appear to be
applicable to the various states.
5. Even assuming an agency's adoption of all the appropriate
techiques and the devising of an optimal compliance strategy, the re-
sources required may still exceed those available. For VOC source cate-
gories beyond the gasoline marketing chain, this is almost certain to be
the case. Thus, agencies should consider ways in which they can multi-
ply their own effectiveness through the use of other agencies having
related regulatory or programmatic interests.
6. Because the gasoline marketing chain is in many ways one of
the more manageable of the VOC source categories, agencies should begin
developing strategies for those other categories as they plan for gaso-
line marketing chain compliance activities. Similarities among the
various source categories should provide several opportunities for de-
vising strategies for VOC compliance as a whole.
10
-------
Ill FINDINGS FROM SURVEY OF AGENCIES EXPERIENCED
IN VOC COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
During our survey of personnel at agencies experienced in the en-
forcement of VOC rules for the gasoline marketing chain, we asked ques-
tions about organizational and staffing arrangements, inspection prac-
tices, enforcement tools available, and the kind of enforcement action
typically taken against noneompliant sources. We also asked for the
rationale behind what was done and solicited suggestions from respon-
dents on how a new agency might effectively implement new VOC rules.
Because the information received from the diverse agencies was frequent-
ly overlapping, we present the predominant techniques and strategies we
observed in the chapter, noting significant variations where relevant.
As an aid to understanding how the various elements described here were
specifically fit together in particular agencies, we have included de-
tailed case studies of four representative agencies we visited in Appen-
dix A of this volume.
Organization and Staffing
The organizational arrangements and nunber and type of staff in-
volved in VOC enforcement is an important factor in an agency's approach
to compliance activities. Organizational arrangements could determine,
for example, which staff would be available to undertake the source
inspections and the manner in which notices of violation (NOVs) were
processed. The type of staff devoted to VOC enforcement affected the
degree of technical rigor with which inspections were conducted and the
extent to which violations (particularly minor violations) were pro-
cessed through the formal enforcement mechanisms.
Agency Types
Rather than presenting a detailed agency-by-agency description of
organization arrangements, we developed a set of agency types based on
the characteristics of our sample. Each of our sample agencies may be
placed primarily within one of these types, although considerable over-
lap exists. The agency types (or stereotypes) we identified are:
o Commando Agency—One inspector, with limited technical back-
ground who relies on spot check inspections and output mea-
sures of compliance.
o Beat Cop Agency—Inspectors assigned to geographic regions;
generally experienced staff; fairly routine NOV processing
procedures.
11
-------
o Technical Assistance Agency—Engineer with extensive technical
expertise who goes into the field to help sources solve
problems with equipment operation; formal enforcement actions
rarely taken.
o Utopia—Inspection functions divided among various two-person
teams; ample staff available; agency has own legal counsel and
discretion in choice of civil or summary criminal enforcement
actions available.
Because our sampling plan was designed to include a range of agency
types and situations, we cannot state which agency type generally pre-
dominates. Nonetheless, a full review of agencies would likely show
more of the Commando or Beat Cop Agency than the other two types.
The inspection strategy followed, the sanctions used (or not used),
and the type of staff involved were different for each agency.type.
Commando and Technical Assistance Agencies both tended to rely solely on
the activities of one key person, although the relative experience and
capabilities of this staff member varies considerably. In contrast, the
Beat Cop and Utopia Agencies tend to be more of a team effort while
exhibiting a more routine enforcement mechanism than the other two. The
major difference between the Beat Cop and Utopia Agency is the size of
the staff working on VOC sources and the relative priority of VOC con-
trol. Utopia uses two-person inspection teams working solely on VOC
sources, while Beat Cop has geographically assigned inspectors responsi-
ble for non-VOC sources as well. VOC has the highest priority in Utopia
and substantially less in the Beat Cop Agency.
Staff Types
Although specific titles and organizational placements varied wide-
ly among oar sample agencies, three basic types of staff exist in some
combination in the agencies: engineers, expert inspectors, and control
officers.3 Engineers are those possessing the educational credentials
for that title and frequently are responsible for a variety of source
types. Expert inspectors either have extensive field experience or a
substantial amount of education less than an engineering degree. This
provides them with an expertise in the workings and operations of the
control equipment. Control officers are generally those with high
school, or 2-year degrees plus some on-the-job training. Frequently,
the activities of control officers in the VOC area are added to the
patrolling for visible emissions on other types of sources.
As a general rule, the type of staff available at the onset of VOC
regulations determined the type used for the compliance program. Agen-
cies did not hire special staff to implement VOC enforcement
titles are used for purposes of discussion and do not
necessarily reflect actual titles used.
12
-------
activities. The one agency with a strong technical assistance strategy
had a highly qualified engineer when the regulations became effective
but no other field staff available. The control officers present at
that agency were organizationally located in a separate division, and
the engineer's supervisor had no authority to allocate the control offi-
cers' time for bulk terminal inspections. The supervisor told us that,
with the inclusion of bulk plants in the regulations, he found the de-
mand on the engineer's time to have become excessive. To provide
greater coverage, he was planning to create a new staff category—
"process evaluator"—to be composed of the more experienced control
officers who would be trained by, and put under the supervision of, the
engineer. This new staff categoy (anticipated to become like what we
have termed expert inspectors) would be responsible for less technical
aspects of inspection not requiring an engineer, and would serve to
increase the frequency of inspections.
We found that an agency with expert inspectors tended to devote
little or none of the engineers' time to field activities. The nature
of inspections conducted and the capabilities of the expert inspectors
were such that most violations could be doctxoented adequately by that
person. More technical questions could be referred to an engineer for
consultation, although responsibility would remain with the inspector.
In a few agencies, control officials supplied the only inspection
presence. In these places, inspections tended to he directed toward the
identification of leaks and basic VRU problems. The control officers in
this situation tended to have a good grasp of how to identify particular
problems but a much less detailed understanding of the workings of the
control technology.
Many agencies employ some combination of the above staff types.
"Stack readers," or those control officers responsible for finding vio-
lations of visible emission regulations, were sometimes recruited to
make quick checks of a terminal or a plant, or of off-loading at a ser-
vice station. Engineers or expert inspectors would be involved in less
frequent, more intensive inspections to which the quick checks served as
a supplement. Control officers would occasionally accompany the engi-
neers or expert inspectors on these more thorough inspections where it
was felt that two persons were needed to accomplish the inspections.
Some unique staffing techniques that may have more extensive appli-
cability were employed to deal with special problems. In one agency, a
bulk terminal experienced considerable problems in getting its VRU
operating properly. A control officer was given specific instructions
on inspecting that particular VRU and was assigned to be at that termi-
nal almost daily until the problem could be resolved. In another case,
the agency staff had been unionized. The union claimed that climbing of
storage tanks should not be required of expert inspectors, because it
produced unreasonable physical demands on the older inspectors. This
problem was solved by creating a separate tank-climbing unit to perform
13
-------
this function on various types of sources (especially terminals and
plants) within the agency's jurisdiction.
In general, we found that agencies adopt a variety of organiza-
tional and staffing strategies by taking into consideration the number
of sources requiring inspection (relative to available manpower), the
availability of particular staff persons by staff types (engineers,
expert inspectors, control officers), the differing levels of expertise
required to perform different parts of the inspections, and a perception
of probable source responsiveness to the rules. This is not to say that
all these variables were known to the agency when implantation began, or
that the decision-making process was particularly discrete or con-
scious. It does indicate, however, that no one particular staffing
arrangement was predominant among the agencies we visited and that dif-
ferent reasons for particular ones were offered by agency staff inter-
viewed.
Inspection Techniques and Strategies
The need to develop field inspection procedures derived from the
conclusion reached by nearly all seasoned agencies that source tests
were simply not appropriate to the task in isolation and some additional
means of apprehending rule violators was needed. Several factors worked
to produce this conclusion. First, the cost and expertise required to
conduct source tests tended to make their widespread use an unattractive
option. Second, most agencies simply had too many sources within their
jurisdiction to make source tests the only tool to apprehend violators.
Third, most agencies had other priorities (e.g., different pollution
types, different source categories) that precluded their investing in an
extensive source testing program. Fourth, and perhaps most critical to
enforcing compliance, source tests simply do not do the whole job.
Typically, source tests have been limited to checking the operating
efficiency of the VRU. While this is useful and important information,
such tests cannot check on downtime nor periodic leakage. Thus, there
is no assurance that, overall, the emission limitation is being met.
From the need to develop a system for apprehending violators with-
out extensive reliance on source tests, a diverse set of inspection
techniques was born, which involves an inspector being at the source to
determine whether its operations are being conducted in compliance with
the rules. A major finding from our survey was that no one type of
inspection is undertaken by experienced agencies. Rather, different
agencies employ differing types and frequencies of inspections. Fur-
ther, within a given agency, the type and frequency will vary among
individual sources, with problem sources tending to receive both more
frequent and more comprehensive checks.
Under the normal state system, local agencies have the primary
responsibility for enforcement. State agencies may conduct some inspec-
tions of sources but these tend to be as much to verify the efficiency
of local inspections and for monitoring purposes as they are to identify
14
-------
violations. EPA regional offices in areas where VOC regulations have
been in place have conducted some inspections for similar reasons. We
identified a few variations on this typical inter- governmental
relationship. In one small state, the state agency is wholly
responsible for compliance activities; in another, the state agency is
responsible for those inspections calling for a greater level of
expertise (e.g., refineries and bulk terminals) while local agencies
perform the more routine inspections (e.g., to make sure equipment has
been installed at bulk plants and service stations). In a couple of
states, local agencies may become certified though promulgation of suf-
ficiently comprehensive local rules and essentially take over enforce-
ment for their geographic area. Finally some states maintain one or
more expert inspectors to provide assistance as needed by the local
agencies. In general, inspection occurred among all three levels of
government in nearly all the states we visited. Most regular inspection
activity, however, occurs at the local level.
Types of Inspections
»
We questioned inspectors and supervisors extensively about the
techniques and procedures used to conduct inspections of gasoline mar-
keting chain sources. We asked them to describe what was checked and
how, not only during regularly scheduled inspections but also for any
occasion when the inspector visited the source, even for only a few
minutes. From these interviews, we found that various types of tech-
niques were used, which we grouped into four broad categories: source
tests; comprehensive inspections without source tests; routine inspec-
tions; and spot checks.
Table One lists the purpose of each type of inspection and indi-
cated the general range of frequencies and effort among our sample agen-
cies for these inspections. As Table One indicates, frequency of test-
ing tends to increase while the level of effort required diminishes.
The relationship is a direct one, since shorter inspections have
generally been developed expressly for making more frequent inspections
at all or some sources. The figures provided on effort are subject to
an important caveat. These figures assume that loading activity will be
sufficient to conduct the inspection when the inspector arrives. Load-
ing patterns at terminals, and even more so at bulk plants, differ,
however (e.g., many trucks may arrive very early in the morning and very
late in the evening to load, while few trucks arrive during the middle
of the day). Inspectors thus may be obliged to wait at the source until
a sufficient number of trucks arrive to observe loading operations and
check for leaks at the racks and VRU cycling. Thus, these figures
assume optimal scheduling of the inspection visits.
Source tests measure the processing efficiency of the VRU. While
several local agencies in our sample have been conducting some type of
source test, most of this work has been done by contractors at consider-
able expense. Several agencies have not conducted any such tests.
These test are conducted from at most once a year to every 3-5 years.
15
-------
Table 1
TYPES OF INSPECTION
Type Frequency Approximate Effort
Source Tests Not More Than Annually 9 Person Days a
Comprehensive
Inspection Annual To Every 5 years 4-6 Person Hours
Routine
Inspection 1-12 Times/Year 2 Person-Hours
Spot Checks Variable 15-30 Person-Minutes
(Typically Monthly)
Decent efforts to improve the quality of these tests indicate that
this figure may significantly underestimate the effort actually
required.
16
-------
Some EPA Regions and state agencies we contacted have also conducted
source tests. Frequently, these agencies are able to conduct the tests
themselves, but the use of private contractors is not uncommon.
In addition, the methodology to be used for a terminal source test
has been quite controversial. Some agencies use the standard EPA recom-
mended method and others employ a variation. The controversy concerns
the amount of time, number of people, and equipment necessary to carry
out the test. The test typically takes three people several days to set
up the test, run it, and disassemble the sampling apparatus. The sample
is analyzed on-site in a mobile lab. It usually takes a day to trans-
port the equipment to the site and another day to write up the results.
Some agencies have their own source test crews, while others hire con-
tractors to do the tests. One state agency commented that they did not
have the staff to do it themselves and no contractor in their area was
willing to invest in the test equipment since it would be used only a
few times per year. None of the existing source test methods developed
so far has met with widespread acceptance.
For inspections other than a source test, the specific procedures
employed are similar in many respects. The main variations involve the
number of leak points examined and the thoroughness with which other
checks are accomplished. To describe these procedures, we first de-
scribe a comprehensive inspection in detail, and then outline dif-
ferences between it an the routine and spot check inspections.
Comprehensive Inspections
Preparation
The inspector begins in the office to obtain information about
the terminal, including layout, throughput, type of vapor recovery
system, number of loading racks, nunber of storage tanks, violation
history, and new construction. At the terminal, the inspector may begin
by reviewing the maintnenance records. However, in many of our sample
agencies, a check of the maintenance records was not part of the inspec-
tion routine, and some respondents thought that little was gained by
reviewing these records. The inspector may then diagram the layout for
future reference in checking any new equipment installed. Some inspec-
tors use these diagrams to record the location of leaks or other
problems.
Loading Rack
Tank trucks are loaded with gasoline or other fuels at the
loading racks. During the inspection, the inspector checks the fuel
loading areas for vapor or liquid leads by touch, sight, or sound.
Frequently, leaks identified may be confirmed with an explosimeter, a
hand-carried device for detecting combustible gas, such as VOCs, by
measuring the lower explosive limit of air and vapor forced into it.
17
-------
If the unit is a top loading rack,a each loading arm is inspected
for leaks and for nozzle fit into the truck hatch while the truck is
being loaded. During top loading, if the nozzle is not seated correct-
ly, leaks are obvious; a fine mist or heavy spray of gasoline can be
seen at a distance. Some leaks may not be detected until the inspector
climbs up on the truck and runs his hand around where the nozzle fits
into the top hatch. These arms are also checked for liquid leaks while
disconnected because they have a tendency to drip. Bottom loading areas
are checked for proper nozzle connections, and whether the hoses and
gaskets are in good condition. The loading area plumbing as well as the
tank truck plumbing is checked for vapor and liquid leaks. Work prac-
tices at the racks are observed to make sure the vapor control equipment
is being used properly (e.g., that vapor return lines are being con-
nected) .
The VRU receives the gasoline vapors collected at the loading rack
from the tank trucks and storage tanks for processing back into liquid
gasoline. In most systems, the vapors are received and stored in a
holding tank prior to processing. Within the holding tank is a rubber
bladder that expands with the introduction of vapors. On the metal roof
of the holding tank are a bladder height gauge and a pressure release
valve. When the holding tank is inspected, the height gauge is checked
to make sure it is working, the air space between the roof and the top
of the bladder is checked with an explosimeter for the presence of VOC
vapor, and the pressure release valve is checked to make sure it is not
stuck in the open position.
To inspect the VRU itself, the inspector checks to see that the
unit is cycling properly, i.e., turning on and off when it is supposed
to. The unit is supposed to turn on to process vapor when the holding
tank bladder fills to the appropriate level, and to turn off when the
bladder is emptied. For units without holding tanks, the units should
turn on whenever a truck is being loaded. The pumps, the compressors,
and plumbing on the unit are checked for leaks. The inspector checks
the gauges on the VRU to see that the operating temperatures and pres-
sures are within the ranges necessary for proper operation (parameter
checks). Some special checks can be made on particular units. For
example, icing of refrigeration units indicates that the system is
operating at too low a temperature.
aln top loading, the trucks are filled through a hatch on the top. A
loading arm is swung over the truck and the nozzle is lowered into the
open hatch. The vapor return line is attached to this nozzle. In
bottom loading, a nozzle on the fuel hose is connected to a fitting on
the bottom of the truck. A separate vapor return line is also connected
to the truck.
18
-------
Storage Tank Inspections
Three types of storage tanks are used at bulk terminals. They
are fixed roof tanks, external floating roof tanks (with varying con-
figurations of rim seals), and covered floating roof tanks. Inspection
of all three types requires climbing them and working on their roofs.
Some sample respondents stated that it would take several years for a
tank to go out of compliance, and hence frequent inspections were not
necessary. In other agencies, tanks are checked once a year.
Fixed roof tanks have a pressure release valve that is checked
to ensure it is not stuck open. The top of the tank is checked for
holes, cracks, or rusting. Welded joints are checked for holes, cracks,
or rusting. Welded joints are checked for leaks with an explosimeter.
Floating roof tanks can be inspected quickly by someone walk-
ing the rim of the roof with an explosimeter to check for leaks.
Another method is to check the primary seal (which in most cases is a
foam-filled rubber rim around the perimeter of the floating roof) for
cracks or holes. This requires removing a metallic weather guard cover-
ing the seal with spark-proof tools. Metallic shoe type seals have a
rubber envelope that can be viewed without removing anything and can be
inspected for cracks and holes in place. The rubber seal inspection
takes much longer because of the need to remove and then replace the
weather guard. Inspections of floating roof tanks typically take 1
hour, assuming that no or few violations are identified.
The covered floating roof inspection requires the sane basic
technique as the open floating roof. However, the inspectors must wear
special breathing apparatus when working in the air space between the
fixed and floating roofs. Because of these special requirements, such
inspections are seldom performed.
Inspection Reports
Inspection reporting practices vary considerably among agen-
cies. In some agencies, the inspectors prepare reports on the results
of all of their inspections. The reports include documentation of vio-
lations. Although one local agency we visited did have a formal system
of reports for all inspections, the most common practice was for the
inspector to maintain a log of daily stops with little or no detail and
to prepare a written report only in connection with violations.
Routine Inspections and Spot Checks
Routine inspections were the most widely used technique by local
agencies we contacted. Unlike comprehensive inspections not all po-
tential leak points are checked during routine inspections. Although
the VRU is similarly examined, frequently only a sample of the loading
arms, perhaps three or four, are checked. Storage tanks are generally
not included in these inspections. These inspections typically take
19
-------
about 2-hours to complete. The frequency of these inspections varies
among local agencies from once or twice a year up to once a month.
Generally, less preparation is needed than for comprehensive inspec-
tions.
Many local agencies we contacted also conduct brief spot checks of
the terminals. These take place when an inspector happens to be in the
vicinity, or plans a stop on the way while traveling between other
sources. In these inspections, the inspector checks whether the VRU is
operating, and whether it and the loading rack have any gross defects or
leaks. The spot checks were considered particularly important in deal-
ing with cases of excessive VRU downtime. These inspections typically
take 15 to 30 minutes. Few if any of the preparation procedures are
followed and spot checks are at most noted only on the inspector's daily
log.
Inspections of bulk plants involve only the loading rack and stor-
age tanks, there being no VRU. Few agencies have yet begun inspecting
bulk plants, either because first priority was put on terminals, or else
because the local regulations did not yet encompass bulk plants. The
frequency of inspections, where they are done, is generally about once a
year. The time required for the inspection (excluding tanks) is approx-
imately one hour.
Agency Approaches to Developing Inspection Strategies
Over time, agencies adopt a combination of the inspection types in
developing individual inspection strategies. The considerations going
into this determination however, vary significantly. Nonetheless, we
were able to extract several that seemed to be universally used to a
greater or lesser extent by each agency we visited.
The agency's perception of the characteristics of the sources with-
in its jurisdiction, coupled with its attitudes toward VOC enforcement
along the gasoline marketing chain (CMC) affected the inspection strate-
gies selected (see Figure 1). To illustrate, an agency that perceived
its'•sources to be essentially operating in bad faith (i.e., having no
regard for maintaining compliance) and that placed high or highest
priority on VOC/CMC sources would tend to maximize both the frequency
and thoroughness (type) of an inspection.
We found that all bulk terminals were inspected at least annually,
while some sources in some agencies were visited monthly or even week-
ly. In between these extremes were nearly as many variations as agen-
cies we contacted. The experience with sources and their individual or
group characteristics (frequently stated as whether a given source was
"good" or "bad" because of its level of compliance and relations with
the control agency) often resulted in differential treatment, with some
sources receiving more frequent or perhaps more comprehensive inspec-
tions than others.
20
-------
SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
OPERATE IN GOOD FAITH
SOME "GOOD-
SOME "BAD'
SOURCES,
' SOURCES
DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO OO
OPERATE IN BAD FAITH
INSPECTION STRATEGIES
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS
TYPE OF INSPECTIONS
VARIATION BY SOURCE OF
FREQUENCY AND TYPE
I 1
\
AGENCY ATTITUDE
VOC/GMC:
HIGHEST
PRIORITY
IMPORTANT, BUT NOT
HIGHEST PRIORITY
LITTLE OR LOWEST
PRIORITY
FIGURE 1. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DESIGN OF INSPECTION STRATEGIES
-------
Most agencies reported that the variables involved in making these
determinations were not static. A particular source's characterization
as "bad" or "good" might change over time, as might the situation with
respect to resources available.
Agencies tend to decrease the overall frequency of routine inspec-
tions by giving less attention to those sources found to have fewer
problems and a better history of operations and maintenance practices.
Thus, quarterly rou.ine inspections are done initially on all sources,
but the number of sources receiving this level of attention decreases
over time. When the number of routine inspections for selected "good"
sources was decreased, however, a continuing or expanded program of spot
checks was evident. In these agencies, the spot check was seen as a
convenient and relatively inexpensive means of maintaining compliance
both by viewing the source's operations and being seen by source staff.
A separate consideration we identified was the agency's responsi-
bility relative to that of other governmental levels. That is, a local
agency with primary responsibility for VOC/GMC enforcement would tend to
favor more frequent (and perhaps less comprehensive) inspections than
either a state agency with secondary or oversight responsibility or an
EPA regional office also concerned mainly with supervision and monitor-
ing of other agencies. Thus, state agencies with primary responsibility
for enforcement (e.g., through regional offices or in small states with
only one agency) inspected much more frequently than state agencies
having only (or mainly) oversight responsibilities.
In general, the process of developing an inspection approach or
strategy does not consist of a one-time determination that becomes in-
variable practice over time. In fact, the agencies we visited had
changed their inspection approaches numerous times and seemed quite open
to modifying them as circumstances changed and the need arose.
Enforcement Techniques and Strategies
Unique approaches to the enforcement of VOC rules for the gasoline
marketing chain developed primarily because of the existence of many
minor violations and the critical need for good operations and mainte-
nance practices by the sources. In our interviews, we questioned per-
sons responsible for using information obtained during inspections
(e.g., the chief of enforcement or sometimes a staff attorney) to decide
on whether and how to deal with violations. We asked about the way in
which enforcement actions were processed generally and the extent to
which available sanctions were applied in the case of the gasoline mar-
keting chain. Finally, we interviewed staff members about informal
enforcement tools and mechanisms and the manner in which the available
alternatives were assembled for this source category. From this survey
we discerned two general types of strategies, adversarial and joint
enterprise strategies, which represent different attitudes and ap-
proaches to the enforcement problem as well as different collections of
formal and informal enforcement techniques.
22
-------
Adversarial strategies assume that relations with sources will
always be adversarial, that sources will not voluntarily comply, and
that compliance will be achieved primarily through the activities of the
control agency's staff. Adversarial strategies are pursued by deciding
ways in which existing inspection and enforcement staff can best compel
the compliance of sources. The use and application of sanctions (as
opposed to incentives) are emphasized and constant vigilence is seen as
the primary vehicle to obtain continuing compliance. Three adversarial
strategies were evident among our sample agencies:
o Identify and notice, but otherwise ignore, minor violations,
while maximizing the frequency of inspector presence at the
source.
o Conduct a series of targeted, intense inspections and/or
source tests.
o Initiate one or more major lawsuits or enforcement actions to
get the sources' attention.
In contrast, joint enterprise strategies .assume that most sources
are willing to comply with the rules once promulgated and that the best
strategy is to identify or create incentives for the source to comply.
Joint enterprise strategies initially require some extensive and crea-
tive work by knowledgeable agency staff, but the demands on staff are
anticipated to ease as the strategy begins to be successfully imple-
mented. Four joint enterprise strategies were evident in our sample
agencies:
o Provide early and intensive technical assistance to the source
through the on-site visits of a qualified engineer.
o Educate sources on the economic benefit of monitoring the
control equipment.
o Require the development and use of maintenance plans.
o Use findings from inspections to develop conditions to source
operating permits.
Adversarial Strategies
Identify-Notice-Ignore
The first adversarial strategy we identified is to identify
and notice, but otherwise ignore, minor violations while maximizing the
frequency of inspector presence at the source. Various techniques are
used in pursuit of this strategy. In a few agencies, the inspectors
simply issue verbal warnings to the source, frequently with the advice
that they would return to recheck the problem. Other agencies issue
NOVs in such cases with the knowledge that the NOV would probably not
result in the initiation of a formal enforcement action. An interme-
23
-------
diate device has been developed in one agency-the Notice to Comply
(NIC). Here, the inspectors are discouraged from the use of verbal
warnings, but issuing an NOV has the effect of automatically triggering
the formal enforcement mechanisms—a result not always desired.
Consequently, the NIC was incorporated into the agency rules.
Essentially, the effect of receiving an NTC is to provide the source 2
days in which to correct the violation and another 2 days in which to
notify the agency of the corrective measure. Failure to meet this time
schedule results in the NTC automatically becoming an NOV without any
further action or paperwork by the agency staff.
Among those agencies employing this stratgegy, the choice of speci-
fic techniques generally depended on the perception of the role of the
inspectors and on the nature of the formal enforcement mechanisms.
Verbal warnings were more prevalent where inspector discretion was
valued highly and the inspector's personal reputation was deemed suffi-
cient to prompt the taking of corrective action. In addition, verbal
warnings were frequently used where problems existed in getting formal
enforcement actions processed—either because the enforcement group
would not be bothered by such a relatively minor violation or because
there was some more systemic problem in processing an enforcement
action.a NOVs were issued where the agency management preferred to
strictly limit the application of inspector discretion and where admini-
strative discretion on whether to process the NOV through the enforce-
ment procedures was encouraged. In these instances, the practice was
either to employ a decision rule, (e.g., seek enforcement upon the
issuance of three NOVs) or to amass ("bank") the NOVs for use as evi-
dence of a pattern of noncompliance when an enforcement action was
finally undertaken. The use of the NTC by one agency reflected a com-
promise between a disinclination to vest too much discretion in the
inspectors and the existence of a fairly mechanical (and inevitable)
system for processing NOVs once they were issued.b This agency felt
that the NTC "rewarded" those sources that were generally in compliance
by allowing them to avoid receipt of an NOV for an isolated violation,
while involving only a slight delay in securing an NOV against the other
sources.0
Several agencies, including some employing this strategy, pointed
out several problems with it. First, the strategy required constant
*In once case, for example, the state regional office staff had to
process enforcement actions through the state headquarters office — a
notoriously slow procedure. In another case, the state attorney
general was known to delay work on environmental cases.
^Typically, the NOVs were processes through a summary criminal
citation procedure resulting in relatively small criminal fines.
efficacy of this approach derives from the relative ease and speed
with which many of these minor violations can be corrected by the source.
24
-------
inspector attention to, and presence at, the source. No matter what
specific technique is used, the inspector must return to recheck the
source to see if the violation has been corrected. Second, this
strategy could tend to lessen the credibility of the agency's "threat of
enforcement." That is, where the sources perceive enforcement actions
will not or only rarely occur, they can respond to problems identified
by the inspectors but otherwise not worry about equipment operation.
One agency official expressed concern that his inspectors were becoming
little more than the source's maintenance supervisors. This point re-
lated to the third and perhaps most important problem: this strategy
produces no positive incentives for the source to keep itself in compli-
ance or to change its operation and maintenance practices. Like the
speeding motorist, the source understands the chance of getting caught
but will continue to violate the rule because only a warning will likely
result and even if the source has to pay a fine, the cost is perceived
to be less than the costs of keeping itself in compliance. In part to
deal with these problems, agencies have employed somewhat more drastic
adversarial strategies designed to bolster the credibility of the threat
of enforcement.
Targeted Actions
One of these more drastic strategies is the use of targeted
source tests or intensive inspections. In any case where work exceeds
resources, priorities must be established. Data can come from an analy-
sis of the number of NOVs issued or inspector perception of whether the
source is a "troublemaker." Alternatively, priorities may be based on
some specific strategy (e.g., concentrating on all the sources owned by
a given company). We found that agencies employing this strategy used
either a very intense inspection or a source test.
Either of these actions has a variety of effects. Information
is generated on the compliance status of the source, which will fre-
quently be sufficient to build a good enforcement case. A few agencies
we contacted were empowered to charge the source for the cost of the
source test, effectively creating a monetary penalty. In addition, both
the intensive inspection and the source test have significant nuisance
value to the source. The activities disrupt operations, take up the
time of source employees, and may result in adverse publicity. The
nuisance effect has been used to advantage by some agencies who believe
that sources are inclined to maintain compliance rather than undergo a
targeted action. Several officials mentioned that the very threat of a
source test being ordered is itself a tool for getting the source to
take specific actions to avoid it.
Although the targeted action strategy has several positive
aspects particularly when an agency's primary strategy is the inspect-
notice-ignore approach, it does create some problems. First, currently
available source tests are very expensive to conduct, which is particu-
larly difficult for local agencies not empowered to require the source
to pay for it. Second, sources may object to the uneven enforcement,
25
-------
which may be diffficult to rebut. Finally, the effect of a targeted
action may be short-lived, thus requiring the execution of many such
actions to keep the source mindful of its responsibilities. This, in
turn, taxes resources, which may make it difficult for the typical
agency to maintain surveillance of other sources.
Major Lawsuit/Enforcement Action
A third adversarial strategy is related to the targeting stra-
tegy but differs in that it makes more direct use of the data generated
under the inspect-notice-ignore approach. This strategy is to initiate
one or more major lawsuits or enforcement actions to get the attention
of all sources in the jurisdiction. Probably the most well-known exam-
ple of this strategy is the recent lawsuit filed by the California Air
Resources Board (GARB) against several bulk gasoline plants and termi-
nals in Southern California. The lawsuit cited approximately 1,000
violations and asked for $7 million in civil penalties and damages.
Perhaps the most common technique used in the strategy is to
use a collection of banked NOVs to initiate formal enforcement action.
Typically, the basis of the action is that the source has disregarded
the rules and has effectively been in continuous noncompliance over the
period in question. This technique deals with the problem faced by many
agencies of convincing a court, adminstrative hearing board, or even its
own legal counsel that the violations involved warrant the time and
expense of pursuing formal enforcement proceedings. In addition, a
series of NOVs may serve to establish the needed evidentiary basis for
prevailing in the enforcement action. This strategy can also be com-
bined with the targeting strategy in deciding where the major enforce-
ment effort can be most productively pursued.
The problems with this strategy are similar to those with the
targeting strategy. Where the agency has not banked its NOVs, the
grounds for such an action must be a major and intensive inspection
action. Local agencies typically do not have the resources to do this
alone, and getting support from state and EPA Regional staffs may pre-
sent nearly insurmountable logistical problems. Also, the inspection
blitz technique requires surprise for maximum effectiveness; this alone
presents a further problem. The problem of claims of uneven enforcement
and the possibility that the benefits will be short-lived are of equal
applicability to this strategy.
Joint Enterprise Strategies
Technical Assistance
The first strategy of this type is what we refer to as a tech-
nical assistance strategy. This strategy assumes that if the source
knew how to stay in compliance and had a reasonable understanding of the
workings of the control equipment, it would be self-initiating in main-
taining compliance. The prime example of this strategy was found in one
26
-------
agency we visited, which had an engineer with vast and detailed know-
ledge and understanding of vapor control equipment. During the imple-
mentation and shakedown stages, this engineer spent nearly full time
visiting and working with the sources on the solution of technical
problems and on ensuring that the prerequisites to proper maintenance of
the equipment were present.
One major problem with this type of strategy is that it re-
quires the presence of a highly qualified engineer in the agency. Such
persons may be hard to find and even harder to bring on to the typical
agency's staff. Even if such a person were employed by an agency, other
demands will occur and devoting essentially full time to vapor recovery
may be an impossible luxury. Moreover, the sources may not be respon-
sive to this approach.
Economic Benefit
The second joint enterprise strategy is really a variant on
the technical assistance theme. We encountered only one real example of
this strategy, although a few other agencies were considerating it. The
strategy is essentially an effort to educate the sources about the
economic benefit of properly maintaining the control equipment. The VRD
is unique among pollution control equipment in that its proper operation
results in a return to the source of its primary product--liquid gaso-
line. To the extent that pollution control would be required anyway, a
net benefit exists. In addition, the increasing costs of gasoline may
result in a situation where the recovered gasoline will not only pay for
the initial capital costs of installation and the costs of maintenance,
but also return a profit to the source.
The major problem with this strategy is that the necessary
proposition—that the VRD is returning a profit—is not confirmed. Some
agency staff we interviewed expressed amazement and dismay that com-
panies had not installed flow-meters to measure the amount of recovered
gasoline, nor seemed interested in doing so. Without these data, little
empirical evaluation of the proposition can be made. We did find that
in a few cases, with closely situated terminals sharing a common VRD, a
clear economic benefit existed (in fact, in two cases, the terminals had
established a formula for allocating the recovered gasoline to the vari-
ous terminals served). Most often, however, the agencies that had con-
sidered this idea had not pursued it vigorously because of the lack of
solid evidence and the general difficulty of educating their sources.
Maintenance Plans
The third joint enterprise strategy we identified requires
that sources submit and comply with maintenance plans. A maintenance
plan generally consists of a description of how the equipment is to
operate and what procedures source staff will carry out on a regular
basis to assure that it does operate properly. Although only a few
agencies in our sample presently require a maintenance plan, several
27
-------
respondents reported the need for such plans and indicated that they
were looking into such a program.
Maintenance plans have.typically been imposed as part of an
enforcement action taken against a particular source, through an admini-
strative order, consent agreement, or conditions to an operating per-
mit. The special utility of maintenance plans in the context of VOC
enforcement along tb«» gasoline marketing chain derives from the leaks
and problems with the VRU likely to occur without proper maintenance.
In addition, minor violations caused by poor maintenance are not ade-
quate bases for- enforcement action.
Several techniques, fox: imposing maintenance plans were re-
ported, although the first action was always to establish agency author-
ity to require maintenance plans. One sample agency analyzed the main-
tenance records already being kept by the sources to determine the best
way to incorporate maintenance plans. Another recommended the use of
the agency inspector's checklist as a form for maintenance plan record-
keeping. One respondent suggested three elements to be included in a
maintenance plan: a spare parts requirement, a set of performance stan-
dards, and a maintenance routine including checklist. The spare parts
requirement came from-this officials's perception that delays in main-
tenance sometimes occur because of a lack of attention to ordering
necessary parts. In such cases, the existence of spare parts on-site
would make immediate repair more likely. The inclusion of performance
standards was intended to specify the objectives of the maintenance
program as a means of avoiding an overly mechanical implementation of
this plan* .
Maintenance plans were generally seen as a useful adjunct to en-
forcement, although some concern was expressed about the agency's
authority to require them, and about whether they should be required of
all sources. Some agency staff noted that maintenance plans added to
the number of items requiring inspection. Perhaps the most common
problem stated was the lack of assurance that the sources would actually
do the maintenance, versus just routinely filling out the forms.
Several inspectors indicated to us that, with experience, an inspector
could readily determine whether the maintenance was being done. To the
extent that this is true, misrepresenting adherence to the maintenance
plan would likely serve as an independent basis for issuance of an NOV.
'Permit Conditions
The fourth joint enterprise strategy involves attaching condi-
tions to source operating permits. Most agencies we contacted had some
system of issuing operating permits for sources within their jurisdic-
tion, although few used the device of attaching conditions except in the
context of an enforcement action (e.g., permit revocation, abatement
order). The advantage of this strategy most commonly reported was that
specific problems peculiar to a source could be treated without amending
the agency's regulations.
28
-------
To accomplish this strategy, the agency must first generate
information to determine what conditions should be applied. Several
techniques for achieving this were reported, the most common being an
analysis of the results of regular inspections. Any patterns to
problems can be identified and used for this purpose. One agency had
further refined this technique: major inspections were scheduled to
coincide with the expiration of the source's annual operating permit.
This technique provided very current data on the condition and com-
pliance status of the source and could be fed immediately into the con-
sideration of an appropriate condition to be added to the renewed per-
mit. In general, agency respondents suggested that, if conditions are
used, they should be as specific as possible to maximize their use-
fulness .
Many of the same problems discussed with respect to main-
tenance plans are applicable to the use of permit conditions. The re-
spondents agreed, however, that the imposition of conditions put the
source on notice that it was being scrutinized and would provide a spe-
cific basis for more drastic action (e.g., revocation of the permit for
violation of the conditions) should further problems with the source be
experienced.
29
-------
IV REMAINING PROBLEMS IN UNDERTAKING COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
Even for those agencies highly experienced in enforcing VOC rules
for the gasoline marketing chain, nunerous problems exist that inhibit
fuller realization of regulatory goals. These problems involve the
effectiveness of the control equipment, the need for acceptable opera-
tions and maintenance practices, the difficulties in processing minor
violations, and some issues involving agency recordkeeping. Each of
these problems is discussed in this chapter. In addition, we have pre-
sented specific suggestions from our respondents for dealing with or
addressing them.
Control Effectiveness
Even where required equipment has been installed at a source, the
effectiveness of those controls was questioned not only by some re-
spondents but also in the literature.a Problems include VRU downtime,
belching, switch-loading, and top loading. Belching is the release of
vapors from the bladder pressure relief valve into the atmosphere and
occurs when the capacity of the processing unit and vapor holding tank
bladder is exceeded. Switch-loading is the loading of diesel or fuel
oil into trucks that have previously collected gasoline vapor without
collecting the vapor thereby displaced. Top loading refers to one type
of hook-ups used by tank trucks.
We encountered significant controversy in the field over whether
and to what extent these conditions and practices represent important
emission problems. Some agency personnel believe they represent rela-
tively few emissions and are not worth significant special attention.
Others (frequently higher level agencies that conduct periodic compre-
hensive inspections for monitoring purposes, such as EPA regional
offices and active state agencies) believe that both individually and
(more certainly) collectively these problems represent major emission
problems.
"Investigation of the Compliance of Vapor Recovery Equipment at
Gasoline Bulk Terminals in the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict and Kern County Air Pollution Control District," California Air
Resources Board (November 1978).
31
-------
Downtime of the Vapor Recovery Unit
The most critical uncertainty is the amount of downtime of the VRUs
(i.e., periods when the VRU is not operating and collected vapors are
simply vented). Opinions vary widely on this issue, from that of one
state official who estimated that the systems are down as much as they
are operating, to that of a highly experienced local inspector in a
different state, responsible for several terminals, who stated that the
VRUs experienced vc^y little downtime.
The only hard data we obtained on this question were for a single
terminal in one jurisdiction where the VRU had been operating 802 of the
time. While 20Z downtime does not seem too excessive at first glance,
the uncontrolled emissions from such terminals would be nearly three
times as great as that allowed by regulation.3
The effectiveness of the VRUs when they are operating appears to be
satisfactory. The source test results that we have seen generally show
a processing efficiency of more than 90Z. However, even a 20Z downtime
would imply an urgent need for technical repairs or design changes in
the vapor recovery equipment, and/or heavy emphasis on enforcing a
higher standard of maintenance on these units.
If VRUs do have excessive downtime, inadequate maintenance is cited
as a major cause (see below). Another reason given by some agencies is
long delays in obtaining spare parts. Finally, several officials
thought that unreliability of particular units was an important contri-
buting factor.
Some agency staff we interviewed identified differences in the
amount of downtime and difficulty of maintenance of various types of
equipment available. On this basis, a suggestion was made to issue a
list of approved equipment. Although the potential negative conse-
quences probably argue against issuing such a list, such information
could aid new agencies to the extent that informal education and pres-
sure on the source could result in more effective and trouble-free
equipment being installed. Moreover, several instances of improper
sizing of vapor recovery equipment were identified in our interviews.
Better information on appropriate sizing relative to throughput and the
specific design of the source would be of great benefit to agencies
previously inexperienced in this area.
The most commonly heard suggestion to correct the VRU downtime
problem was to install some type of continuous monitoring device. The
simplest and least expensive type would just provide a record of whether
and when the VRU was running. To the extent that downtime does
^Emission reduction » 80Z operating time x 90Z efficiency * 72Z.
Emissions * 100Z - 72Z * 28Z of the uncontrolled emissions, compared
with 100Z - 90Z - 10Z allowed.
32
-------
represent a major problem with this control equipment, such informaton
could have great utility for enforcement agencies. More sophisticated
versions could also provide constant parameter checks (e.g., pressure
and temperature) that would provide a basis for assessing the efficiency
of the recovery unit. The practical and legal hurdles to creation of a
continuous monitoring requirement have been discussed extensively both
within EPA and elsewhere. Resolution of the downtime question would
probably provide the best guide to the relative necessity of developing
such requirements for VRUs at bulk terminals.
Belching
The belching problem is a potentially significant cause of exces-
sive emissions. One state agency calculated the emission from belching
to be nearly as large as the 10Z allowed by regulations (at 90Z effi-
ciency). An extensive belching problem would indicate than many VRUs do
not have sufficient capacity for the loading rate and pattern of the
facility. While several agencies were concerned about this problem,
many others were generally unaware of it.
Belching is -also related to problems of improper sizing. For
systems without a vapor holding tank, the.problem is apparently soluble
by limiting the capacity of the loading pumps to the capacity of the
VRU. For systems with vapor holding tanks, an automatic switch can be
installed that prevents loading when the capacity of the holding tank is
reached.
Swi t ch-L oading
Switch-loading may be the third most significant source of unal-
lowed emissions. Calculations by a state agency indicated that total
emissions at the loading rack might be about half the 10Z allowed to be
released from the VRU (with an uncertainty in that estimate of a factor
or two). Switch-loading was, however, estimated to account for approxi-
mately two-thirds of the loading rack emissions.
In some cases, the problem of switch-loading arises because of the
absence of a vapor collection line on the loading arms for diesel or
fuel oil. A member of the SRI project team observed one case where a
truck, previously loaded with gasoline, loaded diesel fuel from a top-
loading arm that did not have a vapor return line. If this were a com-
mon equipment problem, recovery of the vapors from switch-loading could
be accomplished by adding a vapor recovery line to the racks used to
load uncontrolled fuels.
Top Loading
We found general agreement that top loading of the tank trucks is a
particular problem. Top loading results in several times more leakage
than bottom loading. With top loading, damage to the truck dome-hatch
sealing surface from the nozzle occurs so often that it seems unlikely
33
-------
that a satisfactorily low level of leakage can be attained with any
reasonable level of maintenance or enforcement. One respondent stated
that a fully certified truck could be in violation after one top loading
operation because of this effect. In addition, with top loading there
appears to be no good method of preventing gasoline from dripping out of
the nozzle after it is removed from the truck. We were told that the
industry trend is toward bottom loading. Rules requiring at least the
phasing-in of botton loading would be useful.
Operations and Maintenance
Unlike several other areas of environmental regulations, we found
that getting control equipment initially installed was considered a
relatively simple task. Although significant controversies were re-
ported at the rulemaking stage, most companies moved quickly to install
equipment once the rules were set. Quite the contrary was reported with
respect to operation and maintenance (O&M) .
O&M problems were reported to be pervasive and to present signifi-
cant enforcement problems for the agencies sampled. While O&M is
generally recognized as a significant "second generation" environmental
protection problem inmost areas of pollution control, it seems
especially problematic for VOC and the gasoline marketing chain, which
relies on the capture of all vapors and the recovery of 90Z. Both leak-
age and recovery efficiency less than 90Z result in emissions signifi-
cantly greater than contemplated in the control strategies. Thus, pro-
gress toward achieving the overall emission limitation is dramatically
hampered by poorly maintained equipment.
Because such reliance on O&M is a relatively new experience for
enforcement agencies, effective strategies are not yet well developed.
Improper O&M is identified mainly through analysis of patterns of small-
scale violations, any one of which is generally an insufficient basis
for a significant enforcement action. Once the pattern is identified,
mechanisms frequently do not exist for addressing the basic problem—
inadequate O&M. Strategies aimed at enforcement actions on the basis of
a collection of small-scale violations, while having potentially valua-
ble future effect, can do little or nothing about the excess emissions
already released. Traditional enforcement approaches seemed to be too
little and too late, or else too excessive to be reasonably applied.
Hew approaches are clearly and quickly needed.
All agencies agreed that sources must take responsibility for ade-
quate O&M. Some rules have specified provisions requiring equipment to
be in "good repair" or "in good working order." A citation for disre-
pair or inadequate working order implies the lack of O&M and can serve
as the basis for requiring the source to take specific measures to im-
prove O&M, Similarly, a record of leakage or of vapor loss can serve as
the basis for requiring O&M measures.
34
-------
In the context of an enforcement order, the source may be required
to submit maintenance plans and schedules and to keep records of
maintenance performed. One respondent suggested including three ele-
ments in such plans: a statement of the maintenance or performance
standards to be met, a description of the O&M techniques to be used, and
an assurance that specified spare parts will be kept available on-site.
Whether all or only some sources should be subject to O&M plan require-
ments has been somewhat controversial. This becomes an enforcement
strategy issue to the extent that a source's self-initiated good main-
tenance relieves it of the recordkeeping and reporting burdens and thus
provides an incentive to do proper maintenance.
Outside of the context of an enforcement order, sources may be
required to prepare and submit O&M plans and the like as assurances of
compliance with a good repair/good working order rule or they may be
made a condition of the operating permit. We found, in fact, that con-
ditions to operating permits are a very important technique in this area
and should be seriously considered by agencies beginning implementation
of new VOC rules.
Handling Minor Violations
Several respondents noted the problems associated with attempting
to commence enforcement actions on a minor violation such as a leak at a
single emission point. In some cases, agencies established methods to
quantify the leak on the assumption that, if a quantitative basis for
the action existed, the chances for an effective remedy were strength-
ened. (One rule, for example, establishes a violating leak at 0.6 lower
explosive limit with the explosimeter 2 cm from the leak point for 10
seconds, and a liquid leak at more than 3 drops per minute per leak
point). Some other agencies believed that such quantifiable standards
simply opened up the opportunity for the source to contest the standard
and the measurement and thus opted for a flat no-leak, vapor-tight
rule. In both cases, the problem of commencing enforcement actions of
leaks remains.
A different approach is to consider leakage or a pattern of identi-
fied leaks over time to be indicative of the lack of proper O&M. In
such cases, O&M requirements can serve as the basis for requiring action
by sources. If this approach is taken, quantifying leaks then appears
to be less necessary because the focus of the inquiry is the reason for
the excess leakage, i.e., the cause rather than the effect. On the
other hand, if enforcement is to be commenced on the basis of a given
leak, some measurement of the leak would be useful in making the case
for applying sanctions on that basis alone. It appears that the choice
of approaches to minor violations (quantitative standard or flat prohi-
bition) may relate heavily to the particular inspection and enforcement
strategies employed. For example, an inspection program heavily
oriented toward spot checks supplemented by routine inspections would
likely be facilitated by a flat standard. Similarly, an enforcement
35
-------
approach based on the banking of NOVs or the requiring of maintenance
plans would be facilitated by a rule that provided the means to cite all
instances of leaks identified—again favoring the flat prohibition type
of rule.
A major locus of minor violations are the tank trucks that deliver
gasoline from terminals to either bulk plants or final outlets. Most
respondents agree that a program of periodic inspection and certifica-
tion of tank trucks should be established. If inspection of trucks is
limited to times when they happen to be at the loading racks while a
terminal or bulk plant is being inspected, many will escape inspection
for long periods of time. In addition, inspections of trucks at the
rack are less effective than pressure tests of the trucks such as recom-
mended in the Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) for tank trucks.3
Detection of the minor leaks is in itself a significant problem.
Traditionally, inspectors have employed the "see, feel, hear, smell"
method of detecting leaks, which relies solely on the inspector's
senses. Recently, however, explosimeters have come into wide use anong
agencies with VOC rules to enforce.
Although we found unevenness in their use, the agencies we visited
were in favor of the regular use of explosimeters. As noted above, one
agency used a quantitative leak standard employing the device, but the
more common practice was its use to verify the existence of VOC vapors
to establish that a leak of unspecified size was occurring. Explosi-
meters supplement the traditional method of finding vapor leaks and
their use should be encouraged.
Recordkeeping
We found the records now being kept by agencies to be far too
limited to provide a basis for close, particularly quantitative, analy-
sis of staff utilization. Records are generally limited to data that
track progress in compliance schedules that must be submitted to EPA for
the Compliance Data System. We had hoped to obtain records of the num-
ber of inspections by source, specifics on what was inspected, time
spent on each inspection, and what was found. Existing summary records
generally record only the date on which a formal annual inspection was
conducted or the issuance of an NOV. Much of the needed data are re-
corded in the inspectors' logs but are not compiled or summarized in
central records. While data do exist on formal enforcement actions,
they provide little insight on the extent to which other, especially
Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,"
EPA-450/1-78-051 (December 1978).
36
-------
informal, enforcement strategies are occurring nor on their effective-
ness. Without such data, we could only report opinions as to the fre-
quency of various types of inspections, the effect of the inspections on
improving maintenance and operating practices, and the relative perfor-
mance of different kinds of inspectors.
37
-------
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES:
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SURVEY
As a result of our study of the organization, staffing, and inspec-
tion and enforcement activities of experienced agencies, we reached
several major conclusions that we believe should be given serious atten-
tion by any agency in the process of developing compliance strategies
for VOC regulations. Although these conclusions relate most directly to
the gasoline marketing chain, many of the concepts are also applicable
to other VOC sources.
Developing Compliance Strategies
A compliance strategy is based on the relationship between several
factors as determined by applicable regulations, the staff and organiza-
tion of the agency, and the control and inspection tools available for
achieving compliance. Developing a compliance strategy does not involve
the adoption of one ideal design nor even a choice from a set of pack-
aged models. Rather, agencies should commence a process of relating the
conditions and characteristics of VOC in their jurisdiction, the source
category, and the agency itself toward the development of individually
satisfying and appropriate strategies. Figure 2 illustrates this pro-
cess.
The elements of this process are both interactive and individually
relevant to building the compliance strategy. Although placement within
the intergovernmental system is essentially mandated, this factor has
important implications for both inspection and enforcement techniques
available (see Chapter III). Agency priorities are, of course, highly
changeable, except to the extent that air quality and emissions data,
legal requirements, and the type of sources within the jurisdiction set
priorities for them. At the time of implementation, new rules will
affect existing priorities in different ways, depending on the agency.
So that new priorities are set in the most useful way, agencies need to
understand the nature and extent of available resources, the demands
that are created by both existing and new rules, and how each piece fits
into the overall effort to achieve the ambient standard.
Other significant factors are agency and staff types, source char-
acteristics, and effective control technologies. Agencies should en-
deavor to examine whether they are more like one or another of the types
we have described and whether that is both desirable and consistent with
local objectives and capabilities. These determinations have a role in
understanding the nature of existing capabilities and needs for capacity
building. Of the four agency types suggested in Chapter III (Commando,
39
-------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PLACEMENT
COMPLIANCE
STRATEGY
AGENCY TYPE
AND
STAFF TYPES
SOURCE
CHARACTERISTICS
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
INSPECTION
STRATEGIES
AND TECHNIQUES
ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGIES
AND TECHNIQUES
INCENTIVES
AND
SANCTIONS
FIGURE 2. COMPLIANCE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
-------
Beat Cop, Technical Assistance, Utopia), one may be most familiar or
desirable. Moreover, existing and available staff may conform to one
agency type. A thorough knowledge of the source characteristics
relevant to compliance as well as the nature of and problems with the
control technology (see Chapter IV) are also important to developing an
effective compliance strategy. Knowledge of these factors is then used
to decide among the array of inspection and en- forcement techniques,
the formal and informal incentives and sanctions, in the development of
a compliance strategy.
This strategy incorporates all that is known (and desired) about
implementing new rules and should begin to make the task seem more
manageable. Our sample agencies went through similar processes over
many years, although perhaps not consciously, to arrive at existing
strategies that continue to undergo change. Agencies about to implement
VOC rules may be able to shorten this development time drastically by
consciously following a development process, one of which is suggested
here.
Assembling Compliance Techniques
A major finding from our study was that in enforcing VOC regula-
tions for the gasoline marketing chain, informal or nontraditional means
of achieving compliance are as important if not more so than formal
ones. Different combinations of enforcement techniques are appropriate,
depending on such factors as agency type and style, staff available, and
source characteristics.
Typically, enforcement is thought of only as an interaction between
an agency and a source through the application of formal sanctions.
However, our analyses of formal sanctions and their use show that they
form only a small portion of existing enforcement activities. A more
complete view is depicted in Figure 3. Strategies involve various mixes
of formal and informal sanctions, as well as natural and artificial
incentives. Because this phenomenon became apparent very early in our
interviews, much of our discussion with agency staff dealt with identi-
fying which of the various approaches were used. Examples of available
tools are shown in .Table 2.
Formal sanctions are generally well understood and include such
methods as fines and orders. Informal sanctions are any means of caus-
ing the source some discomfort as a result of its noncompliance.
Natural incentives tend to make the source want to comply because of
some self-interest. Artificial incentives, on the other hand, involve
the imposition of some burden, generally by the agency, that can only be
relieved through the source's general compliance or its taking specified
actions.
In the application of incentives and sanctions, the distinctions
among them will tend to become blurred. For example, the burden of
41
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FORMAL
SANCTIONS
INFORMAL
SANCTIONS
INCENTIVES
• NATURAL
• ARTIFICIAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FIGURE 3. TYPES OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN AGENCIES AND SOURCES
42
-------
Table 2
INCENTIVES AND SANCTIONS
Formal Sanctions
Fines
- Injunctions
Orders
Informal Sanctions
"Hassle"
Reporting requirements
Increased inspections
- Adverse publicity
Natural Incentives
Good public image
Safety
- Gasoline recovery
Artificial Incentives
Relief from reporting and paperwork burden
Self-enforcement
Other permit approvals
-------
paperwork requirements can be an effective, informal sanction. If a
means exists to relieve the extent of paperwork .requirements, however,
the agency has effectively created an artificial incentive. These tools
can be highly useful with such compliance problems as inadequate opera-
tions and maintenance. Safety considerations can be used productively
as well. For example, liquid leaks present important safety problems,
in addition to producing emissions.
Under this conception of enforcement tools, the inspection function
becomes more than a surveillance and apprehension device. The timing,
frequency, and extensiveness of inspections may be considered another
enforcement tool. "Good" sources can be rewarded by having fewer in-
spections, while "bad" sources are subjected to greater scrutiny. Such
a technique creates both an informal sanction (burden) and an artificial
incentive (relief from the burden for moving to the "good" column). For
this reason, agency considerations about the optimal mix of inspections
should assume that sources will be treated differently, depending on
their willingness to comply.
Other examples of mixes of these tools could be given. What is
important, however, is the need for a varied view of enforcement in the
VOC ar->a because of its special circumstances: many sources, numerous
minor violations, and the apparent inappropriateness of using formal
sanctions alone. Where such an approach is adopted, the enforcement
activities tend to be less targeted to maximizing fines collected and
more to creating an environment within which compliance will be maxi-
mized. One challenge of implementing the VOC rules for agencies will be
attempting to understand this somewhat broader view of enforcement and
consciously applying it to agency activities.
The agency's particular compliance strategy will both determine and
be determined by the most appropriate mix of these enforcement tech-
niques. Not all will be appropriate to a given agency's circumstances,
and different techniques may be more or less important over time and
among sources. The various elements of a compliance strategy as de-
picted in Figure 2 should be coordinated in selecting techniques. Table
3 shows examples of such combinations for each of the four agency types
we identified.a Both adversarial and joint enterprise strategies are
used. Note that one technique can build upon another in implementing
the overall compliance strategy.
Of primary importance in assembling compliance techniques is that
they be appropriate to agency priorities and consistent with organiza-
tional and staff realities. If any component is missing or lacking, the
agency should seek assistance in training or perhaps increase the level
of resources available.
^Further examples drawn from representative agencies appear in
Appendix A.
44
-------
Table 3
EXAMPLES OF ASSEMBLING COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
COMMANDO AGENCY
Staff; One expert inspector with
other responsibilities
Agency Priority; Important, but not
highest priority
Techniques;
o Get state/EPA help to do targeted
inspections and source tests
o Use information from targeted
actions to develop specific
permit conditions
o Vary type and number of inspec-
tions by source history, relying
heavily on spot checks
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGENCY
Staff; One highly qualified engineer
Agency Priority;
priorities
Techniques;
Among highest
Embark on a program of site-
specific technical assistance
as installation activities begin
Generate information for use in
development of maintenance plans
and specific inspection checklist
Orient other staff to phase-in
routine and spot check inspections
45
BEAT COP AGENCY
Staff; One or more expert inspectors
assigned to geographical areas with
responsibility for most sources in
their areas
Agency Priority; Important, but not
highest priority
Techniques;
o Establish even mix of inspection
types; begin with more emphasis
on routine inspections; rely more
heavily on spot checks as "good"
sources are identified
o Inform sources that they can be
relieved of inspector presence
with good O&M
o Require maintenance plans and use
elements for inspection checklists
UTOPIA AGENCY
Staff; Engineer and expert inspectors
devoted to VOC activities
Agency Priority; Highest priority
Techniques;
o Commence a range of activities
including various inspection
routines and site-specific tech-
nical assistance
o Assemble results of inspection
data to develop maintenance plans
or permit conditions
o Conduct inspection blitz to
increase visibility of compliance
activities
-------
Stages of Implementation
Our survey suggests that certain stages of implementation require
differing approaches and emphases. These stages include those commonly
recognized, such as rulemaking, compliance scheduling, and equipment
installation, but also include fairly distinct stages following install-
ation. This latter group includes an equipment shakedown period, an
early continuing compliance phase, and a later continuing compliance
phase.
Typically, agencies are more or less active during the initial
compliance phase of new regulations (i.e., before or during the install-
ation of control equipment), depending on the relative recalcitrance of
sources to install equipment or otherwise commence compliance. Our
sample agencies found that significant controversy occurs during the
rulemaking phase, followed by much less difficulty in getting equipment
installed once the rules are finalized. Most of this experience, how-
ever, was with gasoline terminals, a large percentage of which are owned
by large companies. More difficulties with installation of equipment
may be experienced with the smaller, independently owned bulk plants,
and perhaps even more so with independent truckers. Even where initial
compliance activities go smoothly, however, the newness of the control
approaches and the large number of sources argue for an agency giving
special consideration to activities during initial compliance that have
special utility in the VOC area.
Initial Source Contacts
Both because of the interactiveness of the control systems and the
large number of sources, comprehensive initial contacts with sources are
particularly important in the gasoline marketing chain. The control
system breaks down completely if any link in the chain (trucks, plants,
or terminals) is not equipped to control, transfer, or process the va-
pors generated. Because a large portion of the facilities are owned by
major oil companies, a few agencies underscored the usefulness of noti-
fying upper corporate management of the onset of the rules. In this
way, the corporate information system is used to spread the information
about implementation and a large number of sources are affected. In
addition, paying special attention to the major companies has broader
effects. Where a terminal installs control equipment, for example,
local rules may be written to prohibit it from loading trucks not
equipped with vapor line hook-ups.
Simply identifying sources subject to the regulation is a nontri-
vial task, particularly when the Agency begins focusing on bulk plants
and trucks as well as bulk terminals. Initial source contacts, as well
as the production of a list of sources, may be facilitated by the use of
state agencies or EPA regional offices. These agencies may make con-
tacts with the major corporations in their area, generate preliminary
lists and make initial corporate-level contacts to accomplish some of
the ground work for local agencies. Another possible resource are the
46
-------
trade associations. Generally, there has been reticence on the part of
associations to supply membership lists to agencies since their members
will be more quickly identified than will nonmembers. However, associa-
tions may be much more willing to do mailings themselves, particularly
if the information is in the nature of giving members an advance look on
what the control agency will be doing to enforce the rules. Finally,
liaison with control equipment manufac- turers and sales representatives
has been suggested as a useful ap- proach. The agency and the equipment
manufacturer will share an interest in identifying sources subject to
the regulation and getting the equipment installed.
Workshops to Inform Companies of Rules and Policies
Although the use of some means other than formal publishing to
inform sources of new rules is not a new idea, it is particularly impor-
tant in this area. Workshops can stress that good O&M is the key to
complying with the rules and to maintaining good relations with the
agency. More generally, such meetings take on great importance to the
extent that the industry is well organized and coordinated. Numerous
examples exist of an apparently organized effort to undermine rules by
firms raising first one issue and then another and the agency responding
with piecemeal and thus frequently inconsistent advice. The sources
should be brought together and given a complete understanding of how the
agency will interpret and enforce the rules. Special problems or com-
plaints can be aired at that time and answered in the presence of all.
What this means for the agency, of course, is that it spends time (per-
haps in conjunction with other agencies in the general area) discussing
issues and settling on uniform interpretations and policies. Only in
this way can the effectiveness of such meetings be maximized.
Increments of Progress
Progress schedules are particularly relevant in the VOC area, given
the large number of sources and the experience of some agencies that
control equipment is frequently hard to acquire on time. Only a limited
number of suppliers are available and within a local agency's geograph-
ical area the number of qualified installers are likely to be even more
limited. In calculating appropriate compliance schedules, realistic
assessments should be made of the time required to produce a source list
(as indicated above, this can be highly time consuming), negotiate with
sources, allow time for delivery problems that may be occasioned by
supplies of control equipment relative to the demand, and provide for
installation and shakedown problems which are likely to arise. Agency
staff should be very familiar with the realities of getting equipment
installed and be able to determine when sources are asking for more time
than necessary or are being unrealistically optimistic. Negotiations
can be preceded by the mailing of detailed fact sheets and perhaps a
request for a proposed compliance schedule from the sources.
Plan Reviews and Equipment Installation Inspections
One sample agency conducted a program consisting of reviewing its
sources' plans for installing control equipment and conducting on-site
47
-------
inspections of Che installation process. In this way, the agency could
make any useful design changes, such as facilitating access to
inspection points before actual construction, and more easily understand
how the source was set up. One interesting technique was to monitor the
installation and tuning of the VRU to obtain data on standard operating
parameters. The parameter data were recorded and maintained for later
use in facilitating and improving inspections of the operating effi-
ciency of the VRUs.
Somewhat less ambitious but also highly useful was another agency's
practice of sending out questionnaires soliciting information for use in
designing inspection procedures and strategies. Examples of useful
information include the brand of control equipment being installed
(slightly different inspection techniques exist for different units),
and the source's loading patterns so that inspections could be scheduled
for peak loading times.
Multiplying Effectiveness
t
Even assuning an agency's adoption of all the appropriate tech-
niques and the devising of an optimal compliance strategy, the resources
required may still exceed those available. Where rules for new VOC
sources beyond the gasoline marketing chain must also be implemented,
resource limitations are almost certain to exist. Thus, agencies should
carefully consider ways in which they can multiply their own effective-
ness by using other agencies. Candidates for such coordination are
those with different regulatory interest in the sources or those that
employ a field staff that spends some time on-site at the sources. In
general, two kinds of agencies might be used: pollution control agen-
cies at other levels of government and agencies not directly involved in
pollution control.
Intergovernmental Roles Among Pollution Control Agencies
More cooperation and coordination among local, state, and regional
agencies in the use of staff is highly important. State or EPA agencies
may be the most appropriate locus of staff and resources to conduct
source tests in this area, given the time and expense required as well
as the need to maximize inspection time at the local level. In addi-
tion, some means of relating what is done by EPA regional or state in-
spectors to the normal inspection schedules of the local agency is
needed. Such coordination could produce better supervision of sources
as well as augment the number of inspectors present. Staff and resource
sharing should be employed wherever possible. In general, the size of
the problem requires that any unnecessary duplication be eliminated and
that what resources are available be employed in highly efficient ways.
Use of Agencies Not Directly Involved iji Pollution Control
We identified several instances where air pollution control agen-
cies had found ways of employing the resources of other agencies with
48
-------
related interests or regulatory objectives. Such strategies as the
following are highly promising and should be pursued seriously by con-
trol districts:
o Truck certification: The department of transportation or
state fire marshal is also interested in truck regulation; the
fire marshal in one state nov includes vapor tightness checks
in his general safety inspection and certification program.
o Initial implementation problems: In cases where the agency
desires to effect some design change or to enforce adherence
to a milestone in a compliance schedule, the building in-
spector is a possible resource. Building inspectors can
generally shut down work much more readily than can control
agencies. Consequently, informing these staffs of likely
problems to be encountered and enlisting their aid can be
highly useful.
o Use of the OS HA mechanisms and inspection capability: OS HA
concerns, while differently based, frequently include similar
issues. For example, the flammability of gasoline makes leak-
age an OS HA concern as well as a pollution concern. OS HA
powers may be productively employed both for particular
problems and for maintenance problems generally.
o Other possibilities: Another agency responsible for inspec-
ting the sulfur content of oil may have an inspector who might
be used. Business licensing agencies, oil and gas taxation
offices and the like, have records useful for identifying
sources.
If agencies about to implement (or extend) their VOC rules are to
have an effective program, they will have to use any and all resources
available. This includes agencies not traditionally associated with air
pollution control but that have some interest in the source or some
reason to have personnel on site. These resources should be put to
maximum use by the air pollution control agency.
Planning for New VOC Sources
This study has been limited to one component of the larger set of
VOC pollution sources—the wholesale gasoline marketing chain. In so
limiting it, we have both responded to an immediate enforcement need and
provided some information needed by agencies as they begin to think
about the larger question of VOC enforcement. When agencies consider
the problems associated with service stations, cutback asphalt, dry
cleaners, painting and coating operations, and the numerous other
sources, the problems and issues alluded to and discussed in this report
will only multiply. Because these sources share the attributes of
49
-------
invisible emissions, relatively new control technologies, and a multi-
plicity of sources, we believe that many of the ideas generated by our
interviews with regional EPA, state, and local agency staff members will
be useful as agencies plan for new VOC sources.
50
-------
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDIES OF AGENCIES EXPERIENCED IN VOC COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
A-l
-------
DISTRICT A
Background
Air pollution regulations requiring vapor control on bulk gasoline
terminals and plants have been in effect since 1970. At present, this
agency's jurisdiction includes 19 bulk terminals and 45 bulk plants.
The enforcement agency in this district defines a bulk terminal as a
facility that dispenses more than 20,000 gallons per day for 300 days per
year (6 million gallons per year). All facilities meeting this definition,
in addition to meeting vapor control requirements, must obtain a permit
prior to installation or expansion of any potential air pollution source.
To ensure that the facility is operating within the design specifications
approved by the district engineer, an operating permit is also required.
Agency Organization
The local agency has primary enforcement responsibilities for a region
encompassing several counties; it relies on the state agency for technical
guidance and some funding.
Headed by the Air Pollution Control Officer, the agency is made up
of the following six divisions:
• The engineering division operates the permit system, performs
evaluative services, prepares the source inventory, and handles
special technical projects.
• The technical services division includes the laboratory, source
test, meteorology, air monitoring, research and planning, and a
technical library.
• The enforcement division is made up of four sections: (1) central
operations, which provides internal administration; (2) inspection
section, which keeps stationary sources under surveillance;
(3) field engineering; and (4) vehicle inspection.
• Legal counsel.
• Adminis tration.
• Public information.
The air pollution inspectors are assigned to the enforcement divi-
sion. The agency has nine senior inspectors, with six inspectors assigned
A-3
-------
to each senior. Inspectors must have 2 years of college-level formal
education in one of the sciences and attend class for 3 months prior to
a field assignment. When a field assignment is given, the new inspector
works with an experienced inspector until he or she is ready to go into
the field alone. These inspectors are assigned geographically and are
responsible for monitoring all stationary sources within their territory.
They are also responsible for maintaining liaison with industrial repre-
sentatives and local health and fire officials.
Field engineers, who are also assigned to the enforcement division,
support the inspectors by supplying technical information and by following
up on specific problems detected by the inspectors. They also examine
control equipment to determine whether it will bring violating sources
into compliance. The field engineers are usually assigned to a specific
technology or type of-point source.
Inspection
Overview
The agency conducts three types of inspections: source tests, routine
inspections, and spot checks. The source tests measure the efficiency of
the vapor recovery units (VRUs). In the routine inspections, the inspectors
check the operation of the VRUs (without measuring efficiency) and check
for leaks at the loading rack. Spot checks are brief visits made when the
inspector happens to be in the vicinity of the facility.
Source Testing
Because bulk plants are not required to install vapor recovery units,
comprehensive source testing is required only for bulk terminals.
The source test now used by this agency is a continuous test, requiring
from the morning of one day until noon of the next day to complete. Three
people are needed to complete a source test—two people during the day
and one to monitor the equipment overnight. The test samples vapor recovery
by weight of vapor recovered per 1,000 gallons of throughput. By monitor-
ing the amount and temperature of. vapor recovered, the weight can be cal-
culated.
Because of the lack of manpower and the nature of the equipment, the
agency believes that one source test per week per team for a bulk terminal
is reasonable. At present, it has only one three-person source-test team.
Routine Inspections
Bulk Terminals
The routine inspection concentrates less on the vapor recovery system
and more on the other control equipment required for a bulk terminal. One
A-4
-------
of the primary functions of this inspection is to determine whether a
terminal requires closer scrutiny by a field engineer. The inspection
normally takes one inspector 2 to 3 hours to complete. An experienced
inspector can complete two terminal inspections per day. The only equip-
ment needed to conduct a routine inspection is an explosimeter.
On top-loading racks the inspector checks each loading arm for leaks
at the joints and at the nozzle during operation. It usually takes 3 to
4 minutes per arm if no leaks are found. A top-loading rack could have
as many as 20 arms and take an hour to inspect. For bottom-loading racks,
the inspector will check each nozzle to be sure that the "0" ring is in
good condition and that it does not leak while connected to a truck. The
time needed to check loading racks depends on the amount of use they are
getting.
The gauge on the vapor holding tank is checked to make sure it is
operating, and the pressure-relief valve and air vents at the top of the
tank are checked for vapor leaks. If the air vent on top of the tank shows
evidence of hydrocarbon vapors, the collapsible vapor bladder inside could
be leaking. This test takes less than a half hour. The vapor recovery
unit is checked for liquid and vapor leaks around the pump shafts, com-
pression valves, and fittings. This inspection takes 5 to 10 minutes to
complete.
Storage Tanks
Storage tanks are not always checked during a routine inspection.
When tanks are inspected, only those with a capacity of more than 40,000
gallons are checked. Floating-roof storage tanks roust meet equipment
specifications and compliance requirements that reflect the type of seal
used rather than the magnitude of any leaks. Inspections of the primary
seal can take from 15 minutes to 3 hours, depending on whether the seal
is cracked. If the primary seal is in good condition, the secondary seal
can be checked in 5 to 10 minutes. On the average, an inspector can check
one tank per hour. Normally, an inspector will check no more than two
tanks a day and four in a week. Tank inspections are announced, in accord-
ance with the agency's regulations, at least 48 hours in advance. Because
the agency personnel believe that it takes longer than 1 year for a seal
to deteriorate to the point of noncompliance, storage tanks are inspected
on an annual basis.
Bulk Plants
\
Because bulk plants require only a vapor balance system, there is no
VRU or vapor holding tank to check. Most bulk plants have fixed-roof
tanks, which require only a check of seams and pressure-release valves.
The loading rack must be inspected, but it is not as large as a bulk
terminal rack and so takes less time to inspect. Routine inspection for
bulk plants involves 30 minutes to 1 hour. Inspectors also make sure that
drivers are using good work practices, e.g., connecting the vapor return
A-5
-------
line and not opening a dome hatch, which would allow the vapor to vent
to the atmosphere.
Spot-Check Inspections
A spot-check inspection is done on a random basis when an inspector
is in the vicinity of a terminal or plant. An inspector will drop in
unannounced to make sure that the vapor recovery system is on and being
used properly. He will check for obvious leaks on the loading racks and
for normal functioning of the control system in general. This 15-minute
inspection gives the inspector a chance to talk with the terminal opera-
tor to see whether there have been any problems, and it lets the terminal
operator know that he is expected to operate and maintain the terminal
properly at all times. If the inspector finds or suspects a problem, he
may conduct a fuller inspection.
Violation Processing Procedure
For a problem not rising to the level of a violation, e.g., need for
a minor adjustment of equipment or for replacing a worn part, the inspector
may give a verbal notice to have it fixed and check it on his next inspec-
tion. If, however, there is any question of a violation, the agency
encourages the issuance of a notice of violation (NOV), which provides
formal documentation of the situation.
When a violation is found, an NOV is normally written immediately.
After the NOV is written, the inspection report is reviewed by the rele-
vant senior inspector, a field engineer, and the chief inspector to deter-
mine the nature of the violation and whether the matter should be pursued.
If all of these people sign the report, the matter goes to the legal staff
to determine whether evidence is sufficient to process the NOV. If there
is sufficient evidence, a letter is written to the terminal manager (not
the company owner) informing him that the violation has been referred for
legal action and offering to settle the matter out of court. Informal
settlement is favored over litigation as being less costly and time con-
suming, while being equally effective. The agency has found that the
threat of court proceedings and stiff penalties provides sufficient induce-
ment for sources to accept a settlement, pay the fee prescribed by an
established schedule, and come into compliance.
Compliance Strategy
This agency considers the terminals and bulk plants to be important
but not of the highest priority to its control efforts. Nonetheless,
the agency's policy is for inspectors to maintain high levels of both
communication with and presence at the sources. Because an inspector is
assigned to a specific geographic area, there is a high sense of respon-
sibility for ensuring compliance within each area. Inspectors frequently
make informal visits to terminals or schedule a routine inspection between
A-6
-------
other activities. As a result, a terminal facility can generally expect
an inspector to visit once a month. Frequency varies, depending on the
inspector's perception of the source's past compliance history. Regard-
less of past performance, the agency attempts to conduct annual source
tests at each terminal.
More than 1,800 NOVs were issued in 1978, a reflection of agency
policy to issue formal notices for all violations and assess small fines
to keep sources conscious of their obligations. The system allows for
expeditious correction of any problem. Additionally, the agency feels
that, by relying on a uniform, formal compliance program instead of a
haphazard system of informal verbal warnings and NOVs, it maintains more
effective control of compliance activities.
When regulations to control bulk terminal and bulk plant emissions
were originally proposed, there was considerable opposition. In the long
run, however, resistance to the requirement for installation of vapor
control equipment was minimal. The agency is now at a point where the
staff feels only minor adjustments in its strategy are needed to secure
compliance. To this end, inspectors are focusing less on simple indi-
cators of a violation, such as obvious leaks, and more on the sources of
problems: how equipment is installed, used, and maintained. Recently
promulgated performance standards, for example, are geared to proper
maintenance programs. Meanwhile, the agency's primary control efforts
are shifting to Stage II regulation for service stations.
A-7
-------
DISTRICT B
Background
The applicable regulations went into effect in 1972 in this district.
The regulations require vapor recovery units on facilities with a through-
put of 20,000 gallons per day or greater. Since no compliance schedules
were established, all terminals had to operate on variances until the
equipment could be installed. The variance period ended in 1975. This
district now has 11 bulk terminals, all of which have some form of vapor
control through vapor recovery or incineration. The agency's official
policy requires 90% efficiency for vapor recovery systems, but for enforce-
ment purposes the agency considers a 5% margin of error acceptable. Addi-
tionally, terminals must obtain an annual operating permit.
Agency Organization
This county district is qualified, under state law, to operate inde-
pendently of the state agency. The inspection division is staffed solely
by engineers. At the present time, one engineer working alone handles
terminal and plant inspections. There are also a number of control
officers whose responsibilities are limited to detecting opacity and odor
problems in other source types. Since they are not organizationally
located in the inspection division, no mechanism has existed to use them
for bulk terminal inspections. The agency does plan, however, to establish
a new job classification, called "process evaluators," within the inspec-
tion division. This will allow qualified control officers to assist
engineers by conducting some of the more routine inspection tasks. This
general augmentation of enforcement capabilities will allow the agency
to implement new routine inspection procedures for bulk plants and service
stations as well as terminals.
Inspections
Overview
The district relies on three basic inspection procedures to ensure
compliance of bulk terminals: comprehensive source tests to determine
VRU efficiency, routine inspections for permit renewal, and spot-check
inspections. Additionally, VRU installation and initial performance are
closely monitored.
A-8
-------
Source Testing
VRU efficiency tests are conducted every 3 years; visits are announced.
Stack samples are collected by an engineer and brought back to the laboratory
for analysis, in contrast with the on-site testing method commonly used.
This test is less expensive than those presently being considered for EPA
adoption.
Routine Inspections
In general, a terminal's vapor recovery equipment is inspected by the
engineer prior to renewal of the facility's annual operating permit. These
visits are unannounced. The inspection process requires from 1 to 3 hours,
depending on whether violations are found.
The inspector checks for leaks in the loading rack system, the pressure-
release valves, and the dome hatches on trucks. The seals on floating-roof
tanks are inspected for cracks and holes. VRU pressure and temperature
gauges are checked against the range of acceptable operating standards
noted by the engineer at the time of installation.
In addition to checking the equipment, the inspector observes the work
practices of the truck drivers and terminal personnel to assure that the
vapor control equipment is used properly. Finally, maintenance records
are checked to determine how often equipment is serviced and whether
unreported equipment failures have occurred.
Spot-Check Inspections
Spot checks are unannounced visits by the engineer to ensure that the
vapor recovery equipment is being used and is properly maintained. The
pressure and temperature of the vapor recovery system may be checked, and
the loading rack and pressure-release valves are inspected for leaks.
Spot checks take from 15 minutes to 1 hour, depending on whether problems
are discovered. A more thorough inspection is generally scheduled (or
simply conducted) where violations are identified.
Violation Processing Procedure
A terminal operator is required to notify the agency immediately when
the vapor recovery system malfunctions. A letter notifying the agency
that the problem has been resolved must be received within 10 days to
avoid further agencj* action.
When a problem is identified during an inspection, the inspecting
engineer assesses the significance of the situation and decides whether
an NOV will be written. Depending on the situation, the engineer may give
a verbal notice that a problem was found and that it should be corrected
within a fixed time period. A compliance order, which is analogous to a
formal verbal notice, may also be issued. After the problem is solved,
A-9
-------
the terminal operator must submit a letter to the agency documenting the
corrective action. This formal acknowledgment of the problem is included
in the terminal's record.
If an NOV is written for a violation, the agency judges the severity
of the violation and decides whether or not to seek civil or criminal
action. Normally, if the terminal has had a good compliance record, the
agency will establish a compliance schedule with terminal staff members.
This will generally take care of the problem. The agency staff looks for
a pattern of consistent breakdowns before taking court action.
Civil actions leading to the imposition of penalties are brought
before the County Air Pollution Hearing Board. This board consists of
people who are knowledgeable in air pollution problems (engineers, attorneys,
and industrial representatives). Penalties under the civil board can be
as great as $10,000 for the first violation and $2,500 per day for every
day in violation.
Another option is to seek criminal action against the violator. These
cases are heard by a district magistrate, who may impose fines ranging from
$100 to $1,000 for a first-time violation and $500 to $5,000 for subse-
quent offenses.
The decision whether to pursue a case civily or criminally is based
on a judgment about which action will get the fastest results. The object,
agency staff noted, is to obtain compliance as quickly as possible, not
necessarily to collect the largest fine.
The final action that can be taken against a violator is to seek an
injunction, either to stop the operation of the facility until the problem
is corrected or to close it down completely. This district has never had
to use the injunction process for-a bulk gasoline terminal.
Compliance Strategy
When hydrocarbon controls were first promulgated in the district, there
was some resistance, including a court challenge. Over time, agency staff
have developed good communication networks with the facilities, providing
technical advice and limiting heavy fines to instances of bad faith.
According to the agency, those problems that do occur usually stem from
inadequate maintenance programs.
The agency has had to find ways of enforcing bulk terminal regulations
with minimum resources because its main effort focuses on inspection and
enforcement for other types of emission sources. Because of these limits
on resources, yearly routine inspections and frequent spot checks of every
facility are not possible. Inspection efforts focus on terminals with a
history of breakdowns, particularly those using types of VRUs known by
agency staff to be susceptible to malfunctions.
The agency's engineer is one of its most valuable assets in assuring
the success of its enforcement program for bulk terminals. He is capable
A-10
-------
and meticulous, interested in vapor recovery systems, and dedicated to his
work. He consistently monitored the systems' progress from the beginning.
His extensive and detailed knowledge of the vapor control equipment is a
valuable resource to the agency, and he uses this knowledge to assist
sources in resolving technical compliance problems.
A-11
-------
DISTRICT C
Background
District C, a regional office of the state's Air Pollution Control
Board, is responsible for part of a multistate metropolitan area. The
jurisdiction of District C includes eight bulk gasoline terminals and a
few bulk plants serving the rural areas. Volatile organic compound (VOC)
emission regulations governing bulk terminals have been in effect since
1973, and the region began implementing Stage I controls in 1975. Both
sets of rules were first implemented by sending letters to the operators
of bulk terminals explaining the regulations and offering technical
assistance.
The installation of controls on bulk terminals met little resistance.
District staff reported, however, that significant amounts of inspector
time were necessary during the first year (described as a "shakedown"
period), while the sources corrected minor difficulties. More resistance
was generated by the adoption of Stage II controls because the district
held the terminals liable for deliveries to service stations without the
required vapor balance system. One company was particularly resistant.
After the agency commenced enforcement action against this company, the
other companies moved quickly to comply.
Agency Organization
The agency is divided into three sections: the compliance, planning,
and industrial divisions. The industrial section is responsible for
source testing (although no source tests on bulk terminals have been done
out of this office). The planning section handles permit evaluation and
various kinds of technical support. The compliance section houses both
the inspection and enforcement activities as well as permitting.
Two main types of staff are involved in bulk terminal enforcement:
an engineer, who works mostly inside the office, and an air pollution
control officer, working mostly in the field, who is responsible for all
inspections. The former is a fully qualified engineer, while the latter
has a bachelor's degree in environmental science.
Inspection
Overview
Two types of inspections are conducted in District C: an annual
inspection and a spot-check inspection. Little attention is paid to how
A-12
-------
the units are working or to technical problems, as such. Rather, the
district relies on symptomatic indicators of noncompliance, e.g., vapor
checks using an explosimeter.
Annual Inspection
The annual inspection of each bulk terminal takes about 1 1/2 hours
and involves checks at the loading racks, the vapor holding tank, and
the VRU, and a review of maintenance records. The loading rack inspection
must be done while loading is occurring, preferably major loading. After
checking to make sure that all lines are properly connected, the inspector
checks for leaks at each connection and on the trucks with an explosimeter.
The inspector then follows the line to the vapor holding tank, checking to
make sure that the pressure vents are not releasing during minimal loading
operation. He checks for vapor leaks around the vapor holding tank, which
must be done while the bladder is full. At the VRU, the inspector uses
the explosimeter on all joints. Finally, the maintenance records are
checked to see how much downtime the unit has experienced, the reasons
for the downtime, its duration, repair records, whether the agency was
notified of the breakdown, and whether the same device seems to be
repeatedly malfunctioning.
Spot Checks
Between the annual inspections, short spot checks are conducted at
each source. The maximum duration of a spot check is a half hour. At
this visit, the inspector will check whether the loading equipment is
being used correctly and verify that the VRU is operating. The inspector
reported that if the pressure vents are releasing vapors they will make
a clicking sound. He will listen for this sound at times when they should
not be releasing (moderate or minimal loading occurring) at the same time
that he is looking for visible schlieren patterns. The site visit ends
with a quick check of the maintenance records.
A number of criteria could trigger a fuller inspection during a spot
check:
• If the maintenance log shows a number of recent problems.
• If truck drivers are not using the equipment correctly, indicating
lack of operator surveillance.
• If the vents are breathing when they should not be.
• If any condition at the source indicates lack of maintenance.
\
The objective of the spot check is to prevent the source operator
from thinking that district staff will be there only once a year. In
addition, spot checks will be done more frequently at those terminals
where county inspectors tend to spend little or no time.
A-13
-------
Violation Processing Procedures
The selection of one enforcement procedure over another is based on
the inspector's judgment about the source's record and probable response
in light of the nature of the problem identified. The district staff
believe in the efficacy of an initial informal warning as an enforcement
mechanism. Thus, the inspector's first response to locating a problem
will be to issue a verbal warning and schedule a subsequent inspection
to check for compliance. Gradually, NOVs are issued only in cases of
habitual or repeated problems.
Upon the issuance of an NOV, a source will be given a brief period
of time to correct the problem. If this is not done, an enforcement
action is undertaken. Sanctions available include summary criminal
proceedings leading to fines, civil penalties, or administrative permit
revocations. Since District C is a state regional office, it enforces
state-level regulations that include these sanctions. In addition, how-
ever, city and county agencies that have received state certification may
enforce on the basis of their ordinances in the same geographic area.
Thus, summary fines, civil penalties, and permit revocations are also
available to local officials and state staff will frequently request
that the local agency initiate an enforcement action. This is done
because of the long delays associated with prosecuting violations through
the state headquarters office. The district's generally good relationship
with its approved county agencies makes this option a real and viable one.
Where, however, the local agencies cannot, or choose not to, prosecute
a particular case, the state procedures will be triggered.
Compliance Strategy
VOC control is considered a fairly high priority in District C,
although the staff is very small and, in its role as a regional state
office, has a variety of other responsibilities. For bulk terminals and
plants, district staff members believe that reliance on symptomatic indi-
cators of noncompliance—e.g., detecting leaks—results in vesting greater
responsibility in the companies to maintain compliance. This approach
also makes it possible for an inspector with less than the qualifications
of an engineer to single-handedly manage the enforcement effort at the
eight bulk terminals in the district. In addition, assistance is provided
from the state-certified local agencies within the district's jurisdiction.
The control officer in charge of bulk terminals is not empowered to
issue criminal citations. Thus, the enforcement strategy stresses the
development of respect among source operators for the inspector himself.
Maintenance of close relations with county agencies within the district's
jurisdiction is also considered an important factor.
A-14
-------
DISTRICT D
Background
District D is an agency responsible for air pollution control in
several adjoining counties comprising a large metropolitan area. Ozone
has been recognized as a problem in the area for some time, and the VOC
emission control program has existed for several years. In all, the
agency is responsible for approximately 27,000 pollution sources. Among
these are 38 pipeline-fed bulk gasoline terminals and 80 bulk plants.
Agency Organization
Three district divisions are primarily involved in bulk terminal and
plant activities: enforcement, engineering, and technical services. The
enforcement division includes both the inspection and enforcement activi-
ties. Engineering is responsible for all permitting, while technical
services conducts source tests. A legal division determines whether cases
referred by the enforcement division are to be processed criminally or
civilly. It handles civil matters, while the counties' district attorneys
handle the criminal cases.
Within the enforcement division, there are three staff levels: super-
visor, engineering inspector, and tank inspector. The four engineering
inspectors on the staff work in teams of two and are responsible for all
inspection procedures except source testing and storage tanks. The tank
inspectors, also working in pairs, perform the more physically demanding
checks of storage tanks. Besides normal supervisorial duties, the super-
visor reviews the ground for NOVs issued by inspectors before they are
referred to the Director of Enforcement for further action.
Inspection
Overview
Besides the source test, the district conducts three types of inspec-
tions: the quarterly (comprehensive) inspection, the tank inspection, and
the spot-check inspection.
Quarterly Inspections
These inspections are designed to be conducted quarterly, but it has
proven difficult to get to all bulk terminals more than twice a year.
A-15
-------
Consequently, the "quarterly inspection" of a bulk terminal is actually
done between two and four times per year, depending on the size and prior
compliance history of the source. Bulk plants receive an analogous
inspection once a year.
•
Besides conducting the inspection itself, the inspectors are respon-
sible for completing NOV forms when a violation is identified, writing
inspection reports, and physically serving the source with the NOV when
one is issued. As a result, the number of sources inspected works out
to an average of about one per day per team, although the average inspec-
tion takes only 2 hours.
The inspection begins at the racks, because the likelihood that a
large number of trucks are being loaded is better earlier in the day. One
inspector works at the loading racks observing the operations and watching
for leaks. Between truck loadings, the equipment on the racks is inspected
for missing, worn, or broken parts. While the first inspector is observing
loading operations, the second is checking the VRU, making sure it is
operating and shutting on and off at the appropriate intervals. The agency
believes that simultaneous checking of the racks and the VRU is important
to determine whether the system as a whole is working properly.
The tank trucks are also checked to be sure that their state certifi-
cation sticker is displayed and current, and that the vapor return hookups
are in good order.
Finally, the inspectors review the source's records to ensure that
they are being properly maintained and to see whether there have been
any facility modifications. If such modifications have occurred, the
inspectors will check whether the appropriate permits have been obtained.
Tank Inspections
As noted above, the storage tank inspections are conducted by a
separate team of inspectors. These personnel climb the tanks and inspect
the seals and pressure vents for disrepair and leakage.
Spot-Check Inspections
Because the district relies heavily on the frequency of inspections
as a means to ensure compliance, the inspectors arrange to make periodic
spot-check inspections, which last about 15 minutes. The source's opera-
tions are checked to see whether trucks involved in loading operations are
properly hooked up to the vapor return lines and whether the VRU is run-
ing. Based on its experience with the occurrence of VRU maintenance
problems and with VRU overloads during peak periods, the district considers
checking to ascertain whether the VRU is actually running a particularly
useful inspection technique.
A-16
-------
Because the spot-check inspections are somewhat impromptu and occur
between more formal and longer inspections, good information is not avail-
able on how many are done or on how many spot checks will be done on a
given source. Nonetheless, it is known that the frequency of spot checks
is determined not only by where the inspector happens to be geographically
(with a little extra time) but also by the selection criteria for quarterly
inspections.
Violation Processing Procedures
Once a problem is identified, the inspector must decide between two
violation-processing approaches. The first is to conclude that the problem
does not warrant formal action, resulting in the issuance of a warning.
However, the district discourages the use of warnings, preferring the
issuance of a formal notice in doubtful cases.
The second approach is to use a device recently adopted by the district-
the Notice to Comply (NTC). NTCs are being used extensively for bulk term-
inals, bulk plants, and tank trucks in those cases where the problem is one
that can be simply or immediately fixed. Essentially, the NTC is a notice
that, unless the company involved files a report within 2 days indicating
that the problem has been fixed, the NTC automatically becomes an NOV.
When an NOV is issued, it is reviewed to assure that adequate support
for the finding exists before it is referred to the legal division. The
inspector's supervisor makes an initial review and returns the NOV to the
inspector if there is an obvious gap in the documentation. A more thorough
examination for sufficiency is made by the investigation section (within
the enforcement division), the staff of which maintain close liaison with
the agency's attorneys and local district attorneys.
Upon referral to the legal division, the staff must choose between
the available civil and criminal enforcement procedures. NOVs will gen-
erally be referred to district attorneys within the district's region for
criminal processing .unless they are selected by the agency's legal staff
for civil action. Cases are selected for civil action if the agency
believes that the case can be settled by a source's agreeing to correct
conditions underlying the noncompliance, or if the nature of the viola-
tion is such that proof beyond a reasonable doubt (required in criminal
cases) may be problematic. Although the civil penalty provisions require
a showing of intent or negligence, this can generally be established by
documenting more than one instance of the same problem at the same source
(e.g., the same loading rack is leaking on two consecutive inspections).
In these cases, penalties of up to $500 per day are available.
Compliance Strategy
VOC control is considered the highest priority in this district
because of the long-time recognition of the area's ozone pollution problem
A-17
-------
and the many VOC sources located in the area. Additionally, pressure
from the state agency has required District D to devote more staff to
bulk terminal and bulk plan inspections. How much manpower is needed,
at a minimum, to maintain optimal levels of compliance is thus of prime
and immediate concern to this agency. Overall, the agency believes that
it is essentially on the right track in meeting its VOC control respon-
sibilities with existing resources, and that any remaining problems
require only fine-tuning of the present enforcement approach.
The agency's compliance strategy is characterized by a belief that
inspector visibility is important to maintaining compliance and that the
rules applied should be consistent with both compliance and enforcement
capabilities. Differential treatment of sources is considered important,
not only to correct problems in recalcitrant sources but also to provide
something of an incentive for sources to police themselves.
Generally, more compliance problems are perceived to exist among
independent sources, and some companies have reputations for being par-
ticularly troublesome. Thus, such devices as "one-company saturations"
(i.e., concentrating inspector time on all the sources owned by one
company for a specified period) are being employed. At the same time,
as a result of economic pressures and increasing regulation, more and
more bulk plants are becoming company (versus independent) operations.
Such consolidation should facilitate compliance with the VOC rules,
whether or not this trend is desirable from other standpoints. In addi-
tion, the agency has concentrated on particular parts of the facility at
certain stages, to direct the sources' attention and also to effect a
measured and planned improvement in overall compliance.
In summary, the district's enforcement approach emphasizes flexi-
bility—the tactics employed now have changed from those used when the
rules were first promulgated—and a belief that the job is possible to do,
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM REVIEWERS
B-l
-------
Appendix B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM REVIEWERS
Reviewers' comments on the draft report were extremely helpful in
our efforts to identify gaps in our logic and areas where clarification
was needed. Because these comments were so useful, we have reproduced
the critiques and suggestions as part of this report.
Reviews from Regional EPA Offices
"This report appears straightforward in setting up various strate-
gies that could be adopted by state or local air pollution control agencies
for enforcing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) regulations pertaining to the
gasoline marketing industry. The agencies can select from the strategies
the type of program(s) that will work best within the limits of their
available manpower and expertise.
"Since the thrust of this report deals with methods to enforce the
VOC regulations without a significant increase in manpower, we would
like to suggest that emphasis should be placed on enacting SIP regula-
tions that require the gasoline industry to record and periodically
report data that can be used to indicate the operability and effective-
ness of the control devices. As an example, the type of data that should
be required for refrigerated vapor recovery units (VRU) would be the
gasoline thru-put, gasoline recovered, and temperature ranges of the VRU
exhausts. This type of information would require the sources to install
and maintain a flow meter for the recovered gasoline and a thermocouple
with a recorder. The cost of these two items is insignificant compared
to that of the VRU. The recording requirements will make it necessary
for the source to check the unit periodically (preferably daily) and
this should help in maintaining the operability of the unit. The report-
ing requirement will enable the agency to easily find any problems that
develop. This will help for prioritizing the inspection program. Refrig-
erated VRUs appear to be the predominant control type selected by the
industry. Other control options could have similar data element record-
ing and reporting requirements."
B-3
-------
"The SRI draft final report may prove to be a useful compendium of
background and general information. However, the information on the
status of SIP regulations is too dated to be reliable, and the discussion
of enforcement is too general and conceptual to be of any real value.
Detailed information on inspection techniques and source test methodology
would be more useful."
"The report surfaced problems regarding the performance of control
devices now used throughout the industry due to poor operating and main-
tenance practices and the problems the regulatory agencies would encounter
in performing proper inspections through lack of trained and experienced
personnel.
"With this in mind, the following suggestions are made for DSSE's
consideration:
1. EPA's training center should start developing courses to train
and upgrade the agency's present inspectors if they are to
perform in a responsible manner.
2. Contacts with RTF have indicated that no reliable instruments
for low level detection of hydrocarbons are available as of
now. A project to develop portable and continuous monitoring
instrumention should be initiated. Since this appears like a
large market, specifications and criteria for such instruments
should be available so that the instrument manufacturers can
be involved.
3. Since the regulations are being proposed, it would be to the
advantage of the EPA to include installation by the source of
continuous monitoring systems to detect, record, and report
concentration of hydrocarbon emissions during the loading and
unloading at large terminals and bulk loading plants. The
requirement should be included assuming that the instruments
are commercially available and not too costly.
4. Provisions should be made in the regulations to reauire operat-
ing and maintenance procedures for VOC control equipment."
"The report delineates major problems associated with control effec-
tiveness of vapor recovery units, but does not include tank truck leaks.
Our experience has shown that leaks in tank trucks are one of the
greatest contributors to reduced vapor recovery system efficiency. Aside
from the obvious problem that results from loading a leaky truck, an
obscure problem results unless each individual vapor return line is
equipped with a check valve. Since all vapor return lines are mani-
folded into a common header, a leaky truck represents a short-circuit
in the system. The vapors from all trucks loading concurrently with
a leaky truck will be vented through the leaky truck and bypass the
vapor recovery system. We have actually observed this in the field.
B-4
-------
The installation of check valves in each individual vapor return line
should be a requirement of an acceptable vapor recovery system. Since
the integrity of vapor recovery systems depends heavily on maintaining
leakless tank trucks, we feel that regulation of tank trucks warrants
greater emphasis in this report.
"We have not found top-loading of trucks to be a problem. Virtually
all facilities in our region that have installed vapor recovery systems
have concurrently converted to bottom-loading.
"We concur with the report's assertion that source testing using the
EPA recommended method is very expensive and time consuming. Our exoer-
ience has shown that direct overhead cost for the equipment necessary to
test one loading rack and vapor recovery unit ranges from $14,600 to
$19,000. Personnel (four people) and miscellaneous costs are about
$13,000. Thus, the total cost for the initial testing of one loading
rack and vapor recovery unit can be as much as $32,000. Subsequent
tests would cost $13,000. Testing of facilities having more than one
loading rack would, or course, be more costly. For example, direct over-
head cost for the equipment necessary to test three loading racks and a
vapor recovery unit ranges from $28,000 to $36,600. Personnel (ten
people) and miscellaneous costs are about $19,500. Thus, the total
cost for the initial testing of a facility having three loading racks
and a vapor recovery unit can be as much as $56,100. Subsequent tests
would cost $19,500.
"The test typically takes 1 day to set-up, 3 days to run, and 1 day
to disassemble the sampling apparatus. It usually takes 1 day to trans-
port the equipment to the site, another day to write up the test results.
There is little wonder none of the source test methods developed thus
far has met with widespread acceptance."
"SRI's section on intergovernmental roles briefly explores the possi-
bility of cooperation between government agencies with regard to enforce-
ment or surveillance actions. The possibility of cooperative inspections
between appropriate environmental agencies and governmental safety organi-
zations should be investigated. If such organizations as OSHA require
inspections similar to those illustrated in the SRI report, there is the
possibility that an interagency inspection team could be developed. Such
an approach would have the following advantages:
1. Sharing of funds—many local or state agencies may not have the
funds to invest in explosimeters. However, pooling of funds for
such purposes may allow purchases of detection equipment which
in turn would greatly enhance the objectivity of this program.
2. Sharing of expertise—agencies not having the capabilitv or man-
power for highly technical personnel for this program may bene-
fit from field experience with another agency's personnel.
B-5
-------
3. Public relations—pooling inspections would most likely, in the
case of "good" sources, result in an overall decrease in total
government inspections. This may have a beneficial effect on
the plant managers attitude towards the inspection.
"SRI in its final report should, if possible, explore in more detail
the possibility of further cooperation among government agencies.
"A source of uncontrolled emissions at service stations not mentioned
is known to occur during gasoline deliveries. This occurs when the
service attendant climbs to the top of the tank of the delivery truck
and opens the hatch to see if he has received all of his gasoline. In
doing this, he releases all of the vapor captured during vapor recovery.
The solutions to the problem are simple, but it should be addressed in
the development of a new program."
Reviews from EPA Headquarters
"I have reviewed this report and I think it is pretty good. The com-
pliance strategies are clearly designed for State and local agencies, and
my only reactions concern the ability to utilize these same strategies
at EPA Regional level. My only comments are:
1. This seems to be addressing "second generation" compliance
problems, i.e., identifying violations and enforcing com-
pliance at sources which have installed the basic control
device, a vapor recovery unit. In one region, however, the
.enforcement effort has been directed simply at getting
sources to install equipment. There are probably enough
"first generation" compliance problems to keep EPA busy
for a long time.
2. The enforcement model appears to contemplate heavy reliance
on "informal" enforcement tools, i.e., something short of
adversarial-type actions. The extent to which this is
possible may vary greatly depending on the state and its
regulations. Again, to use Region V as an example, in
states which appeared to allow sources to comply through
submerged loading rather than vapor recovery, sources have
been quite litigious and resistant to EPA efforts to force
them to install vapor recovery. I don't know how widespread
a problem this may be.
3. I think the most significant compliance strategy identified
by this report is discussed on page 27 of Volume I, con-
cerning the economic benefit of pollution control. As is
pointed out, a vapor recovery unit may be a unique air
B-6
-------
pollution control device in that it recovers the primary
product of the source. As the report points out, the
economic benefit has not been empirically confirmed. I
think greater emphasis should be placed on devoting local
agency resources to a study of this issue, if the economic
benefit of vapor recovery can be conclusively demonstrated,
sources will'be given an economic incentive to voluntarily
comply with the regulations, significantly reducing the need
for Agency monitoring and enforcement.
"The title of this report is a misnomer, as it covers only one stage
of the gasoline marketing chain, bulk terminals. A number of agencies
have had regulations for several years on bulk plants and service station
storage tank filling (Stage I). There are a number of enforcement
problems related to the design and operation of control systems for these
operations. There is no reason why they could not have been covered in
this study.
"Only a few agencies have attempted regulating refueling of vehicles
(Stage II). There is, thus, a limited amount of enforcement experience
in this area. However, this experience might be valuable to indicate
to other agencies the feasibility of adopting similar regulations.
"If the scope of this report is to remain as it now is, the title
should be changed to reflect that it only covers bulk terminals. This
could save time for many people who might look for information that is
not there.
"The report states that the most critical problem at bulk terminals
is the amount of downtime of the vapor recovery unit. It indicated
that downtime varied considerably with type and make of recovery unit.
This indicates that a technical study to accurately identify the relative
downtime of the different types and makes would be worthwhile. This
could lead to the development of more reliable and more efficient recovery
units. The corrective measure for excess downtime was said to be the
development of a realistic and enforceable operations and maintenance
schedule.
"Another problem of vapor control systems was the venting of emissions
from vapor holding tanks when their holding capacity was reached. The
recommended solution was the installation of an automatic switch which
would prevent further loading when the capacity of the vapor holder was
reached. If this was actually enforced, it would force the installation
of a larger vapor holder.
The original title of this report was "Enforcement of Emission Regulations
for the Gasoline Marketing Chain."
B-7
-------
"Switch-loading was described as the third most significant source
of emissions. When a fuel of low volatility, .such as diesel oil, is
loaded into a tank truck whose previous load was gasoline, emissions are
almost as much as when gasoline is loaded. Where such practices are
common, vapor return lines should be added to the racks used to load
normally uncontrolled fuels.
"Top-loading was described as a particular problem. Damage to the
truck dome-hatch sealing surface by the nozzle is so common that a low
level of leakage cannot be attained. The only solutions appears to be
bottom loading.
"The bulk of the report is a description of the strategies used by
agencies to enforce their regulations. SRI grouped the strategies into
two general types, adversarial and joint enterprise strategies.
"Adversarial strategies rely upon sanctions to compel compliance.
Three adversarial strategies were identified:
'Identify and notice, but otherwise ignore, minor violations, while
maximizing frequency of inspections.
'Conduct a series of targeted, intense inspections and/or source
tests.
'Initiate one or more lawsuits or enforcement actions to get the
sources' attention.1
"Joint enterprise strategies assume that most sources are willing to
comply with the rules and the best strategy is to create incentives for
the source to comply. Four joint enterprise strategies were identified.
'Provide early and intensive technical assistance through the on-
site visits of a qualified engineer.
'Educate sources on the economic benefit of monitoring the control
equipment.
'Require the development and use of maintenance plans.
'Use findings from inspections to develop conditions to source
operating permits.'
"The extended discussion of the above two types of strategies should
assist agencies in tailoring their strategy to the capabilities of their
resources and the attitude of the sources.
"In general this report has considerable merit, but it needs more
identification of specific problems and how to cope with these situations."
B-8
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-340/1-80-013
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Development of VOC Compliance Monitoring and Enforce-
ment Strategies: The Wholesale Gasoline Marketing
Chain—Volume I
5. REPORT DATE
July 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS) Harold R. Winslow, Jr., Richard L. Goen,
Richard A. Ferguson, Roy L. Hays, and Perrin Quarles
(Perrin Quarles Associates)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
CRESS 115
9. PERFORMING ORG -VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4137, Tasks 11 and 1.4
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final 9/78 - 7/80
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This study addresses the development of compliance monitoring and enforcement
strategies for one major source category of VOC emissions—the gasoline marketing
chain. The study draws on the enforcement practices of agencies with several years
of experience in implementing VOC rules for the gasoline marketing chain to suggest
a framework for the use of state and local agencies in developing appropriate com-
pliance strategies geared to local conditions. Rather than providing technical
assistance on particular control techniques, the report highlights the factors
that agencies should consider in deploying their enforcement resources. Volume I
of the study presents the results of our survey of experienced agencies as well as
the framework for development of compliance strategies. Volume II provides technical
detail on the components of the gasoline marketing chain, the emission sources and
control techniques, and the status of state emission regulations applicable to the
chain.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Gasoline
Air pollution control equipment
Organic compounds
Regulations
Inspection
Storage tanks
Fuel storage
Volatile organic compounds
Enforcement of regulations
Gasoline terminals and
bulk plants
Air emissions from gasol
21/04
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
89
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |