[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56288-56365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21690]
[[Page 56287]]
Vol. 84
Monday,
No. 203
October 21, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology
Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56288]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074; FRL-10000-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT86
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) source category. The EPA is proposing amendments to the storage
tank and equipment leak requirements as a result of the residual risk
and technology review (RTR). The EPA is also proposing amendments to
allow terminals the option to implement a fenceline monitoring program
in lieu of the enhancements to the storage tank and equipment leak
requirements; correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM);
add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results
and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and
Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; add operational
requirements for flares; and make other minor technical improvements.
We estimate that these proposed amendments would reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from this source category by 386 tons
per year (tpy), which represents an approximate 16-percent reduction of
HAP emissions from the source category.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 20, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before October 28, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0074, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0074 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0074.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding
the risk assessment, contact Mr. Ted Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; fax
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Ms. Gerri
Garwood, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-2406; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0074. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
[[Page 56289]]
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Btu/scf British thermal units per standard cubic foot
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring system
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, also
known as the hazardous organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IFR internal floating roof
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHVcz net heating value in the combustion zone gas
NHVvg net heating value of the flare vent gas
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
REL reference exposure level
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UV-DOAS ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
[[Page 56290]]
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and 112(d)(3)?
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992), the OLD
source category includes, but is not limited to, those activities
associated with the storage and distribution of organic liquids other
than gasoline, at sites which serve as distribution points from which
organic liquids may be obtained for further use and processing.
The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. The OLD NESHAP is
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. Organic liquids are any crude
oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and any non-
crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of any
combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63 subpart
EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do not
include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2
distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and fuel oil, fuel
that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste,
wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual
average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pound per
square inch absolute (psia)). Emission sources controlled by the OLD
NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while
being loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and
sampling connections) that have the potential to leak.
The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are
already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids
distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP,
then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in
the OLD NESHAP.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American Industry
Source category and NESHAP Classification System (NAICS)
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non- 3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259,
Gasoline). 3261, 3361, 3362, 3399,
4247, 4861, 4869, 4931,
5622.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control
[[Page 56291]]
technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into the
standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this action.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tpy or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, CAA
section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must
reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality
health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT) standards in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C.
Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)\1\
of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.
If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992),
the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to, those
activities associated with the storage and distribution of organic
liquids other than gasoline, at sites that serve as distribution points
from which organic liquids may be obtained for further use and
processing.
The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. Organic liquids are
any crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and
any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of
any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do
not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2
distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and
[[Page 56292]]
fuel oil, fuel that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site,
hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid
with an annual average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals
(0.1 psia). The OLD NESHAP applies only to major sources of HAP (i.e.,
sources that have the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25
tpy of combined HAP). Facilities subject to this NESHAP fall into two
types, either (1) petrochemical terminals primarily in the business of
storing and distributing organic liquids or (2) chemical production
facilities or other manufacturing facilities that have either a
distribution terminal not subject to another major source NESHAP or
have a few miscellaneous storage tanks or transfer racks that are not
otherwise subject to another major source NESHAP.
Equipment controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer
operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and equipment leak
components (valves, pumps, and sampling connections) that have the
potential to leak. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 contains the
criteria for control of storage tanks and transfer racks. If a storage
tank of a certain threshold capacity stores crude oil or a non-crude
organic liquid having a threshold sum of partial pressures of HAP, then
compliance options are either to (1) route emissions through a closed
vent system to a control device that achieves a 95-percent control
efficiency or (2) comply with work practice standards of 40 CFR part 63
subpart WW (i.e., operate the tank with a compliant internal floating
roof (IFR) or a compliant external floating roof), route emissions
through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system of a process, or
route emissions through a vapor balancing system that meets
requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4). Storage tanks storing
non-crude organic liquids having a sum of partial pressures of HAP of
at least 11.1 psia do not have the option to comply using an internal
or external floating roof tank. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63
contains the criteria for control of transfer racks, which are based on
the facility-wide organic liquid loading volume for organic liquids
having threshold HAP content expressed in percent HAP by weight of the
organic liquid. For transfer racks required to control HAP emissions,
the standards are either to (1) route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device that achieves 98-percent control efficiency
or (2) operate a compliant vapor balancing system. Transfer rack
systems that fill containers of 55 gallons or greater are required to
comply with specific provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP or
operate a vapor balancing system.
The NESHAP requires leak detection and repair for certain equipment
components associated with storage tanks and transfer racks subject to
this subpart and for certain equipment components associated with
pipelines between such storage tanks and transfer racks. The components
are specified in the definition of ``equipment leak components'' at 40
CFR 63.2406 and include pumps, valves, and sampling connection systems
in organic liquid service. The owner or operator is required to comply
with the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40
CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level
2), or subpart H. This requires the use of Method 21 of appendix A-7 to
40 CFR part 60 (``Method 21'') to determine the concentration of any
detected leaks and to repair the component if the measured
concentration exceeds the definition of a leak within the applicable
subpart.
Pressure relief devices on vapor balancing systems are required to
be monitored quarterly for leaks. An instrument reading of 500 parts
per million (ppm) or greater defines a leak. Leaks must be repaired
within 5 days.
The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are
already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids
distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP,
then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in
the OLD NESHAP.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA used several sources to develop the list of existing
facilities subject to the OLD NESHAP. All facilities in the 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the Toxics Release Inventory
having a facility source type as petroleum storage facility or with a
primary facility NAICS code beginning with 325, representing the
chemical manufacturing sector, were queried to create a comprehensive
base facility list. We supplemented this list with facility lists from
the original OLD NESHAP rule, the Marine Vessel Loading NESHAP, a list
of petrochemical storage facilities from the Internal Revenue Service,
and from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) tool (https://echo.epa.gov). The EPA reviewed title V air permits to determine which
facilities on the comprehensive list were subject to the OLD NESHAP.
The current facility list consists of 177 facilities subject to the OLD
NESHAP.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
We are relying on technical reports and memoranda that the EPA
developed for flares used as air pollution control devices (APCDs) in
the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and New Source Performance Standards
rulemaking (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). These technical reports and
memoranda can be found in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket for that
action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. The Petroleum Refinery
Sector Docket contains a number of flare-related technical reports and
memoranda documenting numerous analyses the EPA conducted to develop
the final suite of operational and monitoring requirements for refinery
flares. We are incorporating this docket by reference in this rule.
Even though we are incorporating the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket
by reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action
and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including a
list of specific technical support documents in Table 1 of the
memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, in this docket for
this action.
Also related to the enhancements we are proposing for flares, we
are citing the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak Terminal
Deer Park consent decree, available at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-north-america-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-agreement and included
in the docket for this action.
We are also relying on background information about the fenceline
monitoring program established for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. We are incorporating this docket by
reference in this rule. Even though we are incorporating the docket by
reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action
and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including the
following document in the docket for this action memorandum, Fenceline
Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final Rule.
Lastly, we are incorporating by reference into this action all the
information associated with the
[[Page 56293]]
development of the current OLD NESHAP standards at Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0138. This docket includes the materials from the legacy
Docket ID No. A-98-13 associated with the development of the original
OLD NESHAP.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk
and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of
control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors. Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy
chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also
incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the
most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the
general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual
case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the
Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by
employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with
the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use
of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby
implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk
which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to
determining what will protect the public health. See 54 FR 38057,
September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be
weighed in determining acceptability of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately one-in-10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risk with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable,
depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the
Benzene NESHAP that: EPA believes the relative weight of the many
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.
Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the
various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability, and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission
[[Page 56294]]
points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2)
combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that
could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and
bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure.
In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk
from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all
noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emission standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the
following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to
assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009,\4\ and described in the SAB review
report issued in 2010.\5\ They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
\5\ U.S. EPA SAB. Review of EPA's draft, Risk and Technology
Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's
Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining
Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing'' May 2010. https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The OLD facility list was developed as described in section II.C of
this preamble and currently consists of 177 facilities identified as
being subject to the OLD NESHAP. The emissions modeling input files
were developed using the EPA's 2014 NEI. The complete OLD facility list
is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment
for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
The EPA used the 2014 NEI data for these facilities to create the
risk assessment model input files using all available HAP emissions
records and other emission release parameters. From the whole facility
risk assessment model input file, the EPA identified emission sources
within the OLD source category from the 2014 NEI data such as source
classification codes (SCCs) and SCC descriptions, emission unit
descriptions, and process descriptions to identify emissions that are
subject to OLD and those that are not. For example, emission units that
were described as chemical production process vents were marked as
being out of the source category. For many facilities in the source
category, the EPA used information in the title V permit to relate
emissions in the 2014 NEI and to assign whether the emissions are
within the OLD source category. In several cases, in the absence of
definitive information that would place the emissions out of the OLD
source category, if the 2014 NEI data indicated
[[Page 56295]]
the emissions were associated with a storage tank, a transfer rack or
equipment leaks, the emissions are presumed to be in the OLD source
category. For 21 sources, there were no HAP emissions in the 2014 NEI
that were able to be attributed to OLD equipment.
The EPA reviewed emissions release point information such as
release point location; emission release point type (stack verses
fugitive); temperature; and the correlation between stack diameter,
velocity, and volumetric flow. In some cases, we corrected release
point locations where the original location was outside of the apparent
facility boundary. During the process of quality assuring the modeling
file input data, for some cases, we obtained specific information from
facility contacts. On November 6, 2018, we also posted a draft of the
model input file on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. We received feedback from two companies
and included those comments in the docket for this action. Except for
removing facilities having no OLD applicability, the EPA did not make
any of the changes to the modeling file in response to these comments
after posting the draft model input file on the EPA's website because
none of the changes would impact the conclusions of the source category
risk results.
A record of all changes made to the risk assessment model input
file throughout the quality assurance process is provided in Appendix 1
of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
For the risk assessment modeling purposes, we modeled 2014 NEI
reported actual emissions for the OLD source category. In preparation
of this RTR, we did not conduct an information collection of the
equipment in this source category. Instead, we relied primarily upon
the 2014 NEI emissions data and readily available title V permit
information to characterize the actual emissions from the source
category. We consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best
available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk
assessment model.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\6\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\7\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \8\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These values are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\8\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound
estimate of an individual's incremental risk of contracting cancer over
a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new,
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer
[[Page 56296]]
review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-
response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \9\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\10\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We have been applying this revision in
RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point, reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile),\11\ and the point of highest off-site exposure.
Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a
person is present at the point of maximum exposure. These assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario and, although less
conservative than our previous approach, is still sufficiently
conservative given that it is unlikely that a person would be located
at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur
simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in
Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated
[[Page 56297]]
for a specified exposure duration.'' \12\ Acute RELs are based on the
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-
reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the
inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs
represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are
applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8
hours.\13\ They are guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-
term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-
priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as
``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\13\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \14\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour
without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health
effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take
protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we used the default acute emissions
multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to
1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases for
which an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess
the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site
location. For this source category, the data refinements employed
consisted of determining the maximum off-site acute HQ for each
facility that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are
discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the OLD source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and polycyclic organic matter (POM).
Therefore, we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for
lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of
three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through
ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total
Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a
conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for
RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this
assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening
value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to
[[Page 56298]]
correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
(i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans
and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium
compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission
rate of any one PB-HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the
Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater
than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the
Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates
the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher,
farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher scenario and
farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the
Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near
the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures with
the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under
the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced
eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the
farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake
assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female
angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \15\) and locally grown or
raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised
foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \16\). If PB-HAP emission
rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we
consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\16\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\17\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway
assessment approach, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety'').
However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of
determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene
NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most
susceptible group in the human population--children, including
children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73
FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the
primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative,
since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control
options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission
reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the
RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and
incremental risk reductions.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological
[[Page 56299]]
entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both
community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid
gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the OLD source category emitted
any of the environmental HAP. For the OLD source category, we
identified emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/
furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), lead
compounds, HCl, and HF. Because one or more of the environmental HAP
evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category,
we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words,
[[Page 56300]]
we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission
points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission
sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source
category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset
compiled from the 2014 NEI. We flagged source category records of that
NEI dataset as described in section II.C of this preamble. We performed
quality assurance and quality control on the whole facility dataset,
including the source category records. The facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the
modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks
to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the
methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all
facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution
to facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper
[[Page 56301]]
bound estimate of risk.\18\ That is, they represent a ``plausible upper
limit to the true value of a quantity'' (although this is usually not a
true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true
risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk
could be greater.\19\ Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD)
values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be
health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are
intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies
upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,\20\ which considers
uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are
applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect
against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\19\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\20\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case
air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from the
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the
[[Page 56302]]
screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the
multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in
support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
In this action, we are proposing the following pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3): \22\ (1) Adding monitoring and operational
requirements for flares used as an APCD and (2) requesting comment on
whether the EPA should add requirements and clarifications for pressure
relief devices (PRD). The results and proposed decisions based on the
analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are
presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The EPA has authority under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
to set MACT standards for previously unregulated emission points.
The EPA also retains the discretion to revise a MACT standard under
the authority of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) (see Portland Cement
Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011), such as when it
identifies an error in the original standard. See also Medical Waste
Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d at 426 (upholding the EPA action
establishing MACT floors, based on post-compliance data, when
originally-established floors were improperly established).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Flares
The EPA is proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to amend
the operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs in
the OLD source category because we have determined that the current
requirements for flares are not adequate to ensure the level of
destruction efficiency needed to conform with the MACT standards for
the OLD source category. A flare is a type of APCD used in the OLD
source category to control emissions from a single emission source
(i.e., a storage tank or a transfer rack) or multiple emission sources
(i.e., a combination of several storage tanks and/or transfer racks).
We have determined that 27 flares at 16 OLD facilities would be
affected by these proposed operating and monitoring requirements (see
the memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the
Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in the docket for this
action).
The requirements applicable to flares in the OLD NESHAP are set
forth in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are cross-
referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The OLD NESHAP allows storage
tanks and transfer racks to vent through a closed vent system and flare
that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. In general,
flares used as APCDs at OLD facilities are expected to achieve a
minimum destruction efficiency of at least 98 percent by weight, when
designed and operated according to the General Provisions. Studies on
flare performance, however, indicate that these General Provision
requirements are inadequate to ensure proper performance of flares at
refineries and other petrochemical facilities (including chemical
manufacturing facilities), particularly when either assist steam or
assist air is used, but also when no assist is used.\23\ The data from
the recent
[[Page 56303]]
studies on flare performance \24\ clearly indicate that combustion
efficiencies begin to deteriorate at combustion net heating values
above 200 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) and
that an operating limit of 200 Btu/scf in the flare vent gas, as
currently provided in the General Provisions for unassisted flares,
does not ensure that these flares will achieve an average destruction
efficiency of 98 percent. Therefore, we believe the proposed amendments
described in this section are necessary to ensure that OLD facilities
that use flares as APCD meet the MACT standards at all times when
controlling HAP emissions. In fact, at least one recent consent decree
addresses inefficient flare operations at a large bulk terminal in the
OLD source category.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Based on review of NEI description fields and a sampling of
air permits, we believe the majority of flares at OLD facilities are
non-assisted.
\24\ Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares,
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191.
\25\ See the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak
Terminal Deer Park consent decree, available at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-north-america-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Provisions of 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that flares are
(1) steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted; (2) operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and
operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a
total of 5 minutes during any two consecutive hours); and (4) operated
with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. These General
Provisions also specify both the minimum heat content of gas combusted
in the flare and maximum exit velocity at the flare tip. The General
Provisions specify monitoring for the presence of the pilot flame and
the operation of a flare with no visible emissions. For other operating
limits, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requires an initial flare compliance
assessment to demonstrate compliance but specifies no monitoring
requirements to ensure continuous compliance.
In 2012, the EPA compiled information and test data collected on
flares and summarized its preliminary findings on operating parameters
that affect flare combustion efficiency (see the technical report,
Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191, which has been incorporated into the
docket for this action). The EPA submitted the report, along with a
charge statement and a set of charge questions, to an external peer
review panel.\26\ The panel, consisting of individuals representing a
variety of backgrounds and perspectives (i.e., industry, academia,
environmental experts, and industrial flare consultants), concurred
with the EPA's assessment that the following three primary factors
affect flare performance: (1) The flow of the vent gas to the flare;
(2) the amount of assist media (e.g., steam or air) added to the flare;
and (3) the combustibility of the vent gas/assist media mixture in the
combustion zone (i.e., the net heating value, lower flammability limit,
and/or combustibles concentration) at the flare tip. However, in
response to peer review comments, the EPA performed a validation and
usability analysis on all available test data as well as a failure
analysis on potential parameters discussed in the technical report as
indicators of flare performance. The peer review comments are in the
memorandum, Peer Review of Parameters for Properly Designed and
Operated Flares, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0193, which has been incorporated into the docket for this action.
These analyses resulted in a change to the population of test data the
EPA used and helped form the basis for the flare operating limits
promulgated in the 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC (80 FR 75178). We are also relying on the same
analyses and proposing the same operating limits for flares used as
APCDs in the OLD source category. The Agency believes, given the
results from the various data analyses conducted for the Petroleum
Refinery Sector rule (see section II.D of this preamble, which states
that the Petroleum Refinery RTR Docket is incorporated by reference
into the docket for this action),\27\ that the operating limits
promulgated for flares used in the Petroleum Refinery Sector are also
appropriate and reasonable and will ensure flares used as APCDs in the
OLD source category meet the HAP removal efficiency at all times.
Therefore, to ensure clarity and consistency in terminology with the
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule (80 FR 75178), we are proposing at 40
CFR 63.2380 to directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule flare
definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in
the OLD source category with certain clarifications and exemptions as
discussed in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ These documents can also be found at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source.
\27\ See technical memorandum, Flare Performance Data: Summary
of Peer Review Comments and Additional Data Analysis for Steam-
Assisted Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0200 for
a more detailed discussion of the data quality and analysis. See
technical memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating
Limits for Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0206
for a more detailed discussion of the failure analysis. See
technical memorandum, Flare Control Option Impacts for Final
Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0748 for additional analyses on flare performance standards based on
public comments received on the proposed refinery rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the MACT standards in the OLD NESHAP cross-reference the
General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b) for the operational requirements
for flares used as APCD (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS). This proposal specifies all operational and monitoring
requirements that are intended to apply to flares used as APCDs in the
OLD source category. All of the flare requirements in this proposed
rulemaking are intended to ensure compliance with the MACT standards in
the OLD NESHAP when using a flare as an APCD.
a. Pilot Flames
This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source
category operate pilot flame systems continuously when organic HAP
emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP references the flare
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE), which specify
that a flare used as an APCD should operate with a pilot flame present
at all times. Pilot flames are proven to improve flare flame stability,
and even short durations of an extinguished pilot could cause a
significant reduction in flare destruction efficiency. In this action,
we are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General
Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to
include in the OLD NESHAP the existing provisions that flares operate
with a pilot flame at all times and be continuously monitored for a
pilot flame using a thermocouple or any other equivalent device.
We are also proposing to add a continuous compliance measure that
would consider each 15-minute block when there is at least 1 minute
where no pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to
the flare as a deviation from the standard. The proposed requirements
are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(b) and (g). See
section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to
use a 15-minute block averaging period for determining continuous
compliance.
We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare pilot
flames.
[[Page 56304]]
b. Visible Emissions
This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source
category operate with no visible emissions (except for periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when
organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP
references 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify
that a flare used as an APCD should operate with visible emissions for
no more than 5 minutes in a 2-hour period. Owners or operators of these
flares are required to conduct an initial performance demonstration for
visible emissions using Method 22 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60
(``Method 22''). We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the
General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC to include the limitation on visible emissions. We are also
proposing to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible emissions
demonstration should be conducted the first-time regulated materials
are routed to the flare.
With regard to continuous compliance with the visible emissions
limitation, we are proposing daily visible emissions monitoring for
whenever regulated material is routed to the flare and visible
emissions are observed from the flare. On days the flare receives
regulated material, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares
monitor visible emissions at a minimum of once per day using an
observation period of 5 minutes and Method 22. Additionally, whenever
regulated material is routed to the flare and there are visible
emissions from the flare, we are proposing that another 5-minute
visible emissions observation period be performed using Method 22, even
if the required daily visible emissions monitoring has already been
performed. If an employee observes visible emissions, then the owner or
operator of the flare would perform a 5-minute Method 22 observation to
check for compliance upon initial observation or notification of such
event. In addition, in lieu of daily visible emissions observations
performed using Method 22, we are proposing that owners and operators
be allowed to use video surveillance cameras. We believe that video
surveillance cameras would be at least as effective as the proposed
daily 5-minute visible emissions observations using Method 22. We are
also proposing to extend the observation period for a flare to 2 hours
whenever visible emissions are observed for greater than 1 continuous
minute during any of the required 5-minute observation periods. Refer
to 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (h) for these proposed
requirements.
We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding visible
emissions.
c. Flare Tip Velocity
This action consolidates provisions related to flare tip velocity.
The OLD NESHAP references the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b)
(through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify maximum flare tip velocities
based on flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted, or air-assisted) and
the net heating value of the flare vent gas. These maximum flare tip
velocities are required to ensure that the flame does not ``lift off''
the flare (i.e., a condition where a flame separates from the tip of
the flare and there is space between the flare tip and the bottom of
the flame), which could cause flame instability and/or potentially
result in a portion of the flare gas being released without proper
combustion. We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the
General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC to consolidate the specification of maximum flare tip velocity into
the OLD NESHAP as a single equation, irrespective of flare type (i.e.,
steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted). The proposed flare tip
velocity specifications are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR
63.670(d), (i), and (k). We posit that the owner or operator would
likely follow the provisions at 40 CFR 63.670(i)(4) and (k)(2)(ii) to
determine the flare tip velocity on a 15-minute block average basis,
which allows use of a continuous pressure/temperature monitoring system
and engineering calculations in lieu of the more intricate monitoring
options also specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. See section
IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-
minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance.
Based on analysis conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector final
rule, the EPA identified air-assisted test runs with high flare tip
velocities that had high combustion efficiencies (see technical
memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Evaluation of Flare Tip
Velocity Requirements, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0212). These test runs exceeded the maximum flare tip velocity limits
for air-assisted flares using the linear equation in 40 CFR
63.11(b)(8). When these test runs were compared with the test runs for
non-assisted and steam-assisted flares, the air-assisted flares
appeared to have the same operating envelope as the non-assisted and
steam-assisted flares. Therefore, for air-assisted flares used as APCDs
in the OLD source category, we are proposing to use of the same
equation that non-assisted and steam-assisted flares currently use to
establish the flare tip velocity operating limit.
Finally, we are also proposing not to include the special flare tip
velocity equation in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i)(A)
for non-assisted flares with hydrogen content greater than 8 percent.
This equation, which was developed based on limited data from a
chemical manufacturer, has very limited applicability for flares used
as APCDs in the OLD source category because it only provides an
alternative for non-assisted flares with large quantities of hydrogen.
We believe few, if any, flares in the OLD source category control vent
gas with large quantities of hydrogen. Nevertheless, we are proposing
to allow owners and operators the use of the existing compliance
alternative for hydrogen (i.e., a corrected heat content) that is
specified in 40 CFR 63.670 which we believe provides a better way for
flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with high hydrogen
content to comply with the rule while ensuring proper destruction
performance of the flare (refer to the Petroleum Refinery preamble, 80
FR 75178, for further details about the corrected heat content for
hydrogen). Therefore, we are proposing to not include this special
flare tip velocity equation as a compliance alternative for non-
assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with hydrogen
content greater than 8 percent.
We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare-tip
velocity.
d. Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone Gas
The current requirements for flares in 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that
the flare vent gas meets a minimum net heating value of 200 Btu/scf for
non-assisted flares and 300 Btu/scf for air- and steam-assisted flares.
The OLD NESHAP references these provisions (through reference of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), but
neither the General Provisions nor the OLD NESHAP include specific
requirements for monitoring the net heating value of the vent gas.
Moreover, recent flare testing results indicate that the minimum net
heating value alone does not address instances when the flare may be
over-assisted because it only considers the
[[Page 56305]]
gas being combusted in the flare and nothing else (e.g., no assist
media). However, many industrial flares use steam or air as an assist
medium to protect the design of the flare tip, promote turbulence for
the mixing, induce air into the flame, and operate with no visible
emissions. Using excessive steam or air results in dilution and cooling
of flared gases and can lead to operating a flare outside its stable
flame envelope, thereby reducing the destruction efficiency of the
flare. In extreme cases, over-steaming or excess aeration can snuff out
a flame and allow regulated material to be released into the atmosphere
without complete combustion. As previously noted, we believe the
majority of flares at OLD facilities are non-assisted. However, for
flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category that are either steam-
or air-assisted, it is critical that we ensure the assist media be
accounted for. Recent flare test data have shown that the best way to
account for situations of over-assisting is to consider the gas mixture
properties at the flare tip in the combustion zone when evaluating the
ability to combust efficiently. As discussed in the introduction to
this section, the external peer review panel concurred with our
assessment that the combustion zone properties at the flare tip are
critical parameters to know in determining whether a flare will achieve
good combustion. The General Provisions, however, solely rely on the
net heating value of the flare vent gas.
In this action, in lieu of requiring compliance with the operating
limits for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the General
Provisions, we are proposing to cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC to include in the OLD NESHAP a single minimum operating limit for
the net heating value in the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) of 270 Btu/scf
during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-
assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category. The proposed
requirements are set forth at 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(e) and
(m). The Agency believes, given the results from the various data
analyses conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, that this
NHVcz operating limit promulgated for flares in the Petroleum Refinery
Sector source category is also appropriate and reasonable and will
ensure flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category meet the HAP
destruction efficiencies in the standard at all times when operated in
concert with the other proposed flare requirements (e.g., pilot flame,
visible emissions, and flare tip velocity requirements) (see the
memoranda titled Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating Limits for
Flares and Flare Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule,
in Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0206 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682-0748, respectively).
In general, refineries are expected to need a flare gas flow
monitor and either a gas chromatograph, total hydrocarbon analyzer, or
calorimeter to comply with the final suite of operational and
monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 63.670 (primarily because refinery
flare gas can be highly variable in composition and flaring events can
be unpredictable and episodic in nature). However, flares at OLD
facilities control a limited amount of flare vent gas streams compared
to more numerous and variable waste streams at petroleum refineries.
Given that OLD emission sources are storage tanks and transfer racks,
the range of organic liquids being distributed through these emissions
sources are likely known and have consistent composition and flow.
Therefore, due to the more certain nature of gas streams at OLD
facilities, we anticipate that owners or operators of flares in the OLD
source category would use process knowledge, engineering calculations,
and grab samples as their compliance approach specified at 40 CFR
63.670(j)(6). Instead of continuously monitoring composition and net
heating value of the flare vent gas (NHVvg), we anticipate owners and
operators would be able to characterize the vent gases that could be
routed to the flare based on a minimum of seven grab samples (14 daily
grab samples for continuously operated flares) and determine the NHVvg
that will be used in the equation at 40 CFR 63.670(m)(1) for all
flaring events (based on the minimum net heating value of the grab
samples) to determine NHVcz. We are also proposing to allow engineering
estimates to characterize the amount of gas flared and the amount of
assist gas (if applicable) introduced into the system. For example, we
believe that the use of fan curves to estimate air assist rates would
be acceptable. We anticipate that owners or operators of flares at OLD
facilities would be able to use the net heating value determined from
the initial sampling phase and measured or estimated flare vent gas and
assist gas flow rates, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with
the standards. We believe most, if not all, owners or operators of
flares in the OLD source category would be able to use this compliance
approach.
Finally, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares in the
OLD source category that use grab sampling and engineering calculations
to determine compliance must still assess compliance with the NHVcz
operating limit on a 15-minute block average using the equation at 40
CFR 63.670(m)(1) and cumulative volumetric flows of flare vent gas,
assist steam, and premix assist air. See section IV.A.1.e of this
preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-minute block
averaging period for determining continuous compliance.
We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to NHVcz.
e. Data Averaging Periods for Flare Gas Operating Limits
Except for the visible emissions operating limits as described in
section IV.A.1.b, we are proposing to use a 15-minute block averaging
period for each proposed flare operating parameter (i.e., presence of a
pilot flame, flare tip velocity, and NHVcz) to ensure that the flare is
operated within the appropriate operating conditions. We consider a
short averaging time to be the most appropriate for assessing proper
flare performance because flare vent gas flow rates and composition can
change significantly over short periods of time. Furthermore, because
destruction efficiency can fall precipitously when a flare is
controlling vent gases below (or outside) the proposed operating
limits, short time periods where the operating limits are not met could
seriously impact the overall performance of the flare. Refer to the
Petroleum Refinery preambles (79 FR 36880 and 80 FR 75178) for further
details supporting why we believe a 15-minute averaging period is
appropriate. We solicit comment on this proposed revision.
f. Emergency Flaring
We are not proposing the work practice standards for emergency
flaring that are currently allowed at 40 CFR 63.670(o) for refinery
flares because we do not believe emergency shutdown situations that
could occur at a petroleum refinery would exist for the storage and
transfer operations covered by the OLD regulations. Should an emergency
occur during an organic liquids transfer, the transfer operation could
be halted, which in turn would also stop the flow of gas to the flare.
Similarly, tank breathing losses are fairly steady and predictable and,
except for a force majeure situation, would not produce any rapid
increases in gas flow to a flare. We solicit comment on this proposed
decision.
[[Page 56306]]
g. Impacts of the Flare Operating and Monitoring Requirements
The EPA expects that the newly proposed requirements for flares
used as APCDs in the OLD source category will affect 27 flares of
various flare tip designs (e.g., steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-
assisted flare tips) that receive flare vent gas flow on a regular
basis (i.e., other than during periods of SSM).
Costs were estimated for each flare for a given facility,
considering the proposed compliance approach discussed in this section
of the preamble. The results of the impact estimates are summarized in
Table 2 of this preamble. The baseline emission estimate and the
emission reductions achieved by the proposed rule were estimated by
back-calculating from the NEI-reported volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and HAP controlled emissions assuming various levels of control
(assuming all flares at OLD facilities operate at a combustion
efficiency of either 90 percent, 92 percent, or 95 percent instead of
98 percent). We note that the requirements for flares we are proposing
in this action will ensure compliance with the MACT standards. As such,
these proposed operational and monitoring requirements for flares have
the potential to reduce excess emissions from flares by as much as 64
tpy of HAP and 645 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline control efficiency
of 90 percent) or 24 tpy of HAP and 242 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline
control efficiency of 95 percent). The VOC compounds are non-methane,
non-ethane total hydrocarbons. According to the modeling file we used
to assess risk (see section III.C.1 of this preamble), there are
approximately 39 individual HAP compounds (28 organic HAP compounds and
11 other HAP compounds) included in the emission inventory for flares,
but many of these are emitted in trace quantities. A little more than
half of the HAP emissions from flares are attributable to 1,3-
butadiene, cumene, and vinyl acetate. For more detail on the impact
estimates, see the technical memorandum, Control Option Impacts for
Flares Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074.
Table 2--Nationwide Costs of Proposed Amendments To Ensure Proper Flare
Performance
[2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital Total annualized
Control description investment costs (million $/
(million $) year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flare Operational and Monitoring 0.19 0.36
Requirements.......................
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 0.19 0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pressure Relief Devices
The acronym ``PRD'' means pressure relief device and is common
vernacular to describe a variety of devices that release gas to prevent
over-pressurization in a system. A PRD does not release emissions
during normal operation but is used only to release unplanned,
nonroutine discharges whenever the system exceeds a pressure setting.
Typically, the EPA considers PRD releases to result from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected causes that require immediate venting of gas from
process equipment to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. At OLD
operations, the EPA is aware of PRDs installed on storage tanks,
transport vehicles (i.e., cargo tank or tank car), and vapor balancing
systems.
For the OLD NESHAP, PRDs are not subject to the emission limits in
the rule but are subject to work practice standards. Because the EPA
has determined for a number of reasons that it is not practicable to
measure emissions from a PRD release in any source category, NESHAP
rules prescribe work practices instead of emission limits. When the
vapor balancing option is used, the OLD NESHAP work practice requires
that no PRD on the storage tank or on the cargo tank or tank car shall
open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes
(i.e., breathing losses). To avoid breathing losses, the valve pressure
must be set to no less than 2.5 psia (unless an owner/operator can
justify that a different value is sufficient to prevent breathing
losses). In addition, the PRD must be monitored quarterly to identify
any leaks to the atmosphere while the vent is in the closed position. A
leak is defined as an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) or greater, and any leak that is detected must be
repaired within 5 days. For OLD storage tank operations that comply
using allowable methods in the OLD NESHAP other than vapor balancing,
the OLD NESHAP requires venting emissions through a closed vent system
to any combination of control devices or fuel gas system or back to
process or comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
The EPA is proposing to clarify that PRDs on vapor return lines of
a vapor balancing system are also subject to the vapor balancing system
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv). We request comments on
whether work practices should be adopted for PRDs that are not part of
a vapor balancing system and whether work practices similar to those
promulgated for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC are
necessary and appropriate for OLD operations. We do not believe similar
high-pressure events such as those possible on equipment in petroleum
refineries are applicable to the storage and transfer operations
subject to the OLD NESHAP because we do not expect the kind of
conditions that produce high-pressure events at large refinery process
equipment (e.g., non-routine evacuation of process equipment) to occur
at storage tanks or transfer operations subject to the OLD NESHAP
(generally storage and transfer of liquids stored at pressures close to
atmospheric pressure). If there are non-vapor balancing system PRDs, we
request further information on the nature of these devices, including
the following: Whether these PRDs are in heavy liquid service; whether
they have a design pressure setting of greater than or less than 2.5
pounds per square inch gauge; whether they release only in response to
thermal expansion of fluid; and whether they are pilot-operated and
balanced bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the
PRD is vented through a control system. Finally, we request comment on
whether monitoring devices should be required to be installed and
operated to ensure the owner and operator is able to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv)
that no PRD shall open
[[Page 56307]]
during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes.
B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III.C of this preamble, for the OLD source
category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP
emitted and multipathway and environmental risk screening assessments
on the PB-HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment
briefly below and in more detail in the document, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. More detailed
information on the risk assessment can be found in the risk document,
available in the docket for this action.
Table 3--Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population at
Maximum individual increased risk of Annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum screening acute
Number of facilities \1\ cancer risk (in 1 cancer >=1-in-1 incidence (cases noncancer TOSHI noncancer HQ \4\
million) \2\ million per year) \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157........................................ 20 350,000 0.03 0.4 HQREL = 1 (toluene,
formaldehyde, and
chloroform).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value.
As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, the chronic inhalation cancer
risk assessment, based on actual emissions could be as high as 20-in-1
million, with 1,3-butadiene from equipment leaks as the major
contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this
source category is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess
case every 33 years. About 350,000 people are estimated to have cancer
risks above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from this source category,
with about 3,600 of those people estimated to have cancer risks above
10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source
category could be up to 0.4 (respiratory) driven by emissions of
chlorine from equipment leaks, and no one is exposed to TOSHI levels
above 1.
For the OLD source category, it was determined that actual
emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable
emissions. The risk results summarized above, based on actual source
category emissions, therefore, also describe the risk results based on
allowable emissions.
2. Acute Risk Results
Table 3 of this preamble provides the maximum acute HQ (based on
the REL) of 1, driven by actual emissions of toluene, formaldehyde, and
chloroform. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective
level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels,
even for repeated exposures.
As noted previously, for this source category, the primary emission
sources of toluene (storage tanks), formaldehyde (unidentified source),
and chloroform (equipment leaks) emissions were each modeled with an
hourly emissions multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. The
maximum acute HQ reflects the highest value estimated to occur outside
facility boundaries. As presented in Table 3 of this preamble, no
facilities are estimated to have an acute HQ greater than 1.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Of the 157 facilities included in the assessment, 24 facilities
reported emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (POM and arsenic) with six
facilities exceeding the Tier 1 screening value of 1. For emissions of
the non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury), eight facilities
reported emissions with no facility exceeding the Tier 1 screening
value of 1 for cadmium or mercury. One facility's emission rates of POM
exceeded the screening value by a factor of 9 and a factor of 3 for
arsenic. Due to the theoretical construct of the screening model, these
factors are not directly translatable into estimates of risk or HQs for
these facilities; rather they indicate that the initial multipathway
screening assessment does not rule out the potential for multipathway
impacts of concern. For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1
multipathway screening threshold emission rate for one or more PB-HAP,
we used additional facility site-specific information to perform a Tier
2 assessment and determine the maximum chronic cancer and noncancer
impacts for the source category. Based on the Tier 2 multipathway
cancer assessment, POM emissions exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening
value by a factor of 4 for the fisher scenario and 6 for the farmer
scenario. Arsenic emissions did not exceed the Tier 2 cancer screening
value. POM and arsenic combined exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening
value by a factor of 6 for the farmer scenario and a factor of 4 for
the gardener scenario.
An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in any of the
tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it
represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For
example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a non-carcinogen
can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be
lower than 2. Similarly, a Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate of
5 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower
than 5-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the conservative, or
health-protective, assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We
choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for
the influential parameters used in the screening tiers, and we assume
that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead
to a high total exposure. Further cancer screening was not warranted
based upon the conservative nature of the screen.
Tier 2 noncancer screening threshold emission rates for both
mercury and cadmium emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2
results presented above, additional screening or site-specific
assessments were not deemed necessary.
[[Page 56308]]
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the OLD source category for
the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, hydrochloric acid,
hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric
chloride), and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and mercury emissions had
no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. POM
emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility for a no-effect level
(sediment community) by a maximum screening value of 6.
A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for POM emissions. In the
Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated for POM.
For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e.,
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI are based on emissions from
all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and non-MACT
sources).
The results indicate that 61 facilities have a facility-wide cancer
MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 25 of those facilities
have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 10-in-1-
million, 10 facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 100-in-1 million, and one facility has a facility-wide cancer
MIR greater than or equal to 1,000-in-1 million. There are 21
additional facilities in the facility-wide dataset that are not in the
MACT actual dataset. For these facilities, permits or other information
show applicability to OLD, but no 2014 NEI information regarding HAP
emissions for these facilities reasonably match with any equipment that
could be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These facilities are not included
in Table 3 of this preamble but are included in the population risk
estimates in this paragraph. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is
2,000-in-1 million, primarily driven by ethylene oxide from a non-
category source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole
facility is 0.9 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in
every 1.1 years. Approximately 5,300,000 people are estimated to have
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from
both MACT and non-MACT sources at the facilities in this source
category. Approximately 1,500,000 of these people are estimated to have
cancer risks above 10-in-1 million, with 88,500 people estimated to
have cancer risks above 100-in-1 million, and 1,000 people estimated to
have cancer risks above 1,000-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide
TOSHI (kidney) for the source category is estimated to be 10, mainly
driven by emissions of trichloroethylene from a non-category source.
Approximately 1,100 people are exposed to noncancer HI levels above 1,
based on facility-wide emissions from the facilities in this source
category.
Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide (described
above), which are driven by emission sources that are not part of the
OLD source category, we intend to evaluate those facility-wide
estimated emissions and risks further and may address these in a
separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is
addressing ethylene oxide based on the results of the latest National
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which identified
the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country
(NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to
help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies identify areas,
pollutants, or types of sources for further examination). The latest
NATA estimates that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to
potential elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S.
(less than 1 percent of the total number of tracts). These elevated
risks are largely driven by an EPA risk value that was updated in late
2016. The EPA will work with industry and state, local, and tribal air
agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene
oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA
regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide--starting with air
toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing facilities and commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting
site-specific risk assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission
control strategies for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post
updates on its work to address ethylene oxide on its website at:
https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the OLD source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, adults without a high school diploma, people
living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty
level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4
of this preamble below. These results, for various demographic groups,
are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
[[Page 56309]]
Table 4--OLD Demographic Risk Analysis Results--50 km Study Area Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer
risk greater Population
than or equal with HI
to 1-in-1 greater than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
-----------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 350,000 0
-----------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 26 0
Minority........................................................ 38 74 0
-----------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 13 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0.3 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 18 58 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 2 0
-----------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 32 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 68 0
-----------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 32 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 86 68 0
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 14 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the OLD source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
350,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one
with a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate
that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by OLD
emissions, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, is greater than its
corresponding nationwide percentage for the following demographics:
Minority, African American, Hispanic or Latino, Below Poverty Level,
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma, and Linguistically Isolated.
The remaining demographic group percentages are the same or less than
the corresponding nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors For Populations Living Near Organic Liquids
Distribution Source Category Operations, available in the docket for
this action.
C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual emissions from OLD
operations located at major sources of HAP, and we considered these in
determining acceptability.
The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
to actual or allowable emissions from the source category is 20-in-1
million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures
is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 33
years. Approximately 350,000 people face an increased cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to actual HAP emissions
from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. The
screening assessment of worst-case inhalation impacts indicates a
worst-case maximum acute HQ of 1 for toluene, formaldehyde, and
chloroform based on the 1-hour REL for each pollutant.
Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a
three-tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in
this source category. The only pollutants with elevated Tier 1 and Tier
2 screening values are POM (cancer). The Tier 2 screening value for POM
was 6 which means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower
than 6-in-1 million. For noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value for both
cadmium and mercury is less than 1.
In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are well below 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive limit of acceptability. In
[[Page 56310]]
addition, the highest chronic noncancer TOSHI is well below 1,
indicating low likelihood of adverse noncancer effects from inhalation
exposures. The maximum acute HQ for all pollutants is 1 based on the
REL for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform. There are also low risks
associated with ingestion, with the highest cancer risk lower than 6-
in-1 million and the highest noncancer hazard below 1, based on a Tier
2 multipathway assessment.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III
of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable for
this source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the
risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any emission reduction measures
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the
risks associated with these emissions.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are
acceptable for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and in this
ample margin of safety analysis, we considered all of the available
health information along with the cost and feasibility of available HAP
control measures. Under the technology review, we identified more
stringent storage tank and leak requirements, and we determined that
these requirements are cost effective. However, for this ample margin
of safety analysis, we evaluated the estimated change in risks, and
while there was some decrease in both the MIR and the number of people
exposed to cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, we determined that the
current NESHAP already provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health due primarily to the baseline risk levels. We note,
however, that we are proposing to adopt the cost-effective measures
under the technology review, as discussed in section IV.D of this
preamble.
D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
1. Storage Vessels
Storage vessels are used for storing liquid feedstocks,
intermediates, or finished products for distribution at OLD facilities.
Most storage vessels are vertical cylindrical designs with either a
fixed or floating roof. Emissions from storage vessels occur due to
tank content expansions (breathing losses) and tank content movements
(working losses).
Under the current OLD NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.2346 and Table 2 to
subpart EEEE of part 63, the owner or operator of an existing or new
storage tank meeting certain capacity and average annual true vapor
pressure of organic HAP criteria must reduce the total organic HAP
emissions from the storage tank by one of three control options. The
first option is to reduce total organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by
weight using a closed vent system routed to a (1) flare, (2) non-flare
APCD, or (3) fuel gas system or process meeting applicable requirements
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The second option is to comply with
vapor balancing requirements. The third option is to either install an
IFR with proper seals or install an external floating roof with proper
seals and enhanced fitting controls meeting applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Table 5 of this preamble outlines the
current rule applicability thresholds for these storage tank control
requirements.
Table 5--Current OLD NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Average True Vapor
Pressure Thresholds for Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank contents and average true
vapor pressure of total Table
Existing/new source and tank capacity 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63
organic HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil and if the annual
capacity >=18.9 cubic meters (5,000 average true vapor pressure of
gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters the stored organic liquid is
(50,000 gallons). >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil.
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil and if the annual
capacity >=189.3 cubic meters (50,000 average true vapor pressure of
gallons). the stored organic liquid is
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=18.9 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters the stored organic liquid is
(10,000 gallons). >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=37.9 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic the stored organic liquid is
meters (50,000 gallons). >=0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia)
and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=189.3 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(50,000 gallons). the stored organic liquid is
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil.
Existing, reconstructed, or new Not crude oil or condensate and
affected source meeting any of the if the annual average true
capacity criteria specified above. vapor pressure of the stored
organic liquid is >=76.6
kilopascals (11.1 psia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56311]]
As part of our technology review for storage vessels, we identified
the following emission reduction options: (1) Revising the average true
vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources
requiring control to align with those of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (40
CFR part 63, subpart CC) and National Emission Standards for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (``HON,'' 40 CFR part 63, subpart G) where the
thresholds are lower and (2) in addition to requirements specified in
option 1, requiring leak detection and repair (LDAR) using Method 21
with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof storage
vessels (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent
by weight control requirements.
We identified option 1 as a development in practices, processes,
and control technologies because it reflects requirements and
applicability thresholds that are widely applicable to existing tanks
that are often collocated with OLD sources and which have been found to
be cost effective for organic liquid storage tanks. The OLD NESHAP
applicability thresholds for new sources are more stringent than other
similar rules. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the
capacity and average true vapor pressure thresholds for new source
storage tanks. Table 6 of this preamble lists the proposed capacity and
average true vapor pressure thresholds for control. Note that we also
propose to clarify that condensate and crude oil are considered to be
the same material with respect to OLD applicability (see section IV.E.3
of this preamble for more details on this clarification).
Table 6--Proposed OLD NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Annual Average
True Vapor Pressure Thresholds for Control Under Control Option \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank contents and average true
vapor pressure of total Table 1
Existing/new source and tank capacity to subpart EEEE of part 63
organic HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil or condensate and
capacity >=18.9 cubic meters (5,000 if the annual average true
gallons) and <75.7 cubic meters vapor pressure of the stored
(20,000 gallons). organic liquid is >=27.6
kilopascals (4.0 psia) and
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil or condensate and
capacity >=75.7 cubic meters (20,000 if the annual average true
gallons) and <151.4 cubic meters vapor pressure of the stored
(40,000 gallons). organic liquid is >=13.1
kilopascals (1.9 psia) and
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil or condensate and
capacity >=151.4 cubic meters (40,000 if the annual average true
gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters vapor pressure of the stored
(50,000 gallons). organic liquid is >=5.2
kilopascals (0.75 psia) and
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a Not crude oil or condensate and
capacity >=189.3 cubic meters (50,000 if the annual average true
gallons). vapor pressure of the stored
organic liquid is <76.6
kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=18.9 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters the stored organic liquid is
(10,000 gallons). >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=37.9 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic the stored organic liquid is
meters (50,000 gallons). >=0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia)
and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source Not crude oil and if the annual
with a capacity >=189.3 cubic meters average true vapor pressure of
(50,000 gallons). the stored organic liquid is
<76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
The stored organic liquid is
crude oil or condensate.
Existing, reconstructed, or new Not crude oil or condensate and
affected source meeting any of the if the annual average true
capacity criteria specified above. vapor pressure of the stored
organic liquid is >=76.6
kilopascals (11.1 psia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2 is an improvement in practices because these monitoring
methods have been required by other regulatory agencies since
promulgation of the OLD NESHAP to confirm the vapor tightness of tank
seals and gaskets to ensure compliance with the standards. Further, we
have observed leaks on roof deck fittings through monitoring with
Method 21 that could not be found with visual observation techniques.
See the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review
for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source
Category, available in the docket to this action for further background
on this control option.
This proposed option would apply to any fixed roof storage tank
that is part of an OLD affected source that is not subject to the 95
percent by weight and equivalent controls according to the proposed
thresholds above. The proposed requirements of option 2 would apply to
new and existing sources for storage tanks having a capacity of 3.8
cubic meters (1,000 gallons) or greater that store organic liquids with
an annual average true vapor pressure of 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia) or
greater.
Table 7 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the
two options considered to be cost effective and the expected reduction
in modeled emissions from storage tank emission points. We also
evaluated other storage tank control options beyond these two,
including installation of geodesic domes on external floating roof
tanks, during our technology review, but did not find them to be
generally cost effective and, therefore, have not discussed them in
detail here. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all
options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic
Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the docket to this
action.
Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the
[[Page 56312]]
options, we consider control options 1 and 2 to be cost-effective
strategies for further reducing emissions from storage tanks at OLD
facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP requirements for
storage tanks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on
the proposed revisions related to storage tanks based on technology
review under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Table 7--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Costs of Control Options Considered for Storage Tanks at OLD Sources \1\
[2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total annualized annualized VOC HAP VOC cost VOC cost HAP cost HAP cost
Control option capital costs w/o costs with emission emission effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
investment credits ($/ credits ($/ reductions reductions w/o credits ($/ with credits w/o credits ($/ with credits
($) year) year) (tpy) (tpy) ton) ($/ton) ton) ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................. 2,380,000 309,000 127,000 202 117 1,500 630 2,600 1,100
2.............................................................. 0 30,000 (118,000) 164 95 180 (720) 320 (1,200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recovery credits represent the savings in product that would not be lost from tank losses or fitting leaks.
2. Equipment Leaks
Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or
liquids that escape to the atmosphere through many types of connection
points (e.g., threaded fittings) or through the moving parts of certain
types of process equipment during normal operation. Equipment regulated
by the OLD NESHAP includes pumps, PRDs (as part of a vapor balancing
system), sampling collection systems, and valves that operate in
organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year. The OLD NESHAP
provides the option for equipment to meet the control requirements of
either 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT (National Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1 Standards), UU (National Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards), or H
(National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Equipment Leaks). The equipment leak requirements vary by equipment
(component) type and by requirement (i.e., subpart TT, UU, or H) but
generally require LDAR programs using Method 21 to monitor at certain
frequencies (e.g., monthly, quarterly, every 2 quarters, annually) and
specify leak definitions (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 10,000 ppm) if the
component is in gas or light liquid service. The LDAR provisions for
components in heavy liquid service require sensory monitoring and the
use of Method 21 to monitor leaks identified through sensory
monitoring.
Our technology review for equipment leaks identified two
developments in LDAR practices and processes: (1) Adding connectors to
the monitored equipment component types at a leak definition of 500 ppm
(i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with either 40 CFR part 63,
subparts UU or H) and (2) eliminating the option of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT for valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems,
essentially requiring compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or H.
These two proposed practices and processes are already in effect at
sources that are often collocated with OLD NESHAP sources, such as in
the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). Further, we have found
that several OLD sources are permitted using various state LDAR
regulations that incorporate equipment leak provisions at the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU requirement level or above and also require
connector monitoring as part of the facility's air permit requirements.
For equipment leaks control option 1, the baseline is that
connectors are not controlled using a LDAR program since the current
OLD NESHAP does not include them as equipment to be monitored. For
control option 2, the impact is lowering the leak definitions for
valves and pumps to account for the differences in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. That
is, valves in light liquid service would drop from a leak definition of
10,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and pumps would drop from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000
ppmv. Sampling connection requirements are the same for the two
subparts.
Table 8 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the
two options considered and the expected reduction in modeled emissions
from equipment leak emission points. During our technology review, we
also evaluated additional options for controlling equipment leaks,
which would have had lower leak definitions for valves and pumps than
the two options identified here. Details on the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum,
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks
Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available
in the docket to this action.
Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the options, we consider control option 1 to be a cost-effective
strategy for further reducing emissions from equipment leaks at OLD
facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP for equipment
leaks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are not proposing option 2
because we consider this option to not be cost effective. We solicit
comment on the proposed revisions related to equipment leaks based on
technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Table 8--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Control Options Considered for Equipment Leaks at OLD Sources \1\
[2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Total annualized annualized VOC HAP VOC cost VOC cost HAP cost HAP cost
Control option capital costs w/o costs with emission emission effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
investment credits ($/ credits ($/ reductions reductions w/o credits ($/ with credits w/o credits ($/ with credits
($) year) year) (tpy) (tpy) ton) ($/ton) ton) ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................. 1,640,000 567,000 490,000 300 174 1,900 1,600 3,300 2,800
[[Page 56313]]
2.............................................................. 2,509,000 565,000 516,000 54 31 10,500 9,500 18,000 16,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recovery credits are the savings in product that would not be lost from equipment due to leaks.
3. Transfer Racks
Transfer racks are process equipment that transfer liquids from
storage vessels into cargo tanks (i.e., tank trucks and railcars).
Emissions from transfer racks occur as the organic liquid is loaded
into the cargo tank, thereby displacing the vapor space in the tank
above the liquid's surface. These emissions can be affected primarily
by the turbulence (i.e., splashing) during loading, temperature of the
liquids, and volume transferred.
The current OLD NESHAP requires control of transfer racks in
organic liquid service through a variety of means, but with an
equivalent control efficiency of 98 percent. This control efficiency
was determined during the NESHAP rulemaking to be achievable by well-
designed and operated combustion devices (69 FR 5054, February 3,
2004). We evaluated the thresholds for control in the current rule
against the 2012 proposed uniform standards for storage vessels and
transfer operations (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2010-0871) and found that
the current thresholds for controls are equivalent or more stringent
than those in proposed in 2012.
We also considered an option that would apply 98-percent control
requirements for transfer racks to large throughput transfer racks
transferring organic liquid materials that are 5 percent or less by
weight HAP. We analyzed the population of transfer racks and identified
potentially affected transfer racks. Considering the costs of control
and the HAP emissions for these racks, this option was also found to be
cost ineffective. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to change the
emission standard for transfer racks. For more information, see the
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Transfer Racks
Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category memorandum
in the docket for this action.
4. Fenceline Monitoring Alternative
The EPA is proposing a fenceline monitoring program as an
alternative compliance option for certain requirements being proposed
in this action. The fenceline monitoring option would be available to
existing and new OLD facilities in lieu of implementing certain
proposed requirements for storage vessels and equipment leaks. OLD
operations located at facilities that are required to implement a
fenceline monitoring program under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP at 40
CFR part 63, subpart CC would not be eligible to use this alternative
compliance option. The rationale for excluding petroleum refineries
from exercising the fenceline monitoring alternative is because these
facilities already implement a fenceline monitoring program for benzene
and because only a few refineries have OLD operations, which contribute
a small proportion of the refineries overall HAP emissions inventory.
We believe petroleum refineries should continue to implement fenceline
monitoring under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP.
We are proposing optional fenceline monitoring as an advancement in
monitoring practice because of the significant quantities of HAP
emissions originating from OLD operations that are fugitive in nature,
and as such, are impractical to directly measure (for example, fixed
roof tanks, external floating roof tanks, equipment leaks, uncontrolled
transfer operations). Direct measurement of fugitive emissions from
sources such as storage vessels and equipment leaks can be costly and
difficult, especially if required to be deployed on all OLD sources of
fugitive emissions throughout the source category.\29\ This is a major
reason why fugitive emissions associated with OLD operations are
generally estimated using factors and correlations rather than by
direct measurement. For example, equipment leak emissions are estimated
using emissions factors or correlations between leak rates and
concentrations from Method 21 instrument monitoring. Relying on these
kinds of approaches introduces uncertainty into the emissions inventory
for fugitive emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ In general, testing fugitive sources requires methodologies
for which the EPA has not developed standard test methods and for
which there are few contractors that can perform such testing. While
it may be possible to obtain data on some fugitive sources, the
testing requires intense planning and analysis by highly qualified
experts in order to limit the data uncertainty and isolate the
fugitive sources. These techniques often require very expensive
equipment to obtain results. Additionally, by their nature, fugitive
sources have more variable emissions than point sources, making it
more difficult to determine representative testing conditions. Point
source emissions occur at all times that the process operates and
are routed through a stack where mass emissions may be determined by
measuring concentration and flow, whereas equipment such as
connectors only exhibit emissions when there is an issue that needs
to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the technology review, we evaluated developments in
processes, practices, and control technologies for measuring and
controlling fugitive emissions from individual emission points at OLD
sources. For storage vessels, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this
preamble, we are proposing to lower the vapor pressure threshold for
emission control for storage tanks at existing sources having
capacities of 20,000 to 50,0000 gallons and we are proposing to require
monitoring of components on fixed roof storage tanks. For equipment
leaks, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, we are
proposing to include connectors in the LDAR program.
We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD operations may
implement a fenceline monitoring program in lieu of the proposed
technology review amendments for storage tanks and equipment leaks
discussed above. In summary, if an owner or operator opts to implement
the fenceline monitoring alternative standard, then the facility would
not need to perform connector monitoring for equipment leaks, would not
need to perform annual inspections on storage tank closures, and would
not need to install controls for storage tanks between 20,000 and
50,000 gallons pursuant to Table 2b. Instead of complying with these
requirements, the facility would need to develop a detailed inventory
of allowable HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility,
including identification of which equipment are in OLD service;
[[Page 56314]]
determine which HAP to monitor based on emissions from OLD equipment;
run the HEM-3 model to determine the annual average modeled
concentration of each HAP; set an action level based on the modeled
concentration of selected HAP; submit the modeling input file and
results to the EPA for approval; deploy passive sample tubes on the
fenceline of your facility every 14 days using Method 325A of appendix
A to 40 CFR part 63 (``Method 325A''); have the passive tubes analyzed
for the selected HAP using Method 325B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63
(``Method 325B''); calculate the difference of the highest recorded
concentration minus the lowest recorded concentration (i.e., delta C)
for each sample period; calculate a rolling annual average delta C for
each selected HAP; report recorded concentrations and calculated delta
C values to the EPA electronically; and, if the rolling annual average
delta C is greater than the action level established from the modeling
effort, then the facility must perform a root cause analysis and take
corrective action to bring the annual average delta C to below the
action level. Like the petroleum refinery fenceline monitoring results,
the EPA plans to make the reported monitored data publicly available.
Details about this optional fenceline monitoring program are described
in the subsections below: (a) Developments in Monitoring Technology and
Practices; (b) Analytes to Monitor; (c) Concentration Action Level; (d)
Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors; (e) Reporting
Monitoring Results; (f) Reducing Monitoring Frequency; (g) Corrective
Action Requirements; and (h) Costs Associated with Fenceline Monitoring
Alternatives.
The EPA is proposing this option for several reasons: (1) There is
concern that the uncertainty surrounding estimated fugitive emissions
from OLD operations may be underestimating actual fugitive emissions
from OLD operations; (2) the proposed fenceline monitoring program
would provide owners and operators a flexible alternative to
appropriately manage fugitive emissions of HAP from OLD operations if
they are significantly greater than estimated values; and (3) the
proposed frequency of monitoring time-integrated samples on a 2-week
basis would provide an opportunity for owners and operators to detect
and manage any spikes in fugitive emissions sooner than they might have
been detected from equipment subject to annual or quarterly monitoring
in the proposed amendments or from equipment that is not subject to
equipment leak monitoring in the proposed rule.
The EPA believes the proposed fenceline monitoring alternative
would be equivalent to the proposed technology review revisions it
would replace. The EPA is proposing to establish the trigger for root
cause analysis and corrective action based on modeled HAP
concentrations emitted from OLD equipment and considering the expected
concentrations of HAP at the fenceline from all equipment at the
facility. The HAP to be monitored are those having the most HAP
emissions from OLD equipment at the facility including those that are
emitted from equipment that would have been subject to the proposed
requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks had the owner or
operator of the facility not opted to implement the alternative
fenceline monitoring. If actual annual average delta C is at or below
the modeled values considering allowable emissions adjusted to reflect
compliance with the connector monitoring and proposed amendments to the
storage tank requirements, then fugitive emissions from the facility
having OLD operations would be considered equivalent to the level of
control that would be required by these proposed amendments. If the
actual annual average delta C is above the action level, then the
facility must perform root cause analysis and, if the cause is from
emissions at the facility, then the facility would be required to
reduce emissions to a level so that the annual average delta C is below
the action level.
As discussed above, we believe the proposed fenceline monitoring
option would achieve an equivalent level of HAP emissions reductions as
the proposed amendments to the storage tank and equipment leak
requirements that this program would replace and would be appropriate
under CAA section 112(d)(6) to propose as an alternative equivalent
requirement to address fugitive emissions from OLD sources.
Regarding uncertainty in emissions, emissions of HAP from OLD
operations are often fugitive, that is, emissions that are not routed
through a stack or cannot reasonably be measured. Emissions from
storage tanks that are not routed through a closed vent system to
control are usually calculated using equations in Chapter 7 of the
EPA's Compilation of Air Emissions Factors (AP-42).\30\ Equipment leaks
are often calculated using presumptive emission factors for different
types of equipment (e.g., valves, pump seals, sampling connections,
connectors) in specific types of service (gas, light liquid, heavy
liquid) using the EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates.\31\ There is uncertainty surrounding these emission factors.
Actual emissions may be different if the equipment is operating at
different conditions than those used to set the emission factors. A
large proportion of HAP emissions from OLD operations are inventoried
by calculating emissions using these emission factors and protocols. By
monitoring fenceline concentrations of HAP and comparing the annual
average concentrations to the concentrations that would be expected
from modeling the emissions calculated using emission factors, the
owner or operator would be able to determine if the emissions from the
facility are close to those that were calculated in the inventory used
to generate the action level. In this way, fenceline monitoring is a
method that can help evaluate whether the uncertainty surrounding the
calculations used to estimate fugitive emissions at a particular
facility is a concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch07/index.html.
\31\ https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1006KE4.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the opportunity to detect spikes in fugitive emissions
earlier, the 2-week sample time is more frequent than the LDAR
requirements in the proposed rule (quarterly, annual) and more frequent
than the proposed floating roof inspection requirements (annual for
closure devices on fixed roof tanks, annual top-side floating roof
inspections, and close-up inspections of floating roof seals when the
storage tanks are emptied and degassed). This provides an opportunity
to detect problems sooner than they otherwise might be detected. Also,
there is an opportunity for the monitors to detect emissions from
equipment that would not otherwise be detected with the requirements
for storage tanks and equipment leaks in the proposed amendments to
this rule. Fenceline monitoring would provide the opportunity to
identify any significant increase in emissions (e.g., a large equipment
leak or a significant tear in a storage vessel seal) in a more timely
manner, which would allow owners or operators to identify and reduce
HAP emissions more rapidly than if a source relied solely on the
existing monitoring and inspection methods required by the OLD NESHAP.
Small or short-term increases in emissions are not likely to raise the
fenceline concentration above the action level, so a fenceline
[[Page 56315]]
monitoring approach will generally target larger emission sources that
have the most impact on the ambient pollutant concentration near the
facility.
Further, selection of the HAP to monitor are based on the emissions
from OLD operations that would be subject to these proposed amended
requirements (connector monitoring, tank closure inspections, and
revised storage tank vapor pressure thresholds for control) at the
facility. The action level would be set using modeled concentrations of
these HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility and would
represent an equivalent level of control to the proposed enhancements
to the storage tanks and equipment leak requirements. Therefore, we
conclude that, over the long term, the HAP emission reductions achieved
by complying with the fenceline monitoring alternative would be
equivalent to, or better than, compliance with the enhanced standards
being proposed here because of the potential for earlier detection of
significant emission leaks and the potential to address fugitive
emissions that are not being reflected in the HAP emission inventories
due to the uncertainty surrounding how those emissions are calculated.
The following proposed requirements would not apply if a source
chooses to comply with the fenceline monitoring alternative: (1) Lower
threshold (i.e., tank vapor pressure and volume) for requiring emission
controls on tanks expressed in proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63
subpart EEEE; (2) inspection of closure devices on fixed roof tanks
expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2343(e)(4); and (3) LDAR monitoring for
connectors expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1). The proposed
revisions, if finalized, would not change a facility's responsibility
to comply with the emissions standards and other requirements of the
OLD NESHAP as currently in effect and the amendments to the rule other
than the three identified above in this paragraph. We solicit comment
on the proposed revisions related to the fenceline monitoring
alternative based on technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6).
a. Developments in Monitoring Technology and Practices
The fenceline monitoring alternative is a practicable NESHAP
requirement because of developments in monitoring technology. The EPA
reviewed the available literature and identified several methods for
measuring fenceline emissions. The methods analyzed were (1) Passive
diffusive tube monitoring networks; (2) active monitoring station
networks; (3) ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy
(UV-DOAS) fenceline monitoring; (4) open-path Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); (5) Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL)
monitoring; and (6) solar occultation flux monitoring. We considered
these monitoring methods as developments in practices under CAA section
112(d)(6) for purposes of all fugitive emission sources at OLD
operations.
While each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses,
we conclude that a passive diffusive tube monitoring network is the
most appropriate fenceline monitoring technology that has been
demonstrated and is applicable to OLD operations. We conclude that DIAL
and solar occultation flux can be used for short-term studies, but
these methods are not appropriate for continuous monitoring. While
active monitoring stations, UV-DOAS, and FTIR are technically feasible,
passive diffusive tubes have been demonstrated to be feasible and
commercially available with substantially lower capital and operating
costs. We, therefore, are proposing to require the use of passive
diffusive tubes as the monitoring technology for the fenceline
monitoring alternative for OLD operations. Our evaluation of the six
alternative fugitive monitoring technologies is summarized in the
proposal preamble for the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR at 79 FR 36880
(June 30, 2014). For this action, we have not evaluated any other
fugitive emissions monitoring techniques beyond those described in the
Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR. While the discussion in the proposal
preamble of the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR is in the context of
emissions from a petroleum refinery, passive tube monitoring is equally
applicable to HAP emitted by OLD operations. The method for conducting
fenceline monitoring using this technology is prescribed in Methods
325A and 325B. The method is applicable to any VOC that has been
properly validated under Method 325B. Table 12.1 of Method 325B lists
benzene and 17 additional organic compounds having verified method
performance and validated uptake rates for specified sorbents used in
the passive sampling tubes. Owners and operators of an OLD operation
can obtain approval from the EPA for additional HAP compounds or
different sorbents by conducting validation testing described in
Addendum A of Method 325B or in one of the following national/
international standard methods: ISO 16017-2:2003(E), American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6196-03 (Reapproved 2009), BS EN
14662-4:2005, or a method reported in the peer-reviewed open
literature.
b. Analytes To Monitor
For facilities that opt to implement fenceline monitoring at 40 CFR
63.2348(b)(2), we are proposing to specify how to determine the HAP to
monitor and the action level that determines when root cause and
corrective action must be taken. There is a wide variety of organic
liquids stored at different facilities in the nation. Accordingly, we
do not believe there is a single HAP that is suitable to universally
represent an accurate indicator of the performance of tank and other
fugitive emission control strategies across all OLD facilities. To
ensure an effective monitoring framework, we are proposing that a
facility that chooses the fenceline monitoring alternative would
monitor simultaneously for at least the number of HAP that will
represent the HAP emissions from the OLD operations at the facility. We
are proposing that each facility would monitor for the organic HAP that
has the most annual allowable emissions from OLD operations. If this
HAP is emitted from the equipment that would have been subject to the
proposed new requirements (i.e., the connectors subject to the
equipment leak provisions at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1) and the
storage tanks that would have been subject to the control criteria at
proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE or 40 CFR
63.2343(e)(4)), then monitoring that HAP at the fenceline is
sufficient. Otherwise, the facility must monitor that HAP as well as
additional HAP necessary to ensure that the HAP being emitted from
sources that would have been subject to additional control are
monitored through the fenceline program, i.e., each piece of OLD
equipment that would have been subject to controls emits at least one
HAP monitored at the fenceline. We are soliciting comment on whether
one of the analytes should be set as benzene, which is a pollutant
common to most terminals subject to the OLD NESHAP. We are also
soliciting comment on whether different criteria should be established
to determine which analytes should be monitored and reported.
c. Concentration Action Level
We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(b)(3), the method by which the
facility would determine the action level for each monitored HAP. The
action level is compared to the annual
[[Page 56316]]
average delta C to determine whether a root cause analysis, and
potentially corrective action to reduce emissions, is triggered. The
action level would be set for each HAP as an air concentration,
expressed in micrograms per cubic meter, equal to the highest modeled
fenceline concentration for the selected HAP.
As input to the modeling, each facility would be required to
prepare an inventory of their allowable emissions assuming full
compliance with the final revised OLD NESHAP developed from this
regulatory action. To ensure consistency and equity among affected
sources, each facility would follow guidance developed by the EPA for
preparing the emissions inventory and conducting modeling using the
HEM-3 model, which contains an atmospheric dispersion model and
meteorological data. A draft of the proposed guidance is available for
review and comment in the docket for this proposed action (see Draft
Guidance on Determination of Analytes and Action Levels for Fenceline
Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution Sources).
In order to be eligible for the fenceline monitoring option, we are
proposing the monitored HAP's site-specific action level derived from
the modeling must be at least 5 times greater than the method detection
limit for the HAP. This requirement will ensure that sources are not
unreasonably put into a corrective action routine due solely to the
relationship between the action level and the method detection limit.
For any 2-week sampling period, if the lowest recorded value falls
below the method detection limit for an analyte, then for the purposes
of calculating the delta C, a zero is used. Also, if all sample results
for any 2-week sample period are below the method detection limit, then
you must use the method detection limit as the highest sample result
for the purposes of calculating the delta C, effectively making delta C
equal to the method detection limit. Therefore, if the action level is
set to a value too close to the method detection limit, then achieving
an annual average delta C at or below the action level could become
difficult because only a few detectable readings could bring the annual
average delta C above the action level when those readings are averaged
with the method level of detection for the other sample periods.
Therefore, requiring an action level of at least 5 times greater than
the method limit of detection would alleviate this difficulty and
prevent cases where root cause analysis and corrective action are
required simply due to the way detectable concentrations are averaged
with the method limit of detection which is close to the action level.
To reduce the likelihood of this occurring, we are setting an
appropriate requirement that the method detection limit be well below
the action level for the HAP.
We propose that owners or operators of an existing affected OLD
operation would conduct modeling and submit the results and proposed
action levels to the Administrator no later than 1 year after the
effective date of the final rule, then deploy samplers and begin
collecting data no later than 2 years after the effective date of the
final rule. For new sources, if an owner or operator elects to conduct
a fenceline monitoring program, we are proposing that the owner or
operator would (1) model and submit for EPA approval action levels
within 3 months after establishment of allowable emissions in the title
V permit, (2) begin monitoring upon commencement of operation, (3)
submit the first report no later than 45 days following the end of the
calendar quarter in which 1 full year of monitoring data was collected,
and (4) subsequently submit monitoring reports by the end of each
subsequent calendar quarter.
d. Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors
The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(c) specification of the
passive monitoring locations. Facilities that use the fenceline
monitoring alternative must deploy and operate monitors by following
the requirements of Methods 325A and 325B. Method 325A requires
deployment of a minimum of 12 monitors around the fenceline, although
the minimum number and the placement of monitors depends on the size,
shape, and linear distance around the facility, as well as the
proximity of emissions sources to the property boundary, as described
in the method. Method 325A also specifies the requirements for sample
collection, while Method 325B specifies the requirements for sample
preparation and analysis.
The EPA is proposing that passive fenceline monitors would be
deployed and sampling would commence starting 2 years after the
effective date of this final rule. Passive sorbent tubes would be used
to collect 2-week time-integrated samples. For each 2-week period, the
facility would determine a delta C, calculated as the lowest sorbent
tube sample value subtracted from the highest sorbent tube sample
value. This approach is intended to subtract out the estimated
contribution from background emissions that do not originate from the
OLD facility. The delta C for the most recent 26 sampling periods would
be averaged to calculate an annual average delta C. The annual average
delta C would be determined on a rolling basis, meaning that it is
updated with every new sample (i.e., every 2 weeks, a new annual
average delta C is determined from the most recent 26 sampling
periods). This rolling annual average would be compared against the
relevant concentration action level.
e. Reporting Monitoring Results
After 1 full year of monitoring, the fenceline monitoring reports
would be submitted electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), to the EPA on a quarterly frequency.
Because the concentration action level is compared to an annual average
delta C, monitoring data from 1 full year is needed to assess
compliance with the requirements of the alternative fenceline
compliance option. Therefore, we are proposing that OLD owners and
operators would not be required to submit the initial fenceline
monitoring report until after 1 full year of data is available. The
initial report would be required to be submitted no later than 45 days
following the end of the calendar quarter in which 1 full year of
monitoring data is obtained. Each subsequent compliance report would
include monitoring data collected for the calendar quarter following
the data reported in the previous report and would be due no later than
45 days following the end of the calendar quarter covered by the
monitoring. For example, if the effective date of this rule is March
27, 2020, then the establishment of the action levels must be submitted
to the EPA or the delegated authority by March 27, 2021; fenceline
monitoring would begin by March 27, 2022; the first report would
include data collected from March 27, 2022, through March 31, 2023; and
the first report would be submitted by May 15, 2023. At that point,
quarterly reporting would commence; the next report would include data
collected from April 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023, and would be
submitted by August 14, 2023. See section IV.E.2 of this preamble for
further discussion on reporting fenceline monitoring data.
f. Reducing Monitoring Frequency
To reduce the burden of monitoring, we are proposing provisions at
40 CFR 63.2348(e)(3) that would allow OLD owners or operators to reduce
the frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling locations where
ambient air concentrations are consistently well below the fenceline
concentration action level for all analytes. Specifically,
[[Page 56317]]
we are allowing owners or operators to monitor every other 2-week
period (i.e., skip period monitoring) if over a 2-year period, each
sample collected at a specific monitoring location is at or below one
tenth of the action level for each analyte. If every sample collected
from that sampling location during the subsequent 2 years is at or
below one tenth of the action level, the monitoring frequency may be
reduced from every other sampling period to once every sixth sampling
period (approximately quarterly). After an additional 2 years, the
monitoring can be reduced to once every thirteenth sampling period
(semiannually) and finally to annually after another 2 years, provided
the samples continue to be at or below one tenth of the action level
during all sampling events at that location. If at any time a sample
for a monitoring location that is monitored at a reduced frequency
returns a concentration greater than one tenth the action level, the
owner or operator must return to the original sampling requirements for
1 quarter (monitor every 2 weeks for the next six monitoring periods
for that location). If every sample collected during that quarter is at
or below one tenth the action level, then the sampling frequency
reverts back to the reduced monitoring frequency for that monitoring
location; if not, then the sampling frequency reverts back to the
original monitoring frequency, with samples being taken every 2-week
period.
g. Corrective Action Requirements
If at any time the annual average delta C exceeds the action level
for any of the monitored HAP, then a root cause analysis is required to
determine the source of the emissions that caused the exceedance and
whether corrective action is needed to return monitored delta C
concentrations to below the relevant action level. As described
previously, the EPA is proposing that the owner or operator analyze the
samples and compare the rolling annual average fenceline concentration,
adjusted to remove the estimated background emissions, to the
concentration action level. This section summarizes the corrective
action requirements in this proposed rule.
We are proposing that the calculation of the rolling annual average
delta C for each monitored HAP must be completed within 45 days after
the completion of each 2-week sampling period. If the rolling annual
average delta C exceeds the respective concentration action level for
any monitored HAP, the facility must, within 5 days of determining the
concentration action level has been exceeded, initiate a root cause
analysis to determine the primary cause, and any other contributing
cause(s), of the exceedance. The facility must complete the root cause
analysis and implement corrective action within 45 days of initiating
the root cause analysis. We are not proposing specific controls or
corrections that would be required when the concentration action level
is exceeded because the cause of an exceedance could vary greatly from
facility to facility and episode to episode, since many different
sources emit fugitives. Rather, we are proposing to allow facilities to
determine, based on their own analysis of their operations, the action
that must be taken to reduce air concentrations at the fenceline to
levels at or below the concentration action level.
If, upon completion of the corrective action described above, the
owner or operator exceeds the action level for the next 2-week sampling
period following the completion of a first set of corrective actions,
the owner or operator would be required to develop and submit a
corrective action plan that would describe the corrective actions
completed to date. The plan would include a schedule for implementation
of emission reduction measures that the owner or operator can
demonstrate as soon as practical. The plan would be submitted to the
Administrator within 60 days of an exceedance occurring during the next
2-week sampling period following the completion of the initial round of
corrective action. The corrective action plan does not need to be
approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator is not deemed out
of compliance with the concentration action level, provided that the
appropriate corrective action measures are taken according to the time
frame detailed in the corrective action plan.
We anticipate that the fenceline monitoring requirements and
associated corrective action provisions would provide an alternative
compliance option to reduce exposure to HAP that we believe would not
pose an unreasonable burden on OLD operations. Assuming the inventories
and associated modeling conducted by the OLD operators are accurate, we
expect that few, if any, facilities will need to engage in required
corrective action. We do, however, expect that facilities may identify
``poor-performing'' sources (e.g., those with unusual leaks) from the
fenceline monitoring data and, based on this additional information,
will take action to reduce HAP emissions before they otherwise would
have been aware of the issue through existing inspection and
enforcement measures.
In some instances, a high fenceline concentration may be affected
by a non-OLD emission source that is collocated within the property
boundary. The likely instances of this situation would be leaks from
equipment or storage vessels from processes that are subject to the HON
(40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H), the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF), or the NESHAP for
Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR part 63, subpart R). Whenever the
action level is exceeded, we are proposing that the OLD owner or
operator must take whatever corrective action is needed to reduce the
relevant HAP air concentration to below the action level concentration,
including corrective actions for any contributing sources that are
under common ownership or common control of the OLD operation and that
are within the plant site boundary. We conclude that requiring
corrective action for all commonly owned or controlled equipment is
reasonable because the fenceline alternative is an optional control
strategy and would likely be selected if the OLD facility determined
that the fenceline alternative provides an economic advantage or
potential cost savings or if the facility otherwise wishes to perform
fenceline monitoring as a more effective and flexible way to manage
fugitive emissions. In a situation where collocated equipment is not
under common ownership or control of the OLD owner or operator, then
the rule provisions for adjusting for background HAP concentrations,
previously discussed in this section of the preamble, would apply.
h. Costs Associated With Fenceline Monitoring Alternatives
The cost for fenceline monitoring is dependent on the sampling
frequency and the number of monitoring locations needed based on the
size and geometry of the facility. For typical storage terminals
subject to the OLD NESHAP, we assume the size of each facility would be
less than 750 acres and the number of monitoring sites to be no more
than 18 based on the specifications in Methods 325A and 325B. We use
the same approach to estimate costs as outlined in the June 2015
technical memorandum, Fenceline Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final
Rule, from the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, also available in the
docket for this action. We estimate the first-year installation and
equipment costs for the passive tube monitoring system could cost up to
$95,370. We estimate that
[[Page 56318]]
annualized costs for ongoing monitoring to facilities that choose to
implement this alternative compliance option would be up to $35,000 per
year per facility, and total annualized costs would be up to $45,000
per year per facility. These figures are expressed in year 2016$.
The primary goal of a fenceline monitoring network is to ensure
that owners and operators properly monitor and manage fugitive HAP
emissions. Because we are proposing a concentration action level that
each facility derives by modeling fenceline HAP concentrations after
full compliance with the proposed and existing requirements of the OLD
NESHAP, as amended by this proposed action, the fenceline concentration
action level would be set at levels that each facility in the category
can meet. Therefore, we do not project any additional HAP emission
reductions beyond the proposed requirements that the alternative
fenceline monitoring compliance option would achieve. However, if an
owner or operator has underestimated the fugitive emissions from one or
more sources (e.g., a leak develops or a tank seal or fitting fails),
then a fenceline monitoring system would likely identify those excess
emissions earlier than under current and proposed amended monitoring
requirements. The fenceline monitoring system would ensure that HAP
emissions in excess of those projected would be addressed, potentially
more completely and quickly than the requirements replaced by
implementing the fenceline monitoring. We note that any costs for a
fugitive monitoring system would be offset, to some extent, by product
recovery because addressing these leaks more quickly has the potential
to reduce product losses.
E. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes to require electronic
reporting of emissions test results, and to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors.
Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed
below.
1. SSM Requirements
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.2378(b). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are
also proposing several revisions to Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred to
as the ``General Provisions table to subpart EEEE'') as is explained in
more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2350(c)
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the SSM exemption as further described below. In addition, we are
proposing to make the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR
63.2406 that specifically addresses SSM periods no longer applicable
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. Finally, because 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE requires closed
vent systems and APCDs to meet certain requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(l) to make portions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (those applicable references related to the
SSM exemption) no longer applicable.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
We are proposing that, emissions from startup and shutdown
activities must be included when determining if all the standards are
being attained. As currently proposed in 40 CFR 63.2378(e), you must be
in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating
limits) in this subpart ``at all times,'' except during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof)
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
Emission reductions for transfer rack operations are typically achieved
by routing vapors to an APCD such as a flare, thermal oxidizer, or
carbon adsorber. It is common practice in this source category to start
an APCD prior to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so
the APCD would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We
expect APCDs would be operating during startup and shutdown events in a
manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these APCDs
will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring parameter
operating limits set during the performance test. We do not expect
startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from storage vessels or
equipment leaks. Working and breathing losses from storage vessels are
the same regardless of whether the process is operating under normal
operating conditions or if it is in a startup or shutdown event. Leak
detection programs associated with equipment leaks are in place to
detect leaks, and, therefore, it is inconsequential whether the process
is operating under normal operating conditions or is in startup or
shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the
[[Page 56319]]
category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency
to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the
best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court
has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how
the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an APCD with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result
of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a
baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit
that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the APCD was repaired. The source's
emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during
normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction
period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal
operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions
could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly
less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-
malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to
avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent
with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had
information to determine that such work practices reflected the level
of control that applies to the best performing sources (80 FR 75178,
75211-14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
Finally, in keeping with the elimination of the SSM exemption, we
are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(m) to remove the use of SSM exemption
provisions located in subparts referenced by the OLD NESHAP (i.e., 40
CFR part 63, subparts H, SS, and UU) when the owner or operator is
demonstrating compliance with the OLD NESHAP.
b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability
Table
40 CFR 63.2350(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2350(d) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore,
[[Page 56320]]
the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2350(d) does not
include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to
subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.2350(d).
The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.2350(d) would require that the
owner or operator operate and maintain any affected source, including
APCD and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For
example, in the event of an emission capture system or APCD malfunction
for a controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in
40 CFR 63.2350(d), the facility would need to cease the controlled
operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions
during emission capture system and APCD malfunctions are minimized.
SSM Plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA
vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the
CAA requires that section 112 standards generally apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts
sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the
EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all
times.
40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6) Performance testing. We are proposing to
revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry
for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.''
We are also proposing to remove a similar requirement at 40 CFR
63.2354(b)(5). 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6). The performance testing
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions
performance testing provisions in several respects. The proposed
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions
will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. Also, the EPA is proposing to add language at 40 CFR
63.2354(b)(6) that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) requires that
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator upon request
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test,'' but does not specifically require the information
to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Refer to section IV.A.1 of this
preamble for discussion of this proposed revision.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (Table 12) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR
63.2366(c) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the
final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program
of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40
CFR 63.8(d)(2).''
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2390(f). The regulatory text we
are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is
replacing in that the General Provisions require the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2390(f) a
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
[[Page 56321]]
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2390(f)(3).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes''
in column 4 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner
or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
40 CFR 63.2386 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Similarly,
we are also proposing that the references to this specific provision
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)) at 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(5) and Table 11 to
subpart EEEE would no longer be applicable. 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)
describes the reporting requirements for SSM. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. We are
proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time,
duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., organic liquid
loading rates and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We would no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments
would eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) (at 40 CFR
63.2386(c)(5) and item 1.a of Table 11 to subpart EEEE) that contains
the description of the previously required SSM report format and
submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
Requirements for flares. We are proposing to revise the General
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.11(b)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR
63.11(b) would be no longer applicable beginning 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Refer to section
IV.A.1 of this preamble for discussion of this proposed revision.
c. Requirements for Safety Devices
We are proposing to remove the safety device opening allowance of
40 CFR 63.2346(i) beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register. Pressure relief device provisions are
discussed in more detail in section IV.A.2 of this preamble.
d. Proposed Revisions Related to the Periods of Planned Routine
Maintenance of a Control Device and Bypass of Routing Emissions to a
Fuel Gas System or Process
Under the current OLD rule, there are two allowances for storage
tank and transfer rack emission limits to exceed the standard for up to
240 hours per year: (1) Periods of planned routine maintenance of a
control device and (2) bypass of the fuel gas system or process if
emissions are routed to these for control. In 2004, the EPA added these
allowances in the final rule in response to a comment that suggested
that an allowance is needed for planned routine maintenance of control
devices when storage tanks cannot be taken out of service.\32\ These
allowances represent periods of shutdown for the control devices used
to comply with the standards, so we are proposing to remove these
allowance periods for transfer racks and storage tank working losses to
be consistent with our proposal to eliminate other SSM event exemptions
discussed earlier in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Response to Comments Document For Promulgated
Standards--Organic Liquid Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Industry [A-
98-13 V-C-01], available at Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-
0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For transfer rack operations and storage tank working losses, most
facilities would likely be able to plan transfers to occur when the
control device is not shut down for maintenance. The owner or operator
of a storage tank or transfer operation also would have the option to
continue to transfer organic liquids during the planned routine
maintenance of the control device by operating a temporary control
device to meet the standards during these periods. We propose to
continue to allow storage tank breathing losses to occur during planned
routine maintenance of a control device for up to 240 hours per year
because these emissions would be significantly less than emptying and
degassing a storage tank prior to conducting planned routine
maintenance on a control device. We request comment on whether we
should allow some period of exceedance for solely tank breathing losses
during planned routine maintenance of a control device. See the
memorandum, 240-hour Exceedance Allowance Control Analysis, in the
docket for this action for details on alternative control costs and
impacts.
We expect this change to result in emission reductions of HAP.
However, we do not have enough information to make an accurate estimate
of the HAP
[[Page 56322]]
emission reductions, and we are not including any in the environmental
impacts, although we expect these HAP emission reductions could be up
to 390 tpy based on assumptions about pump rates and number of hours
needed for the planned routine maintenance of the control device at
each controlled transfer rack. We present the cost impacts of this
proposed revision in section V.C of this preamble.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD facilities submit
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports, NOCS reports, and fenceline
monitoring reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for
this action. The proposed rule requires that performance test results
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \33\ at the time of
the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the
ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable
document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT. The proposed rule requires that NOCS reports be submitted as a
PDF upload in CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For compliance reports and fenceline monitoring reports, the
proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. Draft versions of
the proposed templates for these reports are available in the docket
for this action.\34\ We specifically request comment on the content,
layout, and overall design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See OLD_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx and
OLD_Fenceline_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, which are available in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances,
the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible. We are providing these potential extensions
to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may
be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2386(i). The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR
63.2386(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \35\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \36\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\37\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\36\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\37\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Amendments and Corrections
The EPA has noted a situation where compliance assurance may be
challenged or possibly compromised due to the current rule's
requirements for emission sources not requiring control as specified in
40 CFR 63.2343. In the current provisions, the ``annual average true
vapor pressure'' definition contains the determination options, which
include some testing methods as options but also allow for standard
reference texts. The EPA is proposing to require testing and
recordkeeping to confirm the annual average true vapor pressure at
least every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the tank's
contents, whichever occurs first, to ensure the tank's applicability
and confirm that it should not be subject to the 95-percent control
requirements of the regulation. We are also proposing that this
periodic testing requirement may be met if the OLD responsible official
has been provided a certificate of analysis that includes vapor
pressure analysis data for the tank's contents by the liquid's supplier
within the 5-year period.
The HAP content determination requirements are not expressly stated
in the ``organic liquids'' definition, but there are HAP content
determination methods listed in 40 CFR 63.2354. The methods include
testing and analysis, material safety data sheets, or certified product
data sheets. No frequency for making these determinations are specified
in the current OLD NESHAP. Similar to the annual true vapor pressure,
we are proposing a requirement that the contents of tanks that are
claimed to be not subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less
than 5-percent HAP (and, therefore, do not meet the definition of
``organic liquids'' within the OLD NESHAP)
[[Page 56323]]
should be tested every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the
tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm that the tank is
not storing ``organic liquids'' and, therefore, is not subject to the
rule. We are also proposing that this periodic testing requirement may
be met if the OLD responsible official has been provided HAP content
analysis data for the tank's contents by the liquid's supplier within
the 5-year period.
The EPA is requesting comment on the need for these periodic
testing and analysis confirmations and also whether a definition of
``significant change to the tank's contents'' is necessary for
implementation purposes.
We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2354(c), which specified the
determination of HAP content of an organic liquid, by adding the
voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ATSM D6886-18, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas
Chromatography,'' as another acceptable method. We are also proposing
to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that requires analysis
by Method B or Method C in section of 4.3 of the VCS, ASTM D6886-18,
when organic liquids contain formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride. The
rationale for adding the use of ASTM D8668-18 and its use as a
governing method for organic liquids that contain formaldehyde or
carbon tetrachloride results from the inability of Method 311 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to detect the presence of these compounds.
We are proposing to amend the definition of the term ``annual
average true vapor pressure'' at 40 CFR 63.2406 by replacing one of the
acceptable methods for the determination of vapor pressure. We propose
to replace the method, ASTM D2879, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature
of Liquids by Isoteniscope,'' with the method, ASTM D6378-18a,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of
Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures
(Triple Expansion Method).'' ASTM D2879, the method in the current OLD
NESHAP, requires the use of an isoteniscope and involves heating the
sample until it boils, which can result in the loss of volatiles before
the vapor pressure is measured. The method we are proposing as a
replacement is a newer, automated device method that does not have this
step and is expected to produce more accurate vapor pressure
measurements for organic liquids regulated in the OLD NESHAP. This
method is suitable for a range of vapor to liquid ratios of 4:1 to 1:1.
We are also proposing that the use of this method to determine vapor
pressure of a liquid for the purposes of this rule sets the vapor to
liquid ratio at 4:1. Also, we are proposing to clarify in the
definition of the term ``annual average true vapor pressure'' regarding
how the American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2517,
Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, third edition,
February 1989 (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) can be used
to calculate vapor pressure. API Publication 2517 does not prescribe
methods that measure the vapor pressure of a liquid. However, this
publication does serve as a standard reference, although, it is
somewhat dated. It contains a table of vapor pressures of a few pure
substances at temperatures between 40 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It
also has charts and equations that can calculate true vapor pressure
from stock temperature and Reid vapor pressure for crude oils and
refined petroleum stocks. AP-42 Chapter 7, which is publicly available,
contains similar information regarding the determination of vapor
pressure as described in API Publication 2517. For these reasons, we
are proposing to remove specific reference to API Publication 2517 in
the definition of the term ``annual average true vapor pressure.''
At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control
devices, we are proposing to clarify that Method 18 of appendix A-6 to
40 CFR part 60 (``Method 18'') and Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR
part 63 (``Method 320'') are not appropriate for a combustion control
device because these methods would not detect the presence of HAP,
other than those HAP present at the inlet of the control device, that
may be generated from the combustion device. Also, we are specifying
that Method 320 is not appropriate if the gas stream contains entrained
water droplets.
At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(4) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control
devices, for cases in which formaldehyde is present in the uncontrolled
vent stream, we are proposing to allow the use of Method 320 or Method
323 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to measure the removal of
formaldehyde by the control device provided there are no entrained
water droplets in the gas stream.
At Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, item 1.a.i.(3), we are
replacing the specification of Method 3 of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part
60 with Method 3A of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 because Method 3A
is more accurate.
At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(ii)(B), we are proposing to clarify that
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004) may be used as an alternative to Method
18 for target compounds not listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99
provided that you must demonstrate recovery of the compound in addition
to the other conditions stated in the current rule.
At 40 CFR 63.2366(c), we are proposing to add specification of
written procedures for the operation of continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS). At 40 CFR 63.2366(d), we are proposing to add
specification of location of sampling probe for CEMS.
At 40 CFR 63.2406, we are proposing to add a definition of the term
condensate and to specify its regulation in this rule in the same way
crude oil is regulated at the definition of the term ``organic liquid''
and at Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. We are defining
the term condensate using the same definition that is used in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HH. We are making this clarification to ensure that
condensate (which, like crude oil, is an unrefined reservoir fluid
having significant quantities of HAP) is treated in the same manner as
crude oil in the OLD NESHAP.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects and reports
data regarding crude oil and lease condensate production in EIA Form-
914 as combined values and defines crude oil to include lease
condensate.\38\ EIA defines crude oil in its glossary as ``Crude oil: A
mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural
underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after
passing through surface separating facilities. Depending upon the
characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include 1. Small
amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in natural
underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure after
being recovered from oil well (casing head) gas in lease separators and
are subsequently comingled with the crude stream without being
separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a liquid from
natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities and later
mixed into the crude stream is also included; 2. Small amounts of
[[Page 56324]]
nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil, such as sulfur and various
metals; 3. Drip gases, and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar sands,
oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.'' \39\ Therefore, because the
current definition of crude oil at 40 CFR 63.2406 defines crude oil to
mean any fluid named crude oil and because condensates are a
significant part of crude oil production stream and are often sold as
fluids called condensate, we are adding the term condensate and using
it in the proposed amendments to ensure that unrefined reservoir fluids
named as condensate, that have HAP contents with a similar range as
crude oils, are being regulated in the same manner as crude oil in the
OLD NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Monthly Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/.
\39\ EIA Glossary, https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are adding the definition of the terms ``pressure relief
device'' and ``relief valve'' at 40 CFR 63.2406. The definitions of
these terms are the same as those included in the Petroleum Refinery
Sector final rule (see 83 FR 60696, November 26, 2018) and currently
used at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. We are also proposing to revise the
term ``pressure relief valve'' to ``relief valve'' at 40 CFR
63.2346(a)(4)(v).
Finally, there are several additional revisions that we are
proposing to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors.
These proposed editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized
in Table 9 of this preamble.
Table 9--Summary of Proposed Editorial, Clarification, and Minor
Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation(s) Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2338(c)...................... Referencing correction. Change
``paragraphs (c)(1) through
(4)'' to ``paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3)'' because there is
no paragraph (c)(4).
40 CFR 63.2342(d)...................... Referencing correction. Change
``in Sec. 63.2382(a) and
(b)(1) through (3)'' to ``in
Sec. 63.2382(a) and (b),''
because there is no paragraph
(b)(3).
40 CFR 63.2343(a)...................... Removing two uses of the
extraneous phrase ``identified
in paragraph (a) of this
section.''
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(v)................ Correcting the spelling of the
word ``gauge.''
40 CFR 63.2343(c)(1)(iii).............. Referencing correction. Change
``paragraph (b) or this
section'' to ``paragraph (c)
or this section.''
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(ii) and (d)(2); 40 Referencing correction for U.S.
CFR 63.2362(b)(2); 40 CFR Department of Transportation
63.2390(c)(2); and item 6 of Table 5 transport vehicle requirements
to Subpart EEEE. from ``pressure test
requirements of 49 CFR part
180 for cargo tanks and 49 CFR
173.31 for tank cars'' to
``qualification and
maintenance requirements in 49
CFR part 180, subpart E for
cargo tanks and subpart F for
tank cars''.
40 CFR 63.2350(a)...................... Referencing correction: Change
``in Sec. 63.2338(b)(1)
through (4)'' to ``in Sec.
63.2338(b)(1) through (5)''
because the last item in the
list was not included.
40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(i)(A), Removing the word ``EPA'' from
(b)(3)(i)(B), (b)(3), (c); 40 CFR the phrase ``EPA Method''
63.2406(b) definition of ``vapor-tight where the phrase precedes
transport vehicle;'' and Table 5 to designation of a method
Subpart EEEE. published in title 40 of the
CFR.
40 CFR 63.2354(c)...................... Changing the term used for the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's hazard
communication standard from
``material safety data sheet
(MSDS)'' to ``safety data
sheet (SDS).''
40 CFR 63.2366(a)...................... Spelling out ``continuous
monitoring system'' before the
acronym ``CMS,'' which is a
term defined at 40 CFR 63.2.
40 CFR 63.2406......................... In the definition of the term,
annual average true vapor
pressure, removing the word
``standard'' from ``standard
conditions'' because the
conditions specified in this
definition are not standard
conditions as defined at 40
CFR 63.2 and used in this
subpart.
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE................ In item 8, correcting a cross-
reference citation from
63.2366(c) to 63.2366(b).
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE............... Adding an entry for Sec.
63.7(e)(4), which specifies
the Administrator has the
authority to require
performance testing regardless
of specification of
performance testing at Sec.
63.7(e)(1)-(3).
Changing the entry for Sec.
63.10(d)(2), Report of
Performance Test Results, from
Yes to No. Proposed 40 CFR
63.2386 specifies how and when
the performance test results
are reported.
Changing the entry for Sec.
63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii), Excess
Emissions Report and Summary
Report, from Yes to No. This
information is required to be
submitted at proposed 40 CFR
63.2386.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
Amendments to the OLD NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(d)(6)
are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under
section 112(i).
For all of the requirements we are proposing under CAA sections
112(d)(2), (3), and (d)(6), we are proposing all affected sources must
comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the compliance
date shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3
years after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s
three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In
determining what compliance period is as expeditious as
[[Page 56325]]
practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to plan and
construct projects and change operating procedures.
We are proposing new monitoring requirements for flares under CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3). We anticipate that these requirements could
require engineering evaluations and, possibly in some limited cases,
require the installation of new flare monitoring equipment and possibly
new control systems to monitor and adjust assist gas (air or steam)
addition rates. Installation of new monitoring and control equipment on
flares will require the flare to be taken out of service. Depending on
the configuration of the flares and flare header system, taking the
flare out of service may also require a significant portion of the OLD
source to be shut down, especially if the facility is primarily a bulk
organic liquids terminal. Therefore, we are proposing that it is
necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final rule
(or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply
with the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares.
Under our technology review for equipment leaks under CAA section
112(d)(6), we are proposing to revise the LDAR requirements to add
connectors to the monitored equipment.
Also, as a result of our technology review for storage tanks, we
are proposing to lower applicability thresholds for tanks requiring 95-
percent HAP control so that more tanks will require control than with
the existing OLD NESHAP. Furthermore, we are proposing tank fitting
LDAR requirements for fixed roof storage tanks that are below the
applicability threshold for 95-percent HAP control. We project some
owners and operators would require engineering evaluations,
solicitation and review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation
of control equipment, which would require affected storage tanks to be
out of service while the retrofits with IFR or closed vent systems are
being installed. In addition, facilities will need time to read and
understand the amended rule requirements and update standard operating
procedures. Therefore, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide
3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup,
whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply with the proposed
storage tank and equipment leak provisions.
Finally, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM by
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and
implement an SSM plan; we are also proposing electronic reporting
requirements. We are positing that facilities would need some time to
successfully accomplish these revisions, including time to read and
understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown, as defined in the rule, and make any necessary
adjustments, and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary
hardware and software. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple
different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and
the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From
our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the
entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 3
years after the effective date of the final rule to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 3 years of the regulation's
effective date. For new sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after the publication date of this proposed action, we
are requiring compliance upon initial startup.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are 177 sources currently operating OLD equipment subject to
the OLD NESHAP. A complete list of facilities that are currently
subject to the OLD NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
EPA projects four new liquids terminals and one major terminal
expansion that would be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These new sources
are not included in the risk assessment modeling effort but are
included in the impacts analysis.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The risk assessment model input file identifies approximately 2,400
tons HAP emitted per year from equipment regulated by the OLD NESHAP.
The predominant HAP compounds include toluene, hexane, methanol,
xylenes (mixture of o, m, and p isomers), benzene, styrene, methyl
isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride, methyl tert-butyl ether, and ethyl
benzene. More information about the baseline emissions in the risk
assessment model input file can be found in Appendix 1 of the
memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action. This proposed action would reduce HAP emissions from
OLD NESHAP sources. The EPA estimates HAP emission reductions of
approximately 386 tpy based on our analysis of the proposed actions
described in sections IV.D.1 and 2 in this preamble. More information
about the estimated emission reductions of this proposed action can be
found in the document, National Impacts of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category, which is available in the docket for this
action.
We estimate a resulting reduction of the MIR from 20-in-1 million
to about 10-in-1 million. Likewise, population exposed to a cancer risk
of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from
350,000 to about 220,000. While not explicitly calculated, we would
expect commensurate reductions in other risks metrics such as
incidence, acute risk, multipathway risks, and ecological risks.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate the total capital costs of these proposed amendments to
be approximately $4.5 million and the total annualized costs (including
recovery credits) to be $1.8 million per year (2016 dollars). We also
estimate the present value in 2016 of the costs is $8.4 million at a
discount rate of 3 percent and $6.2 million at 7 percent (2016
dollars). Calculated as an equivalent annualized value, which is
consistent with the present value of costs in 2016, the costs are $1.8
million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.5 million at a discount
rate of 7 percent (2016 dollars). The annualized costs include those
for operating and maintenance, and recovery credits of approximately
$400,000 per year from the reduction in leaks and evaporative emissions
from storage tanks. To estimate savings in chemicals not being emitted
(i.e., lost) due to the equipment leak control options, we applied a
recovery credit of $900 per ton of VOC to the VOC emission reductions
in the analyses. The $900 per ton recovery credit has historically been
used by the EPA to represent the variety of chemicals that are used as
reactants and produced at
[[Page 56326]]
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities,\40\ however, we
recognize that this value is from a 2007 analysis and may be outdated.
Therefore, we solicit comment on the availability of more recent
information to potentially update the value used in this analysis to
estimate the recovery credits. We used an interest rate of 5 percent to
annualize the total capital costs. These estimated costs are associated
with amendments of the requirements for storage tanks, LDAR, flares,
and transfer racks. Table 10 of this preamble shows the estimated costs
for each of the equipment types. Detailed information about how we
estimated these costs are described in the following documents
available in the docket for this action: National Impacts of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, and Economic Impact and
Small Business Analysis for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ U.S. EPA. 2007. Standards of Performance for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refineries (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/E7-13203/standards-of-performance-for-equipment-leaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicals-manufacturing). EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699.
Table 10--Summary of Costs of Proposed Amendments by Equipment Type, in Millions
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized
cost (without Annual Total annualized
Equipment type Capital cost annual recovery recovery cost (with annual
credits) credits recovery credits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage tanks............................. 2.68 0.41 0.33 0.08
LDAR--connector monitoring................ 1.64 0.57 0.08 0.49
Flares.................................... 0.19 0.36 N/A 0.36
Transfer racks............................ 0.00 0.88 N/A 0.88
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 4.51 2.22 0.41 1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as
detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis
for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. The economic
impacts of the proposal are calculated as the percentage of total
annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners to their
revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact
to ultimate parent owners of OLD facilities while presuming no impact
on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners
affected by this proposal will incur total annualized costs of 0.2
percent or greater of their revenues. This estimate reflects the total
annualized costs without product recovery as a credit. Thus, these
economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industries
impacted by this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts on
the markets for affected products. The costs of the proposal are not
expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of
whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of HAP associated with this proposed action. However, we
expect this proposed action would result in benefits associated with
HAP emission reductions and lower risk of adverse health effects in
communities near OLD sources.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
[[Page 56327]]
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review. This action is a significant regulatory action
because it is likely to result in a rule that raises novel legal or
policy issues. This regulatory action is not likely to have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state,
local, or tribal governments or communities. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action. The EPA has prepared an economic analysis, Economic Impact
and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), which is available in the docket
for this proposed rule.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associate with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1963.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this action, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing amendments that would change the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for OLD operations. The proposed amendments
also require electronic reporting of performance test results and
reports and compliance reports. The information would be collected to
ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of OLD
operations at major sources of HAP are affected by these proposed
amendments. These respondents include, but are not limited to,
facilities having NAICS codes: 4247 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products
Merchant Wholesalers), 4861 (Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil), and
4931 (Warehousing and Storage).
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112
and 114 of the CAA.
Estimated number of respondents: 181 facilities.
Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
Total estimated burden: 5,967 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $820,212 (per year), which includes $216,154
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than November 20, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are all small
businesses. The Agency has determined that nine small entities are
affected by these proposed amendments, which is 9 percent of all
affected ultimate parent businesses. These nine small businesses may
experience an impact of annualized costs of less than 0.20 percent of
their annual revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the
Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities that have been identified
as being affected by this action are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. This
action's health and risk assessments are contained in contained in
sections III.A and C and sections IV.B and C of this preamble and in
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2019 Proposed Rule, which includes how risks to infants and children
are addressed, and which is available in the docket for this action.
The EPA expects that the emission reductions of HAP resulting from this
proposed action would improve children's health.
[[Page 56328]]
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA expects this proposed action
would not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production,
natural gas production, or electricity production. We estimate that
this proposed action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports
or exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in
the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy
supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, all of which are
under the threshold screening criteria for compliance with this
Executive Order established by OMB, no significant adverse energy
effects are expected to occur.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the OLD NESHAP through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network database managed by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25,
25A, 26, 26A, and 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and Methods 301,
311, 316, 320, 325A, and 325B of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. During the
EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar
to the EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data that meet the requirements of Method 301 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
No applicable VCSs were identified for Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G,
21, 22, 27, and 316.
Seven VCSs were identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test
methods for the purposes of this rule:
(1) The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust
Gas Analyses,'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B manual
portion only and not the instrumental portion. Therefore, we are
proposing to add this standard as a footnote to item 1.a.i.(3) of Table
5 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by
reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(1). ASME PTC 19.10 specifies methods,
apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with
Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, the gaseous
constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources.
The gases covered by this method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. Included are
instrumental methods as well as (normally, wet chemical) methods. This
method is available at the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990. See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
(2) The VCS ASTM D6420-18, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry.'' This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA
as an alternative to Method 18 only when the target compounds are all
known, and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as
measurable. ASTM D6420 should not be specified as a total VOC method.
Therefore, we are proposing to add this standard as a footnote to Table
5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by
reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(93). We are also proposing to update
reference to the older version of this standard (i.e., ASTM D6420-99
(Reapproved 2004) at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) to the new 2018 version and
are proposing to remove reference to the old version of this standard
at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(90) for use in the OLD NESHAP. ASTM D6420 is a field
test method that employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer (GCMS) to determine the mass concentration of any subset
of 36 compounds listed in this method. Mass emission rates are
determined by multiplying the mass concentration by the effluent
volumetric flow rate. This field test method employs laboratory GCMS
techniques and QA/quality control (QC) procedures in common
application. This field test method provides data with accuracy and
precision similar to most laboratory GCMS instrumentation.
(3) The VCS ASTM D6735-01(2009), ``Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to
Method 26 or Method 26A from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources, which
is specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which is cited in the OLD
NESHAP. For further information about the EPA's proposal to allow the
use of this VCS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, see the EPA's Ethylene
Production RTR proposed amendments in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0357. It is not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this
notice of proposed rulemaking.
(4) The VCS California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310,
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products'' is an
acceptable alternative to Method 311. However, we are not proposing to
specify use of this method in the OLD NESHAP because CARB Method 310 is
designed to measure the contents of aerosol cans and would not be well
suited for organic liquid samples regulated under the OLD NESHAP. It is
not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
(5) The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable
alternative to Method 320. In the September 22, 2008, NTTA summary,
ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to Method 320 with
caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is an extractive FTIR based field test method
used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target analytes
from stationary source effluent. Because an FTIR analyzer is
potentially capable of analyzing hundreds of compounds, this test
method is not analyte or source specific. This field test method
employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source
effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and
quantification of gaseous compounds. Concentration results are
provided. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010)
and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct
measurement of a certified
[[Page 56329]]
spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM
D6348-01(2010) version. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Standard Test Method
for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable
alternative to Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion
of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. We are proposing to
allow the use of this VCS as an alternative to Method 320 at 40 CFR
63.2354(b)(3) and (4) and at Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE
under conditions that the test plan preparation and implementation in
the Annexes to ASTM D6348-12e1, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory;
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5); %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%; if the %R value does not meet this
criterion for a target compound, then the test data is not acceptable
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e.,
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest); and the %R value for each compound must be reported in the
test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.
We are proposing to incorporate this method at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(85)
for use in the OLD NESHAP.
(6) The VCS ISO 16017-2:2003, ``Indoor, Ambient and Workplace Air
Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds by Sorbent Tube/
Thermal Desorption/Capillary Gas Chromatography--Part 2: Diffusive
Sampling,'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 325B. This VCS is
already incorporated by reference in Method 325B.
(7) The VCS ASTM D6196-03(2009), ``Standard Practice for Selection
of Sorbents, Sampling and Thermal Desorption Analysis Procedures for
Volatile Organic Compounds in Air,'' is an acceptable alternative to
Methods 325A and 325B. This VCS is already incorporated by reference in
Method 325B.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to use ASTM D6886-18, ``Standard
Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas
Chromatography,'' and ASTM D6378-18a, ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products,
Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion
Method).'' ASTM D6886-18 is proposed to be used as one acceptable
method to determine the percent weight of HAP in organic liquid,
especially for liquids that contain a significant amount of carbon
tetrachloride or formaldehyde, which are not detected using the Flame
Ionization Detector based standard in the governing method currently
cited in the OLD NESHAP (i.e., Method 311). ASTM D6378-18a is proposed
to be used as a method to determine the vapor pressure of a liquid and
whether equipment that stores or transfers such liquid is subject to
emission standards of the OLD NESHAP.
The ASTM methods proposed for incorporation by reference are
available at ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
During the comment period, these methods are available in read-only
format at https://www.astm.org/EPA.htm.
Finally, the EPA proposes to use EPA-454/B-08-002, ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements Version 2.0 (Final).'' If an owner or
operator of an OLD source opts to implement a fenceline monitoring
program proposed at 40 CFR 63.2348 and if the owner or operator opts to
collect meteorological data from an on-site meteorological station,
then the proposed rule requires the owner or operator to standardize,
calibrate, and operate the meteorological station according to the
procedures set forth in this document. This document is available in
the docket for this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American,
Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below
the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50
km of OLD facilities has a higher percentage of minority, lower income,
and lower education people when compared to the nationwide percentages
of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities,
the risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable, and
emissions reductions from the proposed revisions will benefit these
groups the most.
The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.B
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Operations,
which is available in the docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 26, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraphs (h)(31) and (32), removing the phrase ``63.2406,''
without replacement;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (e)(1) and (h)(85);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(100) through (111) as paragraphs
(h)(103) through (114), paragraphs (h)(92) through (99) as paragraphs
(h)(94) through (101), and paragraphs (h)(89) through (91) as
paragraphs (h)(90) through (92), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(89);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(91);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(102); and
0
h. Revising paragraph (n)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the
[[Page 56330]]
approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in
this section, the EPA must publish a document in the Federal Register
and the material must be available to the public. All approved material
is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC,
telephone number 202-566-1744, and is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 63.3166(a),
63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a),
63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c),
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g),
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and
5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
* * * * *
(89) ASTM D6378-18a, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method), approved
December 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.2343(b)(5) and
63.2406.
* * * * *
(91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2004, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.457(b), 63.485(g), 60.485a(g), 63.772(a),
63.772(e), 63.1282(a) and (d), and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
(93) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec.
63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
* * * * *
(102) ASTM D6886-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-
Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography, approved October 1, 2018, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.2354(c).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) EPA-454/B-08-002, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final),
March 24, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.658(d), 63.2348(d) and
appendix A to this part: Method 325A.
* * * * *
Subpart EEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
0
3. Section 63.2338 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2338 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(c) The equipment listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section and used in the identified operations is excluded from the
affected source.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.2342 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and adding paragraphs (e) and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2342 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you
have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this
subpart according to the schedule identified in paragraph (a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you
have an existing affected source, you must comply with this subpart
according to the schedule identified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3)
of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.2343 and 63.2382(a), as applicable, according to the schedules in
Sec. 63.2382(a) and (b)(1) through (2) and in subpart A of this part.
Some of these notifications must be submitted before the compliance
dates for the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice
standards in this subpart.
(e) An affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must be in compliance
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this
section upon initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. An affected
source that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21,
2019, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (7) of this section upon initial startup.
(1) The requirements for storage tanks not requiring control
specified in Sec. 63.2343(b)(4) through (7).
(2) The requirements for storage tanks at an existing affected
source specified in Sec. 63.2346(a)(5) and (6), Sec.
63.2386(d)(3)(iii), Sec. 63.2396(a)(4), Table 2 to this subpart,
footnote (2), and Table 2b to this subpart.
(3) The equipment leak requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(l),
Table 4 to this subpart, item 7, and footnote (1), Table 10 to this
subpart, item 5.b.i and footnote (1).
(4) The fenceline monitoring requirements specified in Sec.
63.2348, Sec. 63.2386(k), and Sec. 63.2390(i) according to the
compliance dates specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(5) The flare requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(k), Sec.
63.2382(d)(2)(ix), Sec. 63.2386(d)(5), Sec. 63.2390(h), Table 2 to
this subpart, footnote (1), Table 3 to this subpart, item 7.d, Table 8
to this subpart, items 1.a.iii and 2.a.iii, and Table 9 to this
subpart, item 7.e.
(6) The requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m), Sec.
63.2350(d), Sec. 63.2366(c), Sec. 63.2390(f) and (g), Sec.
63.2386(c)(11) and (12), Sec. 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii) and (f) through (j),
Sec. 63.2378(e), Table 9 to this subpart, footnote (1), and Table 10
to this subpart, items 1.a.i and 2.a.ii.
(7) The performance testing requirements specified in Sec.
63.2354(b)(6).
(f) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in Sec.
63.2348:
[[Page 56331]]
(1) An affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must submit modeling
results, proposed analytes, and action levels according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.2348(b) upon initial startup or [date 1 year
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must submit modeling results,
proposed analytes and action levels according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.2348(b) as part of your permit application for the new OLD
operations.
(2) An affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of
the modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and be in compliance with all
requirements of Sec. 63.2348 upon initial startup or [date 2 years
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register],
whichever is later. An affected source that commenced construction or
reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of the
modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and must be in compliance with all
requirements listed in Sec. 63.2348 by initial startup.
0
5. Section 63.2343 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b)
introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2343 What are my requirements for emission sources not
requiring control?
This section establishes the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for emission sources identified in Sec. 63.2338
that do not require control under this subpart (i.e., under Sec.
63.2346(a) through (e)). Such emission sources are not subject to any
other notification, recordkeeping, or reporting sections in this
subpart, including Sec. 63.2350(c), except as indicated in paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section.
(a) For each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity
of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons), you must comply with
paragraph (e) of this section. Also, for each storage tank subject to
this subpart having a capacity of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000
gallons) and for each transfer rack subject to this subpart that only
unloads organic liquids (i.e., no organic liquids are loaded at any of
the transfer racks), you must keep documentation that verifies that
each storage tank and transfer rack identified in paragraph (a) of this
section is not required to be controlled. The documentation must be
kept up-to-date (i.e., all such emission sources at a facility are
identified in the documentation regardless of when the documentation
was last compiled) and must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious inspection and review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1),
including records stored in electronic form in a separate location. The
documentation may consist of identification of the tanks and transfer
racks identified in paragraph (a) of this section on a plant site plan
or process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID).
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, for
each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9
cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control
based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1
through 6, you must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must monitor each potential source of vapor leakage
from each fixed roof storage tank and its closure devices for leaks as
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of
this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct
subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after previous monitoring is
performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains organic
liquid.
(A) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use
according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of
methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per
million.
(B) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the
end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used
to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in
Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 to this chapter,
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration
gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-
test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value
and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
(C) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration response, you must
re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with
instrument readings below the appropriate leak definition and above the
leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the percent of negative drift/
divided by 100).
(ii) An instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) or greater defines a leak.
(iii) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs
or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a
repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of
up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each decision
to use an extension, as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through
(C) of this section. Not repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage
tank within the time frame specified in this paragraph is a deviation.
If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the second
extension period, report the date when the fixed roof storage tank was
emptied or repaired in your compliance report.
(A) Records for a first extension must include a description of the
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the
fixed roof storage tank during the extension period.
(B) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to
ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or
repaired by the end of the second extension period.
(C) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was
completely emptied, if applicable.
(5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic vapor pressure analyses or obtain
vapor pressure analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according
to the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this
section to demonstrate that the annual average true vapor pressure of
the organic liquid
[[Page 56332]]
associated with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each
periodic vapor pressure analysis, you must use ASTM D6378-18a
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), a vapor to liquid ratio
of 4:1, and the actual annual average temperature as defined in this
subpart. Maintain records of each periodic annual average true vapor
pressure analysis according to the requirements of Sec. 63.2394.
(i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October 21, 2019,
you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor
pressure analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or
conduct subsequent periodic vapor pressure analyses no later than 60
months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents
of storage tank are a different commodity since the previous analysis,
whichever occurs first.
(ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain
analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor pressure analysis no
later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by Sec.
63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic vapor
pressure analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank are a different
commodity since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic HAP content analyses or obtain
HAP content analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according to
the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section
to demonstrate that the HAP content of the organic liquid associated
with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each periodic
HAP content analysis, you must use the procedures specified in Sec.
63.2354(c), except you may not use voluntary consensus standards,
safety data sheets (SDS), or certified product data sheets. Maintain
records of each periodic HAP content analysis according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.2394.
(i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October 21, 2019,
you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content
analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or conduct
subsequent periodic HAP content analyses no later than 60 months
thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of
storage tank have changed significantly since the previous analysis,
whichever occurs first.
(ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain
analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content analysis no
later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by Sec.
63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic HAP
content analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the
previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank have changed
significantly since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first.
(7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii)
apply.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section,
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section apply to the following storage tanks:
(A) Storage tanks at an existing affected source subject to this
subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more
that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified in
Table 2b of this subpart, items 1 through 3.
(B) Storage tanks at a reconstructed or new affected source subject
to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons)
or more that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified
in Table 2 to this subpart, items 3 through 6.
(ii) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(7)(i) of this section. Instead, you may
continue to comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section
for each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9
cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control
based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1
through 6.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If you are already submitting a Notification of Compliance
Status or a first Compliance report under Sec. 63.2386(c), you do not
need to submit a separate Notification of Compliance Status or first
Compliance report for each transfer rack that meets the conditions
identified in paragraph (c) of this section (i.e., a single
Notification of Compliance Status or first Compliance report should be
submitted).
* * * * *
(e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each fixed roof storage tank having a capacity less
than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) but greater than 3.8 cubic
meters (1,000 gallons) storing an organic liquid with an annual average
true vapor pressure greater than 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia), you must
monitor each closure device and potential source of vapor leakage as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of
this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct
subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after the previous
monitoring is performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains
organic liquid.
(i) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use
according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of
methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per
million.
(ii) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the
end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used
to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in
Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 to this chapter,
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration
gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-
test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value
and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
(iii) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent, you must re-monitor all equipment monitored since
the last calibration.
(2) An instrument reading of 500 ppmv or greater defines a leak.
(3) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs or
completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a
repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of
up to 30 additional days
[[Page 56333]]
each. Keep records documenting each decision to use an extension, as
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. Not
repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage tank within the time frame
specified in this paragraph is a deviation. If you do not empty or
repair leaks before the end of the second extension period, report the
date when the fixed roof storage tank was emptied or repaired in your
compliance report.
(i) Records for a first extension must include a description of the
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the
fixed roof storage tank during the extension period.
(ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to
ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or
repaired by the end of the second extension period.
(iii) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was
completely emptied, if applicable.
0
6. Section 63.2346 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), paragraph (a)(4)(v) introductory text, and
paragraph (a)(4)(v)(A);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), (d)(2), (e), (f) and (i);
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2346 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
(a) Storage tanks. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) and (m)
of this section, for each storage tank storing organic liquids that
meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control
in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, you must comply with
paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For each storage
tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid
vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart, item 6,
you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (4) of this section.
(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 or 2b to this
subpart and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the
applicable requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for
meeting emission limits, except substitute the term ``storage tank'' at
each occurrence of the term ``storage vessel'' in subpart SS.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in
paragraph (m) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Transport vehicles must have a current certification in
accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (U.S.
DOT) qualification and maintenance requirements of 49 CFR part 180,
subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars.
* * * * *
(iv) No pressure relief device on the storage tank, on the vapor
return line, or on the cargo tank or tank car, shall open during
loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (breathing
losses).
(v) Pressure relief devices must be set to no less than 2.5 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig) at all times to prevent breathing losses.
Pressure relief devices may be set at values less than 2.5 psig if the
owner or operator provides rationale in the notification of compliance
status report explaining why the alternative value is sufficient to
prevent breathing losses at all times. The owner or operator shall
comply with paragraphs (a)(4)(v)(A) through (C) of this section for
each relief valve.
(A) The relief valve shall be monitored quarterly using the method
described in Sec. 63.180(b).
* * * * *
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section,
beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure criteria,
and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected
source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 no longer apply. Instead, for
each storage tank at an existing affected source storing organic
liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria
for control in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, you must
comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section.
(6) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with
paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Instead, you may continue to comply
with the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria and the
emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected
source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1.
(b) * * *
(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart
and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable
requirements for transfer racks specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, for meeting emission limits.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in
paragraph (m) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Equipment leak components. Except as specified in paragraph (l)
of this section, for each pump, valve, and sampling connection that
operates in organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year,
you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1),
subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. Pumps, valves, and sampling
connectors that are insulated to provide protection against persistent
sub-freezing temperatures are subject to the ``difficult to monitor''
provisions in the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator.
This paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one
storage tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for
control in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
(d) * * *
(2) Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport
vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with the U.S.
DOT qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180,
subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars.
(e) Operating limits. For each high throughput transfer rack, you
must meet each operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart for each
control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart
whenever emissions from the loading of organic liquids are routed to
the control device. Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this
section, for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, you
must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the requirements for
monitored parameters as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for
storage vessels and, during the loading of organic liquids, for low
throughput transfer racks, respectively. Alternatively, you may comply
with the operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart.
(f) Surrogate for organic HAP. For noncombustion devices, if you
elect to
[[Page 56334]]
demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction requirement in Table 2
or 2b to this subpart using total organic compounds (TOC) rather than
organic HAP, you must first demonstrate, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, that TOC is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP in
your case; that is, for your storage tank(s) and/or transfer rack(s),
the percent destruction of organic HAP is equal to or higher than the
percent destruction of TOC. This demonstration must be conducted prior
to or during the initial compliance test.
* * * * *
(i) Safety device. Opening of a safety device is allowed at any
time that it is required to avoid unsafe operating conditions.
Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
(k) Flares. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified
in Sec. 63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer
rack, if you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare
then you must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2380
instead of the requirements in Sec. 63.987 and the provisions
regarding flare compliance assessments at Sec. 63.997(a), (b), and
(c).
(l) Equipment leak components. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), paragraph (c) of this
section no longer applies. Instead, you must comply with paragraph
(l)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, for
each connector, pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in
organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year, you must
comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU (control level 2), or
subpart H. Connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are
insulated to provide protection against persistent sub-freezing
temperatures are subject to the ``difficult to monitor'' provisions in
the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This
paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage
tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control
in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
(2) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you may choose to comply with this
paragraph instead of paragraph (l)(1) of this section. For each pump,
valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service
for at least 300 hours per year, you must comply with paragraph (m) of
this section and the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart
H. Pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are insulated to provide
protection against persistent sub-freezing temperatures are subject to
the ``difficult to monitor'' provisions in the applicable subpart
selected by the owner or operator. This paragraph only applies if the
affected source has at least one storage tank or transfer rack that
meets the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 or 2b to this
subpart.
(m) Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. Beginning no later than
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), the referenced
provisions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (19) of this section
do not apply when demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
H, subpart SS, and subpart UU.
(1) The second sentence of Sec. 63.181(d)(5)(i) of subpart H.
(2) Sec. 63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
(3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
(4) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
(5) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
(6) Sec. 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
(7) Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
(8) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(i) of subpart
SS.
(9) Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
(10) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
(11) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
(12) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
(13) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
(14) Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
(15) Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
(16) Sec. 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
(17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
(18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
(19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
0
7. Section 63.2348 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2348 What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet?
(a) If you own or operate a facility that is not required to
conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to Sec. 63.658, then you may opt
to conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to this section. Beginning no
later than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(f), if you
choose to comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2343(b)(7)(ii) and Sec. 63.2346(a)(6) and (l)(2), then you must
conduct sampling along the facility property boundary and analyze the
samples in accordance with Methods 325A and 325B of appendix A of this
part and paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
(b) You must determine your target analytes for monitoring and
site-specific action level for each analyte as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must use EPA's Guidance on Determination of Analytes and
Action Levels for Fenceline Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution
Sources to develop your HAP emissions inventory and conduct your
modeling. The HAP emissions inventory is set at allowable emissions
from all equipment at the source under common control of the owner and
operator of the OLD operation. For this modeling effort, modeled
allowable emissions from storage tanks and equipment leaks must be
adjusted to take into account the requirements at Sec. Sec.
63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) for the purpose of setting the
analytes and action level of the fenceline monitoring program.
(2) You must determine at least one target analyte as prescribed in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Each analyte must have an available uptake rate at Table 12.1
of Method 325B of appendix A to this part or must have an uptake rate
for the selected sorbent validated using Addendum A of Method 325B of
appendix A to this part.
(ii) A HAP cannot be used to meet the fenceline monitoring
requirements of this section unless the corresponding action level is
at least five times the method detection limit for the HAP.
(iii) The first analyte is the Table 1 HAP with the most allowable
emissions from OLD operations at the facility on an annual basis. If
this HAP is emitted from all equipment that would have
[[Page 56335]]
been subject to the requirements at Sec. Sec. 63.2343(b)(4),
63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement fenceline
monitoring according to this section, then no other analytes are
required to be monitored. If this HAP is not emitted from all equipment
that would have been subject to the requirements at Sec. Sec.
63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement
fenceline monitoring according to this section, then you must monitor
additional analytes as outlined in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this
section.
(iv) You must select additional analytes from Table 1 that best
represent emissions of HAP from all OLD operations that do not emit the
HAP selected in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and that would
have been subject to the storage tank and connector monitoring
requirements at Sec. Sec. 63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had
you not opted to implement fenceline monitoring according to this
section. Select the Table 1 HAP having the most allowable emissions
from this set of equipment. If the HAP selected in this step is not
emitted from all the OLD equipment in this step, then repeat this step
until at least one selected HAP is emitted from this set of equipment.
(3) The action level for each analyte selected in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section is set as the highest modeled concentration of all
fenceline user-defined receptors in the model results, expressed in
micrograms per cubic meter, and rounded to two significant figures.
(4) You must submit the modeling results and proposed analytes and
action levels to the Administrator no later than the date specified in
Sec. 63.2342(f)(1).
(5) You must determine revised analytes or action levels when your
title V permit is renewed; when other permit amendments decrease
allowable emissions of any target analyte by more than 10 percent below
emissions described in the modeling effort used to establish the
current analytes and action levels; or upon issuance of a permit
modification that results in the conditions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section no longer being met. You may choose to revise analytes or
action levels at other times when changes at the source occur that
would result in different modeling results. You must submit your
revised modeling results and new proposed analytes and action levels to
the Administrator no later than 3 months after any permit renewal or
amendment triggering model revisions has been issued.
(i) If a revised action level is determined for a currently
monitored analyte, for the first year, the action level shall be
calculated for each sample period as a weighted average of the previous
action level and the new action level. After 26 sampling periods, the
new action level takes effect. Beginning with the first biweekly
sampling period following approval by the Administrator of the revised
modeling, determine your weighted action level according to the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.000
Where:
N1 = number of samples during the rolling annual period
prior to change of action level
N2 = number of samples during the rolling annual period
since the change in action level
AL1 = prior action level, [mu]g/m3
AL2 = new action level, [mu]g/m3
26 = number of samples in an annual period
(ii) If revised modeling results eliminate an analyte that is
currently being monitored, then once monitoring of that analyte stops,
you are no longer subject to the requirement in paragraph (f) of this
section to determine whether the action level has been exceeded. If the
action level for the analyte hasn't been exceeded, you are no longer
required to monitor that analyte starting in the biweekly period that
begins following approval by the Administrator of the revised modeling.
If the action level for the analyte has been exceeded, you must be
below the action level for the analyte for one full year (26 sampling
periods) before you stop monitoring for that analyte.
(iii) If revised modeling results establish a new analyte to be
monitored, you must begin monitoring for the new analyte in the first
biweekly period that begins following approval by the Administrator of
the revised modeling. You are not subject to the requirement in
paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether the action level has
been exceeded prior to collecting a full year (26 sampling periods) of
monitoring data for the new analyte.
(c) You must determine passive monitor locations in accordance with
Section 8.2 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part.
(1) As it pertains to this subpart, known sources of VOCs, as used
in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part for siting
passive monitors, means any part of the affected source as defined in
Sec. 63.2338(b). For this subpart, an additional monitor is not
required if the only emission sources within 50 meters of the
monitoring boundary are equipment leak sources satisfying all of the
conditions in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The equipment leak sources in organic liquids service within 50
meters of the monitoring boundary are limited to valves, pumps,
connectors, and sampling connections. If compressors, pressure relief
devices, or agitators in organic liquids service are present within 50
meters of the monitoring boundary, the additional passive monitoring
location specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to
this part must be used.
(ii) All equipment leak sources in in organic liquids service,
including valves, pumps, connectors, and sampling connections must be
monitored using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 no less
frequently than quarterly with no provisions for skip period
monitoring, or according to the provisions of Sec. 63.11(c)
Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks. For the
purpose of this provision, a leak is detected if the instrument reading
equals or exceeds the applicable limits in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A)
through (E) of this section:
(A) For valves, pumps or connectors at an existing source, an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv.
(B) For valves or connectors at a new source, an instrument reading
of 500 ppmv.
(C) For pumps at a new source, an instrument reading of 2,000 ppmv.
(D) For sampling connections, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv
above background.
(E) For equipment monitored according to the Alternative Work
practice for monitoring equipment for leaks, the leak definitions
contained in Sec. 63.11(c)(6)(i) through (iii).
(iii) All equipment leak sources in organic liquids service must be
inspected using visual, audible,
[[Page 56336]]
olfactory, or any other detection method at least monthly. A leak is
detected if the inspection identifies a potential leak to the
atmosphere or if there are indications of liquids dripping.
(iv) All leaks identified by the monitoring or inspections
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be
repaired no later than 15 calendar days after it is detected with no
provisions for delay of repair. If a repair is not completed within 15
calendar days, the additional passive monitor specified in Section
8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part must be used.
(2) You may collect one or more background samples if you believe
that an offsite upwind source may influence the sampler measurements.
If you elect to collect one or more background samples, you must
develop and submit a site-specific monitoring plan for approval
according to the requirements in paragraph (i) of this section. Upon
approval of the site-specific monitoring plan, the background
sampler(s) should be operated co-currently with the routine samplers.
(3) If there are 19 or fewer monitoring locations, you must collect
at least one co-located duplicate sample per sampling period and at
least one field blank per sampling period. If there are 20 or more
monitoring locations, you must collect at least two co-located
duplicate samples per sampling period and at least one field blank per
sampling period. The co-located duplicates may be collected at any of
the perimeter sampling locations.
(4) You must follow the procedure in Section 9.6 of Method 325B of
appendix A to this part to determine the detection limit of the
analytes for each sampler used to collect samples, background samples
(if you elect to do so), co-located samples and blanks.
(d) You must collect and record meteorological data according to
the applicable requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in
paragraph (i)(2) of this section or if an alternative test method is
used that provides time-resolved measurements, you must:
(i) Use an on-site meteorological station in accordance with
Section 8.3 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part.
(ii) Collect and record hourly average meteorological data,
including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, and wind
direction and calculate daily unit vector wind direction and daily
sigma theta.
(2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, you must collect and record sampling period average
temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-site
meteorological station in accordance with Section 8.3.1 through 8.3.3
of Method 325A of appendix A to this part or, alternatively, using data
from the closest National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station
provided the NWS meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25
miles) of the plant site.
(3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, you must follow
the calibration and standardization procedures for meteorological
measurements in EPA-454/B-08-002 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
63.14).
(e) You must use a sampling period and sampling frequency as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Sampling period. A 14-day sampling period must be used, unless
a shorter sampling period is determined to be necessary under paragraph
(g) or (i) of this section. A sampling period is defined as the period
during which a sampling tube is deployed at a specific sampling
location with the diffusive sampling end cap in-place and does not
include the time required to analyze the sample. For the purpose of
this subpart, a 14-day sampling period may be no shorter than 13
calendar days and no longer than 15 calendar days, but the routine
sampling period must be 14 calendar days.
(2) Base sampling frequency. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3)
of this section, the frequency of sample collection must be once each
contiguous 14-day sampling period, such that the beginning of the next
14-day sampling period begins immediately upon the completion of the
previous 14-day sampling period.
(3) Alternative sampling frequency for burden reduction. When an
individual monitor consistently achieves results at or below one tenth
of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may
elect to use the applicable minimum sampling frequency specified in
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for that monitoring
site. When calculating the biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c)
for the monitoring period when using this alternative for burden
reduction, substitute zero for the sample result for the monitoring
site for any period where a sample is not taken.
(i) If every sample at a monitoring site is at or below one tenth
of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2
years (52 consecutive samples), every other sampling period can be
skipped for that monitoring site, i.e., sampling will occur
approximately once per month.
(ii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section is at or
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 26 consecutive ``monthly'' samples), five
14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site
following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur
approximately once per quarter.
(iii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is at or
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 8 consecutive quarterly samples), twelve
14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site
following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur twice a
year.
(iv) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section is at or
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 4 consecutive semiannual samples), only one
sample per year is required for that monitoring site. For yearly
sampling, samples must occur at least 10 months but no more than 14
months apart.
(v) If at any time a sample for a monitoring site that is monitored
at the frequency specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section returns a result that is above one tenth of the corresponding
action level for any analyte, the sampling site must return to the
original sampling requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods
with no skip periods for one quarter (six 14-day sampling periods). If
every sample collected during this quarter is at or below one tenth of
the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may
revert back to the reduced monitoring schedule applicable for that
monitoring site prior to the sample reading exceeding one tenth of the
action level. If any sample collected during this quarter is above one
tenth of the corresponding action level for any analyte, that
monitoring site must return to the original sampling requirements of
contiguous 14-day sampling periods with no skip periods for a minimum
of 2 years. The burden reduction requirements can be used again for
that monitoring site once the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of
this section are met again, i.e., after 52 contiguous 14-day samples
with no results above one tenth of the corresponding action level for
all monitored analytes.
[[Page 56337]]
(f) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, you must
determine whether the results are above or below the corresponding
action level for each analyte as follows:
(1) You must determine the facility impact on the analyte
concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each analyte for each 14-day
sampling period according to either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section, as applicable.
(i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in
paragraph (i) of this section, for each analyte, you must determine the
highest and lowest sample results from the sample pool and calculate
[Delta]c as the difference in these concentrations. Co-located samples
must be averaged together for the purposes of determining the analyte
concentration for that sampling location, and, if applicable, for
determining [Delta]c. You must adhere to the following procedures when
one or more samples for the sampling period are below the method
detection limit for an analyte:
(A) If the lowest value of an analyte is below detection, you must
use zero as the lowest sample result when calculating [Delta]c.
(B) If all sample results for a particular analyte are below the
method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the
highest sample result and zero as the lowest sample result when
calculating [Delta]c.
(ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in
paragraph (i) of this section, you must determine [Delta]c using the
calculation protocols outlined in the approved site-specific monitoring
plan and in paragraph (i) of this section.
(2) For each analyte, you must calculate the annual average
[Delta]c based on the average of the 26 most recent 14-day sampling
periods. You must update this annual average value after receiving the
results of each subsequent 14-day sampling period.
(3) If the annual average [Delta]c value for an analyte is less
than or equal to the corresponding action level determined in paragraph
(b) of this section, the concentration is below the action level. If
the annual average [Delta]c value for any analyte is greater than the
corresponding action level determined in paragraph (b) of this section,
then you must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action in
accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
(g) Within 5 days of determining that the action level for any
analyte has been exceeded for any annual average [Delta]c and no longer
than 50 days after completion of the sampling period in which the
action level was first exceeded, you must initiate a root cause
analysis to determine the cause of such exceedance and to determine
appropriate corrective action, such as those described in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (4) of this section. The root cause analysis and initial
corrective action analysis must be completed and initial corrective
actions taken no later than 45 days after determining there is an
exceedance. Root cause analysis and corrective action may include, but
is not limited to:
(1) Leak inspection using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of
this chapter and repairing any leaks found.
(2) Leak inspection using optical gas imaging and repairing any
leaks found.
(3) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high emissions
and implementing repairs to reduce the level of emissions.
(4) Employing progressively more frequent sampling, analysis and
meteorology (e.g., using shorter sampling periods for Methods 325A and
325B of appendix A of this part, or using active sampling techniques).
(h) If, upon completion of the corrective action analysis and
corrective actions such as those described in paragraph (g) of this
section, the [Delta]c value for the next 14-day sampling period for
which the sampling start time begins after the completion of the
corrective actions is greater than the action level for the same
analyte that previously exceed the action level or if all corrective
action measures identified require more than 45 days to implement, you
must develop a corrective action plan that describes the corrective
action(s) completed to date, additional measures that you propose to
employ to reduce fenceline concentrations below the action level, and a
schedule for completion of these measures. You must submit the
corrective action plan to the Administrator within 60 days after
receiving the analytical results indicating that the [Delta]c value for
the 14-day sampling period following the completion of the initial
corrective action is greater than the action level or, if no initial
corrective actions were identified, no later than 60 days following the
completion of the corrective action analysis required in paragraph (g)
of this section.
(i) You may request approval from the Administrator for a site-
specific monitoring plan to account for offsite upwind sources
according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) You must prepare and submit a site-specific monitoring plan and
receive approval of the site-specific monitoring plan prior to using
the near-field source alternative calculation for determining [Delta]c
provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. The site-specific
monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the elements specified in
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The procedures in
Section 12 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part are not required,
but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-field source
contributions.
(i) Identification of the near-field source or sources.
(ii) Location of the additional monitoring stations that must be
used to determine the uniform background concentration and the near-
field source concentration contribution.
(iii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted
by the near-field source. If more than one near-field source is
present, identify the near-field source or sources that are expected to
contribute to the concentration at that monitoring location.
(iv) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating)
the planned data reduction and calculations to determine the near-field
source concentration contribution for each monitoring location.
(v) If more frequent monitoring or a monitoring station other than
a passive diffusive tube monitoring station is proposed, provide a
detailed description of the measurement methods, measurement frequency,
and recording frequency for determining the uniform background or near-
field source concentration contribution. Uniform background and near-
field source concentration contributions must be determined by a real-
time or semi-continuous measurement technique that can be reconciled
with the measurements taken using the passive diffusive tubes.
(2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, for
each analyte covered by the site-specific monitoring plan, you must
determine [Delta]c for comparison with the corresponding action level
using the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) For each monitoring location, calculate [Delta]ci
using the following equation.
[Delta]ci = MFCi - NFSi - UB
Where:
[Delta]ci = The fenceline concentration, corrected for
background, at measurement location i, micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\).
MFCi = The measured fenceline concentration at
measurement location i, [micro]g/m\3\.
NFSi = The near-field source contributing concentration
at measurement location i determined using the additional
[[Page 56338]]
measurements and calculation procedures included in the site-
specific monitoring plan, [micro]g/m\3\. For monitoring locations
that are not included in the site-specific monitoring plan as
impacted by a near-field source, use NFSi = 0 [micro]g/m\3\.
UB = The uniform background concentration determined using the
additional measurements included in the site-specific monitoring
plan, [micro]g/m\3\. If no additional measurements are specified in
the site-specific monitoring plan for determining the uniform
background concentration, use UB = 0 [micro]g/m\3\.
(ii) When one or more samples for the sampling period are below the
method detection limit for an analyte, adhere to the following
procedures:
(A) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location used
for the uniform background concentration is below the method detection
limit, you must use zero for UB for that monitoring period.
(B) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location(s) used
to determine the near-field source contributing concentration is below
the method detection limit, you must use zero for the monitoring
location concentration when calculating NFSi for that monitoring
period.
(C) If a fenceline monitoring location sample result is below the
method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the
sample result.
(iii) Determine [Delta]c for the monitoring period as the maximum
value of [Delta]ci from all of the fenceline monitoring locations for
that monitoring period.
(3) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted and
approved as described in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the
Administrator for approval.
(ii) The site-specific monitoring plan must also be submitted to
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143-01), Attention: Organic Liquids
Distribution Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted
to [email protected].
(iii) The Administrator must approve or disapprove the plan in 90
days. The plan is considered approved if the Administrator either
approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in
writing. The 90-day period must begin when the Administrator receives
the plan.
(iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-
specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, you may
revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan following the
requirements in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 90-
day period starts over with the resubmission of the revised monitoring
plan.
(4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring
plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy and reasonableness of
the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the
Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-
specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those
described in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) The identification of the near-field source or sources.
(ii) The monitoring location selected to determine the uniform
background concentration or an indication that no uniform background
concentration monitor will be used.
(iii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to
determine the near-field source concentration contribution.
(iv) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations
impacted by the near-field source or sources.
(v) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration
contribution for each monitoring location.
(vi) If more frequent monitoring is proposed, the adequacy of the
description of the measurement and recording frequency proposed and the
adequacy of the rationale for using the alternative monitoring
frequency.
(vii) The appropriateness of the measurement technique selected for
determining the uniform background and near-field source concentration
contributions.
(j) You must comply with the applicable recordkeeping requirements
in Sec. 63.2390(i) and reporting requirements in Sec. 63.2386(k).
(k) As outlined in Sec. 63.7(f), you may submit a request for an
alternative test method. At a minimum, the request must follow the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all or a partial
number of passive samplers required in Method 325A of appendix A of
this part.
(2) The alternative method must be validated for each analyte
according to Method 301 in appendix A of this part or contain
performance-based procedures and indicators to ensure self-validation.
(3) The method detection limit must nominally be no greater than
one fifth of the action level for each analyte. The alternate test
method must describe the procedures used to provide field verification
of the detection limit.
(4) The spatial coverage must be equal to or better than the
spatial coverage provided in Method 325A of appendix A of this part.
(i) For path average concentration open-path instruments, the
physical path length of the measurement must be no more than a passive
sample footprint (the spacing that would be provided by the sorbent
traps when following Method 325A). For example, if Method 325A requires
spacing monitors A and B 610 meters (2,000 feet) apart, then the
physical path length limit for the measurement at that portion of the
fenceline must be no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet).
(ii) For range resolved open-path instrument or approach, the
instrument or approach must be able to resolve an average concentration
over each passive sampler footprint within the path length of the
instrument.
(iii) The extra samplers required in Sections 8.2.1.3 of Method
325A may be omitted when they fall within the path length of an open-
path instrument.
(5) At a minimum, non-integrating alternative test methods must
provide a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
(6) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements
(less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative
test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to
outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point
for the two week average. The alternative test method approach must
have wind speed, direction and stability class of the same time
resolution and within the footprint of the instrument.
(7) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the [Delta]c
for the 14-day average high sample result, all results measured under
the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For
purposes of averaging data points for the 14-day average low sample
result, all results measured under the method detection limit must use
zero.
0
8. Section 63.2350 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 56339]]
Sec. 63.2350 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations,
operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all
times when the equipment identified in Sec. 63.2338(b)(1) through (5)
is in OLD operation.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions
in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) Except for emission sources not required to be controlled as
specified in Sec. 63.2343, you must develop a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no
longer applies; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy of
the plan must be retained and available on-site for five years after
[date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register].
(d) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), paragraph (b) of this section no longer applies. Instead,
at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
0
9. Section 63.2354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(3)(i), and
(b)(3)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2354 What performance tests, design evaluations, and
performance evaluations must I conduct?
(a) * * *
(2) For each design evaluation you conduct, you must use the
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. You must also
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(3) For each performance evaluation of a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) you conduct, you must follow the requirements
in Sec. 63.8(e) and paragraph (d) of this section. For CEMS installed
after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), conduct a
performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days of installation of
the monitoring system.
(b)(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, for
nonflare control devices, you must conduct each performance test
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1), and either Sec.
63.988(b), Sec. 63.990(b), or Sec. 63.995(b), using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.997(e).
* * * * *
(3)(i) In addition to Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, to determine compliance with the TOC emission limit, you may use
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 320 of appendix A
to this part to determine compliance with the total organic HAP
emission limit. You may not use Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A
to this part if the control device is a combustion device, and you must
not use Method 320 of appendix A to this part if the gas stream
contains entrained water droplets. All compounds quantified by Method
320 of appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section
13.0 of Method 320 of appendix A to this part. As an alternative to
Method 18, for determining compliance with the total organic HAP
emission limit, you may use ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14), under the conditions specified in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(A) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method
320 of appendix A to this part to measure compliance with the
percentage efficiency limit, you must first determine which organic HAP
are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions)
using knowledge of the organic liquids or the screening procedure
described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test, you must
analyze samples collected simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the
control device. Quantify the emissions for the same organic HAP
identified as present in the inlet gas stream for both the inlet and
outlet gas streams of the control device.
(B) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method
320 of appendix A to this part, to measure compliance with the emission
concentration limit, you must first determine which organic HAP are
present in the inlet gas stream using knowledge of the organic liquids
or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the
performance test, analyze samples collected as specified in Method 18
at the outlet of the control device. Quantify the control device outlet
emission concentration for the same organic HAP identified as present
in the inlet or uncontrolled gas stream.
(ii) You may use ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), to determine compliance with the total organic HAP
emission limit if the target concentration for each HAP is between 150
parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv and either of the conditions
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section exists. For
target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 and not
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, you may not use ASTM D6420-
18.
(A) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14); or
(B) For target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), but potentially detected
by mass spectrometry, you must demonstrate recovery of the compound and
the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as
detailed in ASTM D6420-18, Section 10.5.3, must be followed, met,
documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water-
soluble.
(iii) You may use ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the
conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart.
(4) If a principal component of the uncontrolled or inlet gas
stream to the control device is formaldehyde, you must use Method 316,
Method 320, or Method 323 of appendix A to this part for measuring the
formaldehyde, except you must not use Method 320 or Method 323 of
appendix A to this part if the gas stream contains entrained water
droplets. If you use Method 320 of appendix A to this part,
formaldehyde must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320
of appendix A to this part. You must
[[Page 56340]]
measure formaldehyde either at the inlet and outlet of the control
device to determine control efficiency or at the outlet of a combustion
device for determining compliance with the emission concentration
limit. You may use ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the
conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart.
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, you
may not conduct performance tests during periods of SSM, as specified
in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), paragraphs (b)(1) and (5) of this section no longer apply.
Instead, you must conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) In lieu of the requirements specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1), you
must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(B) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(A) of this section, you must
conduct each performance test according to the requirements in either
Sec. 63.988(b), Sec. 63.990(b), or Sec. 63.995(b), using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.997(e). You must also comply with the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(c) To determine the HAP content of the organic liquid, you may use
Method 311 of appendix A to this part, ASTM D6886-18 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or other method approved by the
Administrator. If you use ASTM D6886-18 to determine the HAP content,
you must use either Method B or Method B in conjunction with Method C,
as described in section 4.3 of ASTM D6886-18. In addition, you may use
other means, such as voluntary consensus standards, safety data sheets
(SDS), or certified product data sheets, to determine the HAP content
of the organic liquid. If the method you select to determine the HAP
content provides HAP content ranges, you must use the upper end of each
HAP content range in determining the total HAP content of the organic
liquid. The EPA may require you to test the HAP content of an organic
liquid using Method 311 of appendix A to this part or other method
approved by the Administrator. For liquids that contain any amount of
formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, you may not use Method 311 of
appendix A to this part. If the results of the Method 311 of appendix A
to this part (or any other approved method) are different from the HAP
content determined by another means, the Method 311 of appendix A to
this part (or approved method) results will govern. For liquids that
contain any amount of formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, if the
results of ASTM D6886-18 using method B or C in section 4.3 (or any
other approved method) are different from the HAP content determined by
another means, ASTM D6886-18 using method B or C in section 4 (or
approved method) results will govern.
(d) Each VOC CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained
according to the requirements of one of the following performance
specifications located in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B: Performance
Specification 8, Performance Specification 8A, Performance
Specification 9, or Performance Specification 15. You must also comply
with the requirements of procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, for
CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A.
(1) For CEMS using Performance Specification 9 or 15, determine the
target analyte(s) for calibration using either process knowledge or the
screening procedures of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6.
(2) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8A, conduct the
relative accuracy test audits required under Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix F in accordance with Performance Specification 8, Sections
8 and 11. The relative accuracy must meet the criteria of Performance
Speciation 8, Section 13.2.
(3) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A, calibrate the
instrument on methane and report the results as carbon (C1). Use Method
25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 as the reference method for the
relative accuracy tests.
(4) If you are required to monitor oxygen in order to conduct
concentration corrections, you must use Performance Specification 3 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to certify your oxygen CEMS, and you must
comply with procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. Use Method 3A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, as the reference method when conducting a
relative accuracy test audit.
0
10. Section 63.2358 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2358 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For storage tanks and transfer racks at existing affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
October 21, 2019, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations listed in Table 2b to this subpart within 180 days
of either the initial startup or [date 3 years after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later,
except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(i) For storage tanks with an existing internal or external
floating roof, complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b to this subpart
and item 1.a. in Table 4 to this subpart, you must conduct your initial
compliance demonstration the next time the storage tank is emptied and
degassed, but not later than [date 10 years after date of publication
of final rule in the Federal Register].
(ii) For storage tanks complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b of
this subpart and item 1.b. or 1.c. in Table 4 of this subpart, you must
comply within 180 days after [date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.2362 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2362 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
* * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) For transport vehicles that you own that do not have vapor
collection equipment, you must maintain current certification in
accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance requirements
in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank
cars.
0
12. Section 63.2366 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2366 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring
system (CMS) on each control device
[[Page 56341]]
required in order to comply with this subpart. If you use a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) (as defined in Sec. 63.981), you
must comply with Sec. 63.2346(m) and the applicable requirements for
CPMS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for the control device being used.
If you use a CEMS, you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and paragraph (d) of this
section, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) For nonflare control devices controlling storage tanks and low
throughput transfer racks, you must submit a monitoring plan according
to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for monitoring
plans. You must also comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2346(m).
(c) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must keep the written procedures required by Sec.
63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or until the
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator.
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous
(i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on
record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2). In addition to the information
required in Sec. 63.8(d)(2), your written procedures for CEMS must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section:
(1) Description of CEMS installation location.
(2) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components
and the span of the analyzer.
(3) Routine quality control and assurance procedures.
(4) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation,
which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process
change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the
Administrator's request for a performance evaluation under section 114
of the Clean Air Act.
(5) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and (e)(1).
(d) For each CEMS, you must locate the sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location such that you obtain representative
measurements of emissions from the regulated source and comply with the
applicable requirements specified in Sec. 63.2354(d).
0
13. Section 63.2370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you as specified
in Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) You must submit the results of the initial compliance
determination in the Notification of Compliance Status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.2382(d). If the initial compliance
determination includes a performance test and the results are submitted
electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) in accordance with Sec. 63.2386(g), the unit(s)
tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance
test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of Compliance
Status in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test
results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the Notification of
Compliance Status is submitted.
0
14. Section 63.2374 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2374 When do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance and how do I use the collected data?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You must also
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.2378 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 2
through 4 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and in Tables 8 through 10 to
this subpart, as applicable. You must also comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
follow the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e)(1) and (3) during periods of
startup, shutdown, malfunction, or nonoperation of the affected source
or any part thereof. In addition, the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section apply.
(1) The emission limitations in this subpart apply at all times
except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. The emission limitations of this subpart
apply during periods of SSM, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section. However, if a SSM, or period of nonoperation
of one portion of the affected source does not affect the ability of a
particular emission source to comply with the emission limitations to
which it is subject, then that emission source is still required to
comply with the applicable emission limitations of this subpart during
the startup, shutdown, malfunction, or period of nonoperation.
(2) The owner or operator must not shut down control devices or
monitoring systems that are required or utilized for achieving
compliance with this subpart during periods of SSM while emissions are
being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown would
contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items of
equipment. This paragraph (b)(2) does not apply if the item of
equipment is malfunctioning. This paragraph (b)(2) also does not apply
if the owner or operator shuts down the compliance equipment (other
than monitoring systems) to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous SSM
of the affected source or portion thereof. If the owner or operator has
reason to believe that monitoring equipment would be damaged due to a
contemporaneous SSM of the affected source of portion thereof, the
owner or operator must provide documentation supporting such a claim in
the next Compliance report required in Table 11 to this subpart, item
1. Once approved by the Administrator, the provision for ceasing to
collect, during a SSM, monitoring data that would otherwise be required
by the provisions of this subpart must be incorporated into the SSM
plan.
(3) During SSM, you must implement, to the extent reasonably
available, measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions. For
purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), the term ``excess
[[Page 56342]]
emissions'' means emissions greater than those allowed by the emission
limits that apply during normal operational periods. The measures to be
taken must be identified in the SSM plan, and may include, but are not
limited to, air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies,
work practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the
manner of operation of the affected source. Back-up control devices are
not required, but may be used if available.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, periods
of planned routine maintenance of a control device used to control
storage tanks or transfer racks, during which the control device does
not meet the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, must not
exceed 240 hours per year.
(d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you
elect to route emissions from storage tanks or transfer racks to a fuel
gas system or to a process, as allowed by Sec. 63.982(d), to comply
with the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, the total
aggregate amount of time during which the emissions bypass the fuel gas
system or process during the calendar year without being routed to a
control device, for all reasons (except SSM or product changeovers of
flexible operation units and periods when a storage tank has been
emptied and degassed), must not exceed 240 hours.
(e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section no longer apply.
Instead, you must be in compliance with each emission limitation,
operating limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a)
of this section at all times, except during periods of nonoperation of
the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. The use of a
bypass line at any time on a closed vent system to divert a vent stream
to the atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section is an emissions standards
deviation. Equipment subject to the work practice standards for
equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 are not
subject to this paragraph (e). If you are subject to the bypass
monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS, then you
must continue to comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.983(a)(3) of
subpart SS and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.
63.998(d)(1)(ii) and Sec. 63.999(c)(2) of subpart SS, in addition to
Sec. 63.2346(m), the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.
63.2390(g), and the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.2386(c)(12).
(f) The CEMS data must be reduced to daily averages computed using
valid data consistent with the data availability requirements specified
in Sec. 63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through (D), except monitoring data also
are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values
are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour
when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are
being performed. In computing daily averages to determine compliance
with this subpart, you must exclude monitoring data recorded during
CEMS breakdowns, out of control periods, repairs, maintenance periods,
calibration checks, or other quality assurance activities.
0
16. Section 63.2380 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2380 What are my requirements for certain flares?
(a) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions
through a closed vent system to a steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-
assisted flare to control emissions from a storage tank, low throughput
transfer rack, or high throughput transfer rack, then the flare
requirements specified in Sec. 63.11(b); 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS;
the provisions specified in items 7.a through 7.d of Table 3; Table 8
to this subpart; and the provisions specified in items 1.a.iii and
2.a.iii, and items 7.a through 7.d.2 of Table 9 to this subpart no
longer apply. Instead, you must meet the applicable requirements for
flares as specified in Sec. Sec. 63.670 and 63.671 of subpart CC,
including the provisions in Tables 12 and 13 to subpart CC of this
part, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this
section. For purposes of compliance with this paragraph, the following
terms are defined in Sec. 63.641 of subpart CC: Assist air, assist
steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion zone gas, flare, flare
purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep gas, flare vent gas,
lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist air, pilot gas, premix
assist air, total steam, and upper steam.
(b) The following phrases in Sec. 63.670(c) of subpart CC do not
apply:
(1) ``[S]pecify the smokeless design capacity of each flare and'';
and
(2) ``[A]nd the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless
design capacity of the flare''.
(c) The phrase ``and the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the
smokeless design capacity of the flare'' in Sec. 63.670(d) of subpart
CC does not apply.
(d) Sec. 63.670(o) does not apply.
(e) Substitute ``affected source'' for each occurrence of
``petroleum refinery.''
(f) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
(g) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in Sec. 63.670(r) of subpart CC in
lieu of the requirements in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of subpart CC,
as applicable. However, instead of complying with Sec.
63.670(r)(3)(iii) of subpart CC, you must also submit the alternative
means of emissions limitation request to the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom
(E143-01), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 109
T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Electronic
copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted to [email protected].
(h) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net
heating value with a continuous process mass spectrometer, then you
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) of subpart
CC. You may augment the minimum list of calibration gas components
found in Sec. 63.671(e)(2) of subpart CC with compounds found during a
pre-survey or known to be in the gas through process knowledge.
(2) Calibration gas cylinders must be certified to an accuracy of 2
percent and traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) standards.
(3) For unknown gas components that have similar analytical mass
fragments to calibration compounds, you may report the unknowns as an
increase in the overlapped calibration gas compound. For unknown
compounds that produce mass fragments that do not overlap calibration
compounds, you may use the response factor for the nearest molecular
weight hydrocarbon in the calibration mix to quantify the unknown
component's NHVvg.
(4) You may use the response factor for n-pentane to quantify any
unknown components detected with a higher molecular weight than n-
pentane.
(5) You must perform an initial calibration to identify mass
fragment overlap and response factors for the target compounds.
(6) You must meet applicable requirements in Performance
[[Page 56343]]
Specification 9 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 for continuous
monitoring system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing
an initial multi-point calibration check at three concentrations
following the procedure in Section 10.1 and performing the periodic
calibration requirements listed for gas chromatographs in Table 13 of
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the process mass spectrometer. You may
use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating
Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table 13 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
(7) The average instrument calibration error (CE) for each
calibration compound at any calibration concentration must not differ
by more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE
for each component in the calibration blend must be calculated using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.001
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)
(i) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for
compositional analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to
use the CE of NHV measured versus the cylinder tag value NHV as the
measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits in lieu
of determining the compound-specific CE. The CE for NHV at any
calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the
certified cylinder gas value. The CE for must be calculated using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.002
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
(j) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(p) of subpart CC, you
must keep the flare monitoring records specified in Sec. 63.2390(h).
(k) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(q) of subpart CC, you
must comply with the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.2382(d)(2)(ix) and Sec. 63.2386(d)(5).
0
17. Section 63.2382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(1),
(d)(2) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), and
adding (d)(2)(ix) and (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2382 What notifications must I submit and when and what
information should be submitted?
(a) You must submit each notification in subpart SS of this part,
Table 12 to this subpart, and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section that applies to you. You must submit these notifications
according to the schedule in Table 12 to this subpart and as specified
in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. You must also comply
with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
* * * * *
(d)(1) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 5, 6, or 7 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status.
(2) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the
information required in Sec. 63.999(b) and in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
through (ix) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests,
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments,
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial
compliance according to Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart. For performance
tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis
procedures and quality assurance procedures. If performance test
results are submitted electronically via CEDRI in accordance with Sec.
63.2386(g), the unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date
that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in the
Notification of Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test
results. The performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the
date the Notification of Compliance Status is submitted.
* * * * *
(vi) The applicable information specified in Sec. 63.1039(a)(1)
through (3) for all pumps and valves subject to the work practice
standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart,
item 4, and all connectors subject to the work practice standards for
equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 7.
(vii) If you are complying with the vapor balancing work practice
standard for transfer racks according to Table 4 to this subpart, item
3.a, include a statement to that effect and a statement that the
pressure vent settings on the affected storage tanks are greater than
or equal to 2.5 psig.
* * * * *
(ix) For flares subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.2380, you
must also submit the information in this paragraph in a supplement to
the Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first
applicable compliance date for flare monitoring. In lieu of the
information required in Sec. 63.987(b) of subpart SS, the Notification
of Compliance Status must include flare design (e.g., steam-assisted,
air-assisted, or non-assisted); all visible emission readings, heat
content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration
required by Sec. 63.670(h) of subpart CC, as applicable; and all
periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is
absent.
(3) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance
Status reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI), then submit a complete report,
including information
[[Page 56344]]
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom
(C404-02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must
be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure
for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided
you meet the requirements outlined in Sec. 63.2386(i) or (j), as
applicable.
0
18. Section 63.2386 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraph
(c) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), paragraph
(c)(8) introductory text and paragraph (c)(9);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(11) and (c)(12);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, paragraph (d)(1)
introductory text, paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(vii),
(d)(1)(ix), and (d)(1)(x);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(xiii) through (d)(1)(xv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(5);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2386 What reports must I submit and when and what
information is to be submitted in each?
(a) You must submit each report in subpart SS of this part, Table
11 to this subpart, Table 12 to this subpart, and in paragraphs (c)
through (k) of this section that applies to you. You must also comply
with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
according to Table 11 to this subpart and by the dates shown in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, by the dates shown in
subpart SS of this part, and by the dates shown in Table 12 to this
subpart, whichever are applicable.
* * * * *
(c) First Compliance report. The first Compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) of
this section, as well as the information specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
* * * * *
(2) Statement by a responsible official, including the official's
name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information
in the report are true, accurate, and complete. If your report is
submitted via CEDRI, the certifier's electronic signature during the
submission process replaces this requirement.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
* * * * *
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, if
you had a SSM during the reporting period and you took actions
consistent with your SSM plan, the Compliance report must include the
information described in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
* * * * *
(8) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(12) of this section, for
closed vent systems and control devices used to control emissions, the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section
for those planned routine maintenance activities that would require the
control device to not meet the applicable emission limit.
* * * * *
(9) A listing of all transport vehicles into which organic liquids
were loaded at transfer racks that are subject to control based on the
criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10,
during the previous 6 months for which vapor tightness documentation as
required in Sec. 63.2390(c) was not on file at the facility.
* * * * *
(11) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(5) of this section no longer applies.
(12) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(8) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, for bypass lines subject to the requirements Sec. 63.2378(e),
the compliance report must include the start date, start time, duration
in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard cubic feet (scf),
the concentration of organic HAP in the gas in ppmv and the resulting
mass emissions of organic HAP in pounds that bypass a control device.
For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, report the start
date, start time, and duration in hours.
(d) Subsequent Compliance reports. Subsequent Compliance reports
must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and
paragraph (c)(12) of this section and, where applicable, the
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with an emission
limitation in this subpart, or for each CMS that was inoperative or out
of control during the reporting period, you must include in the
Compliance report the applicable information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (xv) of this section. This includes periods of SSM.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped,
and the nature and cause of the malfunction (if known).
(ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each
period that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and
high-level checks.
(iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each
period that the CMS that was out of control.
(iv) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section,
the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether
each deviation occurred during a period of SSM, or during another
period.
(v) The total duration in hours of all deviations for each CMS
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percentage of
the total emission source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section,
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(vii) The total duration in hours of CMS downtime for each CMS
during the reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as
a percentage of the total emission source operating time during that
reporting period.
* * * * *
(ix) A brief description of the emission source(s) at which the CMS
deviation(s) occurred or at which the CMS was inoperative or out of
control.
(x) The equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s) of the CMS
and the pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
(xiii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (vi) of this section no
longer apply. For
[[Page 56345]]
each instance, report the start date, start time, and duration in hours
of each failure. For each failure, the report must include a list of
the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity in
pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause
of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), as
applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(xiv) Corrective actions taken for a CMS that was inoperative or
out of control.
(xv) Total process operating time during the reporting period.
(2) * * *
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section,
for each storage tank and transfer rack subject to control
requirements, include periods of planned routine maintenance during
which the control device did not comply with the applicable emission
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(iv) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section no longer
applies.
(3) (i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this
section, a listing of any storage tank that became subject to controls
based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart,
items 1 through 6, since the filing of the last Compliance report.
(ii) A listing of any transfer rack that became subject to controls
based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart,
items 7 through 10, since the filing of the last Compliance report.
(iii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this
subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected source no longer
apply as specified in Sec. 63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later
than the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), you must
include a listing of any storage tanks at an existing affected source
that became subject to controls based on the criteria for control
specified in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, since the
filing of the last Compliance report. If you choose to meet the
fenceline monitoring requirements specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you
are not required to comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *
(5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2380, the compliance report must include the items specified in
paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section in lieu of the
information required in Sec. 63.999(c)(3) of subpart SS.
(i) Records as specified in Sec. 63.2390(h)(1) for each 15-minute
block during which there was at least one minute when regulated
material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame is present. Include
the start and stop time and date of each 15-minute block.
(ii) Visible emission records as specified in Sec.
63.2390(h)(2)(iv) for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which
visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes.
(iii) The periods specified in Sec. 63.2390(h)(6). Indicate the
date and start and end time for the period, and the net heating value
operating parameter(s) determined following the methods in Sec.
63.670(k) through (n) of subpart CC as applicable.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If
an affected source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 11 to
this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and
the Compliance report includes all required information concerning
deviations from any emission limitation in this subpart, we will
consider submission of the Compliance report as satisfying any
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring
report. However, submission of a Compliance report will not otherwise
affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations
from permit requirements to the applicable title V permitting
authority.
(f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must submit all Compliance reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this
subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on
the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc,
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom
(C404-02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must
be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure
for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided
you meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (i) or (j) of this
section, as applicable.
(g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance test reports in
accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
[[Page 56346]]
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The
file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance evaluation reports in
accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each CMS performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2),
you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under
paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The
file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(j) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this paragraph,
a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(k) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in Sec.
63.2348, you must submit the following information:
(1) A notification to the Administrator that you are exercising the
option to implement fenceline monitoring according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.2348.
(2) A report to the Administrator containing the information
required at Sec. 63.2348(b), including the model input file, the model
results, the selected analytes, and the action level for each analyte.
The report must be submitted no later than the date specified in Sec.
63.2342(f)(1).
[[Page 56347]]
(3) Monitoring data must be submitted quarterly to EPA's CEDRI
(CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).)
using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart according to
paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) The first quarterly report must be submitted once you have
obtained 12 months of data. The first quarterly report must cover the
period beginning on the compliance date that is specified in Sec.
63.2342(f)(2) and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 or December
31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after you have
obtained 12 months of data (i.e., the first quarterly report will
contain between 12 and 15 months of data). Each subsequent quarterly
report must cover one of the following reporting periods: Quarter 1
from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from April 1 through June
30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30; and Quarter 4 from
October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report must be
electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days following the
end of the reporting period.
(ii) Report contents. Each report must contain the following
information:
(A) Facility name and address.
(B) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter
3, or Quarter 4).
(C) For the first reporting period and for any reporting period in
which a passive monitor is added or moved, for each passive monitor:
The latitude and longitude location coordinates; the sampler name; and
identification of the type of sampler (i.e., regular monitor, extra
monitor, duplicate, field blank, inactive). You must determine the
coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters.
Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal
places.
(D) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
(E) Individual sample results for each analyte reported in units of
[micro]g/m\3\ for each monitor for each sampling period that ends
during the reporting period. Results must be reported with at least two
significant figures. Results below the method detection limit must be
flagged as below the detection limit and reported at the method
detection limit.
(F) Data flags that indicate each monitor that was skipped for the
sampling period, if you use an alternative sampling frequency under
Sec. 63.2348(e)(3).
(G) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with
Section 9.2 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part. For each
outlier, you must submit the individual sample result of the outlier,
as well as the evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier.
(H) The biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each
analyte for each sampling period and the annual average [Delta]c for
each analyte for each sampling period.
0
19. Section 63.2390 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3) and (d);
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2390 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for
flares, you must keep all records identified in subpart SS of this part
and in Table 12 to this subpart that are applicable, including records
related to notifications and reports, SSM, performance tests, CMS, and
performance evaluation plans. You must also comply with the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for
flares, you must keep the records required to show continuous
compliance, as required in subpart SS of this part and in Tables 8
through 10 to this subpart, with each emission limitation, operating
limit, and work practice standard that applies to you. You must also
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(m).
(3) In addition to the information required in Sec. 63.998(c), the
manufacturer's specifications or your written procedures must include a
schedule for calibrations, preventative maintenance procedures, a
schedule for preventative maintenance, and corrective actions to be
taken if a calibration fails.
(c) For each transport vehicle into which organic liquids are
loaded at a transfer rack that is subject to control based on the
criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, you
must keep the applicable records in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section or alternatively the verification records in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
* * * * *
(2) For transport vehicles without vapor collection equipment,
current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and
maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks
and subpart F for tank cars.
(3) In lieu of keeping the records specified in paragraph (c)(1) or
(2) of this section, as applicable, the owner or operator shall record
that the verification of U.S. DOT tank certification or Method 27 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing, required in Table 5 to this
subpart, item 2, has been performed. Various methods for the record of
verification can be used, such as: A check-off on a log sheet, a list
of U.S. DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data, or a position description
for gate security showing that the security guard will not allow any
trucks on site that do not have the appropriate documentation.
(d) You must keep records of the total actual annual facility-level
organic liquid loading volume as defined in Sec. 63.2406 through
transfer racks to document the applicability, or lack thereof, of the
emission limitations in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10.
* * * * *
(f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each deviation from an emission limitation, operating
limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, you must keep a record of the information specified in
paragraph (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time and duration of each failure.
(2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.2350(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each flow event from a bypass line subject to the
requirements in Sec. 63.2378(e), you must maintain records sufficient
to determine whether or not the detected flow included flow requiring
control. For each flow event from a bypass line requiring control that
is released either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device
not meeting the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2378(a), you must
include an
[[Page 56348]]
estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of organic HAP in the
gas and the resulting emissions of organic HAP that bypassed the
control device using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
(h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.
63.2380, you must keep records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(10) of this section in lieu of the information required in Sec.
63.998(a)(1) of subpart SS.
(1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to
detect the presence of a pilot flame as required in Sec. 63.670(b) of
subpart CC for a minimum of 2 years. Retain records of each 15-minute
block during which there was at least one minute that no pilot flame is
present when regulated material is routed to a flare for a minimum of 5
years.
(2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations or video
surveillance images required in Sec. 63.670(h) of subpart CC as
specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as
applicable, for a minimum of 3 years.
(i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required,
the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented
to the flare.
(ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method
22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, then the record must identify
whether the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of
each observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and
whether it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and
start and end time of each visible emissions observation.
(iii) If a video surveillance camera is used, then the record must
include all video surveillance images recorded, with time and date
stamps.
(iv) For each 2-hour period for which visible emissions are
observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the
record must include the date and start and end time of the 2-hour
period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2-
hour period for which emissions were visible.
(3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas
and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix
assist air specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.670(i) of subpart
CC, along with the date and time interval for the 15-minute block. If
multiple monitoring locations are used to determine cumulative vent gas
flow, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix assist air, then
retain records of the 15-minute block average flows for each monitoring
location for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block
average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations for a
minimum of 5 years. If pressure and temperature monitoring is used,
then retain records of the 15-minute block average temperature,
pressure, and molecular weight of the flare vent gas or assist gas
stream for each measurement location used to determine the 15-minute
block average cumulative flows for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the
15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent
calculations for a minimum of 5 years.
(4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under
Sec. 63.670(j) of subpart CC. Retain records of individual component
concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2
years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute
block average values for a minimum of 5 years.
(5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated
following the methods specified in Sec. 63.670(k) through (n) of
subpart CC, as applicable.
(6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f) of
subpart CC when regulated material is being routed to the flare.
(7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.670(g) through (j) of subpart
CC.
(8) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the flare,
but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare, including
the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated material
flow.
(9) The monitoring plan required in Sec. 63.2366(c).
(10) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (xi).
(i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
63.2342(f), for each OLD operation complying with the requirements in
Sec. 63.2348, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1)
through (10) of this section on an ongoing basis.
(1) Coordinates of all passive monitors, including replicate
samplers and field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological
station. You must determine the coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal
degrees with at least five decimal places.
(2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as
the tube identifying information.
(3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure
measurements.
(4) For each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of
Method 325A of appendix A of this part, the sampler location of and the
concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the
result is an outlier.
(5) For samples that will be adjusted for a background, the
location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the
background sampler, and the perimeter samplers to which it applies.
(6) Individual sample results, the calculated [Delta]c for each
analyte for each sampling period and the two samples used to determine
it, whether background correction was used, and the annual average
[Delta]c calculated after each sampling period.
(7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located
samples and blanks.
(8) Documentation of corrective action taken each time the action
level was exceeded.
(9) Other records as required by Methods 325A and 325B of appendix
A of this part.
(10) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in Sec.
63.2348(i), records of hourly meteorological data, including
temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind direction,
calculated daily unit vector wind direction and daily sigma theta, and
other records specified in the site-specific monitoring plan.
0
20. Section 63.2396 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (e)(2).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.2396 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
(a) * * *
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, as an
alternative to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, if a storage
tank assigned to the OLD affected source is subject to control under 40
CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to
comply only with the requirements of this subpart for storage tanks
meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 to this
subpart.
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the applicability criteria
[[Page 56349]]
for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart for storage tanks at
an existing affected source no longer apply as specified in Sec.
63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), as an alternative to paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section, if a storage tank assigned to an existing OLD
affected source is subject to control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb,
or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to comply only with the
requirements of this subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected
source meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2b to
this subpart. If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you are not required to
comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you
have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections that are
subject to a 40 CFR part 60 subpart, and those connectors, pumps,
valves, and sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic
liquids service, as defined in this subpart, you must comply with the
provisions of each subpart for those equipment leak components.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you
have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections subject to 40
CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and those connectors, pumps, valves, and
sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic liquids
service, as defined in this subpart, you may elect to comply with the
provisions of this subpart for all such equipment leak components. You
must identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2382(b) the provisions with which you will comply.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Equipment leak components. After the compliance dates specified
in Sec. 63.2342, if you are applying the applicable recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of another 40 CFR part 63 subpart to the
connectors, valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems associated
with a transfer rack subject to this subpart that only unloads organic
liquids directly to or via pipeline to a non-tank process unit
component or to a storage tank subject to the other 40 CFR part 63
subpart, the owner or operator must be in compliance with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart EEEE. If
complying with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
other subpart satisfies the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of
this subpart, the owner or operator may elect to continue to comply
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the other subpart.
In such instances, the owner or operator will be deemed to be in
compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this
subpart. The owner or operator must identify the other subpart being
complied with in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.2382(b).
0
21. Section 63.2402 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2402 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority for this
subpart to a State, local, or eligible tribal agency under 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(6) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
delegated to the State, local, or eligible tribal agency.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
(6) Approval of a site-specific monitoring plan for fenceline
monitoring at Sec. 63.2348(i).
0
22. Section 63.2406 is amended, in alphabetical order, by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Annual average true vapor pressure'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``Condensate'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``Deviation'' and ``Equipment Leak
component'';
0
d. Adding the definition of ``Force majeure event'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Organic liquid'';
0
f. Adding the definitions of ``Pressure relief device'' and ``Relief
valve''; and
0
g. Revising the definition of ``Vapor-tight transport vehicle''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2406 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Annual average true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial
pressure exerted by the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored or
transferred organic liquid. For the purpose of determining if a liquid
meets the definition of an organic liquid, the vapor pressure is
determined using conditions of 77 degrees Fahrenheit and 29.92 inches
of mercury. For the purpose of determining whether an organic liquid
meets the applicability criteria in Table 2, items 1 through 6, to this
subpart or Table 2b, items 1 through 3, use the actual annual average
temperature as defined in this subpart. The vapor pressure value in
either of these cases is determined:
(1) Using standard reference texts;
(2) By ASTM D6378-18a (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14)
using a vapor to liquid ratio of 4:1; or
(3) Using any other method that the EPA approves.
* * * * *
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that
condenses due to changes in the temperature or pressure, or both, and
remains liquid at standard conditions as specified in Sec. 63.2. Only
those condensates downstream of the first point of custody transfer
after the production field are considered condensates in this subpart.
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or portion thereof, or an owner or operator of such a
source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this
subpart during SSM. On and after [date 180 days after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no
longer applies.
* * * * *
Equipment leak component means each pump, valve, and sampling
connection system used in organic liquids service at an OLD operation.
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), connectors are also considered an equipment leak component.
Valve types include control, globe, gate, plug, and ball. Relief and
check valves are excluded.
Force majeure event means a release of HAP, either directly to the
[[Page 56350]]
atmosphere from a safety device or discharged via a flare, that is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an
event beyond the owner or operator's control, such as natural
disasters; acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the
OLD operation (e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power
curtailment due to an interruptible service agreement; and fire or
explosion originating at a near or adjoining facility outside of the
OLD operation that impacts the OLD operation's ability to operate.
* * * * *
Organic liquid means:
(1) Any non-crude oil liquid, non-condensate liquid, or liquid
mixture that contains 5 percent by weight or greater of the organic HAP
listed in Table 1 to this subpart, as determined using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.2354(c).
(2) Any crude oils or condensates downstream of the first point of
custody transfer.
(3) Organic liquids for purposes of this subpart do not include the
following liquids:
(i) Gasoline (including aviation gasoline), kerosene (No. 1
distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier
distillate oils and fuel oils;
(ii) Any fuel consumed or dispensed on the plant site directly to
users (such as fuels for fleet refueling or for refueling marine
vessels that support the operation of the plant);
(iii) Hazardous waste;
(iv) Wastewater;
(v) Ballast water; or
(vi) Any non-crude oil or non-condensate liquid with an annual
average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia).
* * * * *
Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar
device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas
from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment
damage. A pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-
actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated
relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin
devices.
* * * * *
Relief valve means a type of pressure relief device that is
designed to re-close after the pressure relief.
* * * * *
Vapor-tight transport vehicle means a transport vehicle that has
been demonstrated to be vapor-tight. To be considered vapor-tight, a
transport vehicle equipped with vapor collection equipment must undergo
a pressure change of no more than 250 pascals (1 inch of water) within
5 minutes after it is pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 inches of
water). This capability must be demonstrated annually using the
procedures specified in Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For
all other transport vehicles, vapor tightness is demonstrated by
performing the U.S. DOT pressure test procedures for tank cars and
cargo tanks.
* * * * *
0
23. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must . . .
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. Reduce emissions
existing affected source organic liquid is of total organic
with a capacity >=18.9 not crude oil or HAP (or, upon
cubic meters (5,000 condensate and if approval, TOC) by
gallons) and <189.3 cubic the annual average at least 95 weight-
meters (50,000 gallons) \2\. true vapor pressure percent or, as an
of the total Table option, to an
1 organic HAP in exhaust
the stored organic concentration less
liquid is >=27.6 than or equal to 20
kilopascals (4.0 ppmv, on a dry
psia) and <76.6 basis corrected to
kilopascals (11.1 3 percent oxygen
psia). for combustion
devices using
supplemental
combustion air, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
applicable
requirements of 40
CFR part 63,
subpart SS and Sec.
63.2346(m); OR
ii. Comply with the
work practice
standards specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart, items 1.a,
1.b, or 1.c for
tanks storing
liquids described
in that table.
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
2. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. See the
existing affected source organic liquid is requirement in item
with a capacity >=189.3 not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
cubic meters (50,000 condensate and if this table.
gallons). the annual average
true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia)..
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
3. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=18.9 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (5,000 gallons) and the annual average
<37.9 cubic meters (10,000 true vapor pressure
gallons). of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=27.6
kilopascals (4.0
psia) and <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
4. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=37.9 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (10,000 gallons) and the annual average
<189.3 cubic meters (50,000 true vapor pressure
gallons). of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=0.7
kilopascals (0.1
psia) and <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
5. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=189.3 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (50,000 gallons). the annual average
true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
[[Page 56351]]
6. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. Reduce emissions
existing, reconstructed, or organic liquid is of total organic
new affected source meeting not crude oil or HAP (or, upon
the capacity criteria condensate and if approval, TOC) by
specified in Table 2 of the annual average at least 95 weight-
this subpart, items 1 true vapor pressure percent or, as an
through 5. of the total Table option, to an
1 organic HAP in exhaust
the stored organic concentration less
liquid is >=76.6 than or equal to 20
kilopascals (11.1 ppmv, on a dry
psia). basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen
for combustion
devices using
supplemental
combustion air, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
applicable
requirements of 40
CFR part 63,
subpart SS and Sec.
63.2346(m); OR
ii. Comply with the
work practice
standards specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart, item 2.a,
for tanks storing
the liquids
described in that
table.
7. A transfer rack at an a. The total Table 1 i. For all such
existing facility where the organic HAP content loading arms at the
total actual annual of the organic rack, reduce
facility-level organic liquid being loaded emissions of total
liquid loading volume through one or more organic HAP (or,
through transfer racks is of the transfer upon approval, TOC)
equal to or greater than rack's arms is at from the loading of
800,000 gallons and less least 98 percent by organic liquids
than 10 million gallons. weight and is being either by venting
loaded into a the emissions that
transport vehicle. occur during
loading through a
closed vent system
to any combination
of control devices
meeting the
applicable
requirements of 40
CFR part 63,
subpart SS and Sec.
63.2346(m),
achieving at least
98 weight-percent
HAP reduction, OR,
as an option, to an
exhaust
concentration less
than or equal to 20
ppmv, on a dry
basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen
for combustion
devices using
supplemental
combustion air; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item 3
of Table 4 to this
subpart.
8. A transfer rack at an a. One or more of i. See the
existing facility where the the transfer rack's requirements in
total actual annual arms is loading an items 7.a.i and
facility-level organic organic liquid into 7.a.ii of this
liquid loading volume a transport vehicle. table.
through transfer racks is
>=10 million gallons.
9. A transfer rack at a new a. The total Table 1 i. See the
facility where the total organic HAP content requirements in
actual annual facility- of the organic items 7.a.i and
level organic liquid liquid being loaded 7.a.ii of this
loading volume through through one or more table.
transfer racks is less than of the transfer
800,000 gallons. rack's arms is at
least 25 percent by
weight and is being
loaded into a
transport vehicle.
b. One or more of i. For all such
the transfer rack's loading arms at the
arms is filling a rack during the
container with a loading of organic
capacity equal to liquids, comply
or greater than 55 with the provisions
gallons. of Sec. Sec.
63.924 through
63.927 of 40 CFR
part 63, Subpart
PP--National
Emission Standards
for Containers,
Container Level 3
controls; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item
3.a of Table 4 to
this subpart.
10. A transfer rack at a new a. One or more of i. See the
facility where the total the transfer rack's requirements in
actual annual facility- arms is loading an items 7.a.i and
level organic liquid organic liquid into 7.a.ii of this
loading volume through a transport vehicle. table.
transfer racks is equal to b. One or more of i. For all such
or greater than 800,000 the transfer rack's loading arms at the
gallons. arms is filling a rack during the
container with a loading of organic
capacity equal to liquids, comply
or greater than 55 with the provisions
gallons. of Sec. Sec.
63.924 through
63.927 of 40 CFR
part 63, Subpart
PP--National
Emission Standards
for Containers,
Container Level 3
controls; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item
3.a of Table 4 to
this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, if
you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare then you
must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(k).
\2\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure
criteria, and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an
existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 no longer
apply. Instead, you must comply with the requirements as specified in
Sec. 63.2346(a)(5) and Table 2b of this subpart. If you choose to
meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in Sec.
63.2348, then you are not required to comply with Table 2b of this
subpart as specified in Sec. 63.2346(a)(6). Instead, you may
continue to comply with the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure
criteria and the emission limits specified for storage tanks at an
existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1.
0
24. Subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by adding Table 2b to read as
follows:
[[Page 56352]]
Table 2B to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Emission Limits for Storage Tanks
at Certain Existing Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.2346(a)(5), beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), the requirements in
this Table 2b of this subpart apply to storage tanks at an existing
affected source in lieu of the requirements in Table 2 of this subpart,
item 1 for storage tanks at an existing affected source. As stated in
Sec. 63.2346(a)(6), if you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you may continue to
comply with the requirements in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 for
storage tanks at an existing affected source instead of the requirements
in this Table 2b of this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. Reduce emissions
existing affected source with organic liquid of total organic HAP
a capacity >=18.9 cubic is not crude oil (or, upon approval,
meters (5,000 gallons) and or condensate TOC) by at least 95
<75.7 cubic meters (20,000 and if the weight-percent or,
gallons). annual average as an option, to an
true vapor exhaust
pressure of the concentration less
total Table 1 than or equal to 20
organic HAP in ppmv, on a dry basis
the stored corrected to 3
organic liquid percent oxygen for
is >=27.6 combustion devices
kilopascals (4.0 using supplemental
psia). combustion air, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to a
flare meeting the
requirements of Sec.
63.983 and Sec.
63.2380, or by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
nonflare control
devices meeting the
applicable
requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart
SS and Sec.
63.2346(m); OR
ii. Comply with the
work practice
standards specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart, items 1.a,
1.b, or 1.c for
tanks storing
liquids described in
that table.
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid requirement in item
is crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
2. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. See the
existing affected source with organic liquid requirement in item
a capacity >=75.7 cubic is not crude oil 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
meters (20,000 gallons) and or condensate this table.
<151.4 cubic meters (40,000 and if the
gallons). annual average
true vapor
pressure of the
total Table 1
organic HAP in
the stored
organic liquid
is >=13.1
kilopascals (1.9
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid requirement in item
is crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
3. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. See the
existing affected source with organic liquid requirement in item
a capacity >=151.4 cubic is not crude oil 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
meters (40,000 gallons) and or condensate this table.
<189.3 cubic meters (50,000 and if the
gallons). annual average
true vapor
pressure of the
total Table 1
organic HAP in
the stored
organic liquid
is >=5.2
kilopascals
(0.75 psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid requirement in item
is crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
25. Table 3 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Operating Limits--High Throughput
Transfer Racks
As stated in Sec. 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating
limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each existing, each
reconstructed, and each new You must . . .
affected source using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to Maintain the daily average fire box or
comply with an emission combustion zone temperature greater than
limit in Table 2 to this or equal to the reference temperature
subpart. established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
2. A catalytic oxidizer to a. Replace the existing catalyst bed
comply with an emission before the age of the bed exceeds the
limit in Table 2 to this maximum allowable age established during
subpart. the design evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated compliance with
the emission limit; AND
b. Maintain the daily average temperature
at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater
than or equal to the reference
temperature established during the
design evaluation or performance test
that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit; AND
c. Maintain the daily average temperature
difference across the catalyst bed
greater than or equal to the minimum
temperature difference established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
3. An absorber to comply with a. Maintain the daily average
an emission limit in Table 2 concentration level of organic compounds
to this subpart. in the absorber exhaust less than or
equal to the reference concentration
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing
liquid temperature less than or equal to
the reference temperature established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
Maintain the difference between the
specific gravities of the saturated and
fresh scrubbing fluids greater than or
equal to the difference established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
[[Page 56353]]
4. A condenser to comply with a. Maintain the daily average
an emission limit in Table 2 concentration level of organic compounds
to this subpart. at the condenser exit less than or equal
to the reference concentration
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the daily average condenser
exit temperature less than or equal to
the reference temperature established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
5. An adsorption system with a. Maintain the daily average
adsorbent regeneration to concentration level of organic compounds
comply with an emission in the adsorber exhaust less than or
limit in Table 2 to this equal to the reference concentration
subpart. established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the total regeneration stream
mass flow during the adsorption bed
regeneration cycle greater than or equal
to the reference stream mass flow
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
Before the adsorption cycle commences,
achieve and maintain the temperature of
the adsorption bed after regeneration
less than or equal to the reference
temperature established during the
design evaluation or performance test
that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit; AND
Achieve a pressure reduction during each
adsorption bed regeneration cycle
greater than or equal to the pressure
reduction established during the design
evaluation or performance test that
demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit.
6. An adsorption system a. Maintain the daily average
without adsorbent concentration level of organic compounds
regeneration to comply with in the adsorber exhaust less than or
an emission limit in Table 2 equal to the reference concentration
to this subpart. established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each
segment of the bed with an adsorbent
that meets the replacement
specifications established during the
design evaluation or performance test
before the age of the adsorbent exceeds
the maximum allowable age established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
Maintain the temperature of the
adsorption bed less than or equal to the
reference temperature established during
the design evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated compliance with
the emission limit.
7. A flare to comply with an a. Except as specified in item 7.d of
emission limit in Table 2 to this table, comply with the equipment
this subpart. and operating requirements in Sec.
63.987(a); AND
b. Except as specified in item 7.d of
this table, conduct an initial flare
compliance assessment in accordance with
Sec. 63.987(b); AND
c. Except as specified in item 7.d of
this table, install and operate
monitoring equipment as specified in
Sec. 63.987(c).
d. Beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e),
comply with the requirements in Sec.
63.2380 instead of the requirements in
Sec. 63.987 and the provisions
regarding flare compliance assessments
at Sec. 63.997(a), (b), and (c).
8. Another type of control Submit a monitoring plan as specified in
device to comply with an Sec. Sec. 63.995(c) and 63.2366(b),
emission limit in Table 2 to and monitor the control device in
this subpart. accordance with that plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Table 4 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
As stated in Sec. 63.2346, you may elect to comply with one of the
work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources in the following table. If you elect to do so, . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an a. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
existing, reconstructed, or part 63, subpart WW (control level 2),
new affected source meeting if you elect to meet 40 CFR part 63,
any set of tank capacity and subpart WW (control level 2)
organic HAP vapor pressure requirements as an alternative to the
criteria specified in Table emission limit in Table 2 to this
2 to this subpart, items 1 subpart, items 1 through 5 or the
through 5 or Table 2b to emission limit in Table 2b to this
this subpart, items 1 subpart, items 1 through 3; OR
through 3. b. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
Sec. 63.2346(m) and 63.984 for routing
emissions to a fuel gas system or back
to a process; OR
c. Comply with the requirements of Sec.
63.2346(a)(4) for vapor balancing
emissions to the transport vehicle from
which the storage tank is filled.
2. Storage tank at an a. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
existing, reconstructed, or Sec. 63.2346(m) and 63.984 for routing
new affected source meeting emissions to a fuel gas system or back
any set of tank capacity and to a process; OR
organic HAP vapor pressure b. Comply with the requirements of Sec.
criteria specified in Table 63.2346(a)(4) for vapor balancing
2 to this subpart, item 6. emissions to the transport vehicle from
which the storage tank is filled.
[[Page 56354]]
3. Transfer rack subject to a. If the option of a vapor balancing
control based on the system is selected, install and, during
criteria specified in Table the loading of organic liquids, operate
2 to this subpart, items 7 a system that meets the requirements in
through 10, at an existing, Table 7 to this subpart, item 3.b.i and
reconstructed, or new item 3.b.ii, as applicable; OR
affected source. b. Comply with the requirements in Sec.
Sec. 63.2346(m) and 63.984 during the
loading of organic liquids, for routing
emissions to a fuel gas system or back
to a process.
4. Pump, valve, and sampling Comply with Sec. 63.2346(m) and the
connection that operates in requirements for pumps, valves, and
organic liquids service at sampling connections in 40 CFR part 63,
least 300 hours per year at subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU
an existing, reconstructed, (control level 2), or subpart H.
or new affected source.
5. Transport vehicles Follow the steps in 40 CFR 60.502(e) to
equipped with vapor ensure that organic liquids are loaded
collection equipment that only into vapor-tight transport
are loaded at transfer racks vehicles, and comply with the provisions
that are subject to control in 40 CFR 60.502(f), (g), (h), and (i),
based on the criteria except substitute the term transport
specified in Table 2 to this vehicle at each occurrence of tank truck
subpart, items 7 through 10. or gasoline tank truck in those
paragraphs.
6. Transport vehicles Ensure that organic liquids are loaded
equipped without vapor only into transport vehicles that have a
collection equipment that current certification in accordance with
are loaded at transfer racks the U.S. DOT qualification and
that are subject to control maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part
based on the criteria 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and
specified in Table 2 to this subpart F for tank cars.
subpart, items 7 through 10.
7. Connector that operates in Beginning no later than the compliance
organic liquids service at dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e),
least 300 hours per year at comply with Sec. 63.2346(m) and the
an existing, reconstructed, requirements for connectors in 40 CFR
or new affected source. part 63, subpart UU (control level 2),
or subpart H.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with
item 7 of this table.
0
27. Table 5 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests and Design Evaluations
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2354(a) and 63.2362, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests and design evaluations for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must conduct . . . According to . . . Using . . . To determine . . . following
requirements . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each existing, each a. A performance test i. Sec. (1) Method 1 or 1A in (A) Sampling port (i) Sampling sites
reconstructed, and each new to determine the 63.985(b)(1)(ii), appendix A-1 of 40 locations and the must be located at
affected source using a nonflare organic HAP (or, upon Sec. 63.988(b), CFR part 60, as required number of the inlet and outlet
control device to comply with an approval, TOC) Sec. 63.990(b), or appropriate. traverse points. of each control
emission limit in Table 2 to this control efficiency of Sec. 63.995(b). device if complying
subpart, items 1 through 10, and each nonflare control with the control
each existing affected source device, OR the efficiency
using a nonflare control device to exhaust concentration requirement or at
comply with an emission limit in of each combustion the outlet of the
Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 device; OR. control device if
through 3. complying with the
exhaust
concentration
requirement; AND
(ii) the outlet
sampling site must
be located at each
control device prior
to any releases to
the atmosphere.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, (A) Stack gas See the requirements
2D, or 2F in velocity and in items
appendix A-1 of 40 volumetric flow rate. 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
CFR part 60, or (ii) of this table.
Method 2G in
appendix A-2 of 40
CFR part 60, as
appropriate.
(3) Method 3A or 3B (A) Concentration of See the requirements
in appendix A-2 of CO2 and O2 and dry in items
40 CFR part 60, as molecular weight of 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
appropriate \1\. the stack gas. (ii) of this table.
(4) Method 4 in (A) Moisture content See the requirements
appendix A-3 of 40 of the stack gas. in items
CFR part 60. 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
(ii) of this table.
(5) Method 25 or 25A (A) TOC and (i) The organic HAP
in appendix A-7 of formaldehyde used for the
40 CFR part 60, as emissions, from any calibration gas for
appropriate. Method control device. Method 25A in
316, Method 320,\4\ appendix A-7 of 40
or Method 323 in CFR part 60 must be
appendix A of 40 CFR the single organic
part 63 if you must HAP representing the
measure largest percent by
formaldehyde. You volume of emissions;
may not use Methods AND
320 2 4 or 323 for (ii) During the
formaldehyde if the performance test,
gas stream contains you must establish
entrained water the operating
droplets.. parameter limits
within which TOC
emissions are
reduced by the
required weight-
percent or, as an
option for nonflare
combustion devices,
to 20 ppmv exhaust
concentration.
[[Page 56355]]
(6) Method 18 \3\ in (A) Total organic HAP (i) During the
appendix A-6 of 40 and formaldehyde performance test,
CFR part 60 or emissions, from non- you must establish
Method 320 2 4 in combustion control the operating
appendix A of 40 CFR devices. parameter limits
part 63, as within which total
appropriate. Method organic HAP
316, Method 320,2 4 emissions are
or Method 323 in reduced by the
appendix A of 40 CFR required weight-
part 63 for percent.
measuring
formaldehyde. You
may not use Methods
320 or 323 if the
gas stream contains
entrained water
droplets.
b. A design evaluation Sec. 63.985(b)(1)(i) ..................... ..................... During a design
(for nonflare control evaluation, you must
devices) to determine establish the
the organic HAP (or, operating parameter
upon approval, TOC) limits within which
control efficiency of total organic HAP,
each nonflare control (or, upon approval,
device, or the TOC) emissions are
exhaust concentration reduced by at least
of each combustion 95 weight-percent
control device. for storage tanks or
98 weight-percent
for transfer racks,
or, as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices, to 20 ppmv
exhaust
concentration.
2. Each transport vehicle that you A performance test to ...................... Method 27 in appendix Vapor tightness...... The pressure change
own that is equipped with vapor determine the vapor A of 40 CFR part 60. in the tank must be
collection equipment and is loaded tightness of the tank no more than 250
with organic liquids at a transfer and then repair as pascals (1 inch of
rack that is subject to control needed until it water) in 5 minutes
based on the criteria specified in passes the test.. after it is
Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 pressurized to 4,500
through 10, at an existing, pascals (18 inches
reconstructed, or new affected of water).
source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The manual method in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (Part 10) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used instead of Method 3B in appendix A-
2 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine oxygen concentration.
\2\ All compounds quantified by Method 320 in appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320.
\3\ ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used instead of Method 18 in appendix A-6 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine total
HAP emissions, but if you use ASTM D6420-18, you must use it under the conditions specified in Sec. 63.2354(b)(3)(ii).
\4\ ASTM D6348-12e1, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the following
conditions: The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; the percent (%) R
must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5); %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%; if the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target
compound, then the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical
procedure should be adjusted before a retest); and the %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must
be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/
(%R) x 100
0
28. Table 6 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows
for items 1 and 2 to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(b), you must show
initial compliance with the emission limits for existing, reconstructed,
or new affected sources as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . For the following demonstrated initial
emission limit . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an Reduce total organic Total organic HAP
existing, reconstructed, or HAP (or, upon (or, upon approval,
new affected source meeting approval, TOC) TOC) emissions,
any set of tank capacity emissions by at based on the
and liquid organic HAP least 95 weight- results of the
vapor pressure criteria percent, or as an performance testing
specified in Table 2 to option for nonflare or design
this subpart, items 1 combustion devices evaluation
through 6, or Table 2b to to an exhaust specified in Table
this subpart, items 1 concentration of 5 to this subpart,
through 3. <=20 ppmv. item 1.a or 1.b,
respectively, are
reduced by at least
95 weight-percent
or as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices to an
exhaust
concentration <=20
ppmv.
2. Transfer rack that is Reduce total organic Total organic HAP
subject to control based on HAP (or, upon (or, upon approval,
the criteria specified in approval, TOC) TOC) emissions from
Table 2 to this subpart, emissions from the the loading of
items 7 through 10, at an loading of organic organic liquids,
existing, reconstructed, or liquids by at least based on the
new affected source. 98 weight-percent, results of the
or as an option for performance testing
nonflare combustion or design
devices to an evaluation
exhaust specified in Table
concentration of 5 to this subpart,
<=20 ppmv. item 1.a or 1.b,
respectively, are
reduced by at least
98 weight-percent
or as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices to an
exhaust
concentration of
<=20 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
29. Table 7 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows
for items 1, 3, and 4 to read as follows:
[[Page 56356]]
Table 7 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Work
Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . If you . . . demonstrated initial
compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an a. Install a i. After emptying
existing affected source floating roof or and degassing, you
meeting either set of tank equivalent control visually inspect
capacity and liquid organic that meets the each internal
HAP vapor pressure criteria requirements in floating roof
specified in Table 2 to Table 4 to this before the
this subpart, items 1 or 2, subpart, item 1.a. refilling of the
or Table 2b to this storage tank and
subpart, items 1 through 3. perform seal gap
inspections of the
primary and
secondary rim seals
of each external
floating roof
within 90 days
after the refilling
of the storage
tank.
b. Route emissions i. You meet the
to a fuel gas requirements in
system or back to a Sec. 63.984(b)
process. and submit the
statement of
connection required
by Sec.
63.984(c).
c. Install and, i. You meet the
during the filling requirements in
of the storage tank Sec.
with organic 63.2346(a)(4).
liquids, operate a
vapor balancing
system.
2. Storage tank at a a. Install a i. You visually
reconstructed or new floating roof or inspect each
affected source meeting any equivalent control internal floating
set of tank capacity and that meets the roof before the
liquid organic HAP vapor requirements in initial filling of
pressure criteria specified Table 4 to this the storage tank,
in Table 2 to this subpart, subpart, item 1.a. and perform seal
items 3 through 5. gap inspections of
the primary and
secondary rim seals
of each external
floating roof
within 90 days
after the initial
filling of the
storage tank.
b. Route emissions i. See item 1.b.i of
to a fuel gas this table.
system or back to a
process.
c. Install and, i. See item 1.c.i of
during the filling this table.
of the storage tank
with organic
liquids, operate a
vapor balancing
system.
3. Transfer rack that is a. Load organic i. You comply with
subject to control based on liquids only into the provisions
the criteria specified in transport vehicles specified in Table
Table 2 to this subpart, having current 4 to this subpart,
items 7 through 10, at an vapor tightness item 5 or item 6,
existing, reconstructed, or certification as as applicable.
new affected source. described in Table
4 to this subpart,
item 5 and item 6.
b. Install and, i. You design and
during the loading operate the vapor
of organic liquids, balancing system to
operate a vapor route organic HAP
balancing system. vapors displaced
from loading of
organic liquids
into transport
vehicles to the
storage tank from
which the liquid
being loaded
originated or to
another storage
tank connected to a
common header.
ii. You design and
operate the vapor
balancing system to
route organic HAP
vapors displaced
from loading of
organic liquids
into containers
directly (e.g., no
intervening tank or
containment area
such as a room) to
the storage tank
from which the
liquid being loaded
originated or to
another storage
tank connected to a
common header.
c. Route emissions i. See item 1.b.i of
to a fuel gas this table.
system or back to a
process.
4. Equipment leak component, a. Carry out a leak i. You specify which
as defined in Sec. detection and one of the control
63.2406, that operates in repair program or programs listed in
organic liquids service equivalent control Table 4 to this
>=300 hours per year at an according to one of subpart you have
existing, reconstructed, or the subparts listed selected, OR
new affected source. in Table 4 to this ii. Provide written
subpart, item 4 and specifications for
item 7. your equivalent
control approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
30. Table 8 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limits
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must
show continuous compliance with the emission limits for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For the following continuous
For each . . . emission limit . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an a. Reduce total i. Performing CMS
existing, reconstructed, or organic HAP (or, monitoring and
new affected source meeting upon approval, TOC) collecting data
any set of tank capacity emissions from the according to Sec.
and liquid organic HAP closed vent system Sec. 63.2366,
vapor pressure criteria and control device 63.2374, and
specified in Table 2 to by 95 weight- 63.2378, except as
this subpart, items 1 percent or greater, specified in item
through 6 or Table 2b to or as an option to 1.a.iii of this
this subpart, items 1 20 ppmv or less of table; AND
through 3. total organic HAP ii. Maintaining the
(or, upon approval, operating limits
TOC) in the exhaust established during
of combustion the design
devices. evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit.
iii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), if you
use a flare, you
must demonstrate
continuous
compliance by
performing CMS
monitoring and
collecting data
according to
requirements in
Sec. 63.2380.
[[Page 56357]]
2. Transfer rack that is a. Reduce total i. Performing CMS
subject to control based on organic HAP (or, monitoring and
the criteria specified in upon approval, TOC) collecting data
Table 2 to this subpart, emissions during according to Sec.
items 7 through 10, at an the loading of Sec. 63.2366,
existing, reconstructed, or organic liquids 63.2374, and
new affected source. from the closed 63.2378 during the
vent system and loading of organic
control device by liquids, except as
98 weight-percent specified in item
or greater, or as 2.a.iii of this
an option to 20 table; AND
ppmv or less of ii. Maintaining the
total organic HAP operating limits
(or, upon approval, established during
TOC) in the exhaust the design
of combustion evaluation or
devices. performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit
during the loading
of organic liquids.
iii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), if you
use a flare, you
must demonstrate
continuous
compliance by
performing CMS
monitoring and
collecting data
according to
requirements in
Sec. 63.2380.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
31. Table 9 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Operating
Limits--High Throughput Transfer Racks
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must
show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each existing, For the following continuous
reconstructed, and each new operating limit . . compliance by . . .
affected source using . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to a. Maintain the i. Continuously
comply with an emission daily average fire monitoring and
limit in Table 2 to this box or combustion recording fire box
subpart. zone, as or combustion zone,
applicable, as applicable,
temperature greater temperature every
than or equal to 15 minutes and
the reference maintaining the
temperature daily average fire
established during box temperature
the design greater than or
evaluation or equal to the
performance test reference
that demonstrated temperature
compliance with the established during
emission limit.. the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
2. A catalytic oxidizer to a. Replace the i. Replacing the
comply with an emission existing catalyst existing catalyst
limit in Table 2 to this bed before the age bed before the age
subpart. of the bed exceeds of the bed exceeds
the maximum the maximum
allowable age allowable age
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit; AND. emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\ 1\
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
temperature at the recording the
inlet of the temperature at the
catalyst bed inlet of the
greater than or catalyst bed at
equal to the least every 15
reference minutes and
temperature maintaining the
established during daily average
the design temperature at the
evaluation or inlet of the
performance test catalyst bed
that demonstrated greater than or
compliance with the equal to the
emission limit; AND. reference
temperature
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
c. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
temperature recording the
difference across temperature at the
the catalyst bed outlet of the
greater than or catalyst bed every
equal to the 15 minutes and
minimum temperature maintaining the
difference daily average
established during temperature
the design difference across
evaluation or the catalyst bed
performance test greater than or
that demonstrated equal to the
compliance with the minimum temperature
emission limit. difference
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
3. An absorber to comply a. Maintain the i. Continuously
with an emission limit in daily average monitoring the
Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level organic
of organic concentration in
compounds in the the absorber
absorber exhaust exhaust and
less than or equal maintaining the
to the reference daily average
concentration concentration less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or concentration
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; OR. performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
[[Page 56358]]
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring the
scrubbing liquid scrubbing liquid
temperature less temperature and
than or equal to maintaining the
the reference daily average
temperature temperature less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or temperature
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; AND. performance test
Maintain the that demonstrated
difference between compliance with the
the specific emission limit; AND
gravities of the ii. Maintaining the
saturated and fresh difference between
scrubbing fluids the specific
greater than or gravities greater
equal to the than or equal to
difference the difference
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit. emission limit; AND
iii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
4. A condenser to comply a. Maintain the i. Continuously
with an emission limit in daily average monitoring the
Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level organic
of organic concentration at
compounds at the the condenser exit
exit of the and maintaining the
condenser less than daily average
or equal to the concentration less
reference than or equal to
concentration the reference
established during concentration
the design established during
evaluation or the design
performance test evaluation or
that demonstrated performance test
compliance with the that demonstrated
emission limit; OR. compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
condenser exit recording the
temperature less temperature at the
than or equal to exit of the
the reference condenser at least
temperature every 15 minutes
established during and maintaining the
the design daily average
evaluation or temperature less
performance test than or equal to
that demonstrated the reference
compliance with the temperature
emission limit. established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
5. An adsorption system with a. Maintain the i. Continuously
adsorbent regeneration to daily average monitoring the
comply with an emission concentration level daily average
limit in Table 2 to this of organic organic
subpart. compounds in the concentration in
adsorber exhaust the adsorber
less than or equal exhaust and
to the reference maintaining the
concentration concentration less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or concentration
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; OR. performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Maintain the i. Maintaining the
total regeneration total regeneration
stream mass flow stream mass flow
during the during the
adsorption bed adsorption bed
regeneration cycle regeneration cycle
greater than or greater than or
equal to the equal to the
reference stream reference stream
mass flow mass flow
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit; AND. emission limit; AND
Before the ii. Maintaining the
adsorption cycle temperature of the
commences, achieve adsorption bed
and maintain the after regeneration
temperature of the less than or equal
adsorption bed to the reference
after regeneration temperature
less than or equal established during
to the reference the design
temperature evaluation or
established during performance test
the design that demonstrated
evaluation or compliance with the
performance test; emission limit; AND
AND. iii. Achieving
Achieve greater than greater than or
or equal to the equal to the
pressure reduction pressure reduction
during the during the
adsorption bed regeneration cycle
regeneration cycle established during
established during the design
the design evaluation or
evaluation or performance test
performance test that demonstrated
that demonstrated compliance with the
compliance with the emission limit; AND
emission limit. iv. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
6. An adsorption system a. Maintain the i. Continuously
without adsorbent daily average monitoring the
regeneration to comply with concentration level organic
an emission limit in Table of organic concentration in
2 to this subpart. compounds in the the adsorber
adsorber exhaust exhaust and
less than or equal maintaining the
to the reference concentration less
concentration than or equal to
established during the reference
the design concentration
evaluation or established during
performance test the design
that demonstrated evaluation or
compliance with the performance test
emission limit; OR. that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
[[Page 56359]]
b. Replace the i. Replacing the
existing adsorbent existing adsorbent
in each segment of in each segment of
the bed before the the bed with an
age of the adsorbent that
adsorbent exceeds meets the
the maximum replacement
allowable age specifications
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated before the age of
compliance with the the adsorbent
emission limit; AND. exceeds the maximum
Maintain the allowable age
temperature of the established during
adsorption bed less the design
than or equal to evaluation or
the reference performance test
temperature that demonstrated
established during compliance with the
the design emission limit; AND
evaluation or ii. Maintaining the
performance test temperature of the
that demonstrated adsorption bed less
compliance with the than or equal to
emission limit. the reference
temperature
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
iii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
7. A flare to comply with an a. Except as i. Continuously
emission limit in Table 2 specified in item operating a device
to this subpart. 7.e of this table, that detects the
maintain a pilot presence of the
flame in the flare pilot flame; AND
at all times that ii. Keeping the
vapors may be applicable records
vented to the flare required in Sec.
(Sec. 63.998.\ 1\
63.11(b)(5)); AND.
b. Except as i. Maintaining a
specified in item flare flame at all
7.e of this table, times that vapors
maintain a flare are being vented to
flame at all times the flare; AND
that vapors are ii. Keeping the
being vented to the applicable records
flare (Sec. required in Sec.
63.11(b)(5)); AND. 63.998.\ 1\
c. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare with no
7.e of this table, visible emissions
operate the flare exceeding the
with no visible amount allowed; AND
emissions, except ii. Keeping the
for up to 5 minutes applicable records
in any 2 required in Sec.
consecutive hours 63.998.\ 1\
(Sec.
63.11(b)(4)); AND
EITHER.
d.1. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare within the
7.e of this table, applicable exit
operate the flare velocity limits;
with an exit AND
velocity that is ii. Operating the
within the flare with the gas
applicable limits heating value
in Sec. greater than the
63.11(b)(7) and (8) applicable minimum
and with a net value; AND
heating value of iii. Keeping the
the gas being applicable records
combusted greater required in Sec.
than the applicable 63.998.\1\
minimum value in
Sec.
63.11(b)(6)(ii); OR.
d.2. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare within the
7.e of this table, applicable limits
adhere to the in 63.11(b)(6)(i);
requirements in AND
Sec. ii. Keeping the
63.11(b)(6)(i). applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
e. Beginning no i. Operating the
later than the flare with the
compliance dates applicable limits
specified in Sec. in Sec. 63.2380;
63.2342(e), comply AND
with the ii. Keeping the
requirements in applicable records
Sec. 63.2380 required in Sec.
instead of the 63.2390(h).
requirements in
Sec. 63.11(b)..
8. Another type of control Submit a monitoring Submitting a
device to comply with an plan as specified monitoring plan and
emission limit in Table 2 in Sec. Sec. monitoring the
to this subpart. 63.995(c) and control device
63.2366(b), and according to that
monitor the control plan.
device in
accordance with
that plan..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the referenced provisions specified in Sec. 63.2346(m)
do not apply.
0
32. Table 10 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Work
Practice Standards
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2386(c)(6), you must
show continuous compliance with the work practice standards for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For the following continuous
For each . . . standard . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Internal floating roof a. Install a i. Visually
(IFR) storage tank at an floating roof inspecting the
existing, reconstructed, or designed and floating roof deck,
new affected source meeting operated according deck fittings, and
any set of tank capacity, to the applicable rim seals of each
and vapor pressure criteria specifications in IFR once per year
specified in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1063(a) (Sec.
this subpart, items 1 and (b). 63.1063(d)(2)); AND
through 5, or Table 2b to ii. Visually
this subpart, items 1 inspecting the
through 3. floating roof deck,
deck fittings, and
rim seals of each
IFR either each
time the storage
tank is completely
emptied and
degassed or every
10 years, whichever
occurs first (Sec.
63.1063(c)(1),
(d)(1), and (e));
AND
iii. Keeping the
tank records
required in Sec.
63.1065.
[[Page 56360]]
2. External floating roof a. Install a i. Visually
(EFR) storage tank at an floating roof inspecting the
existing, reconstructed, or designed and floating roof deck,
new affected source meeting operated according deck fittings, and
any set of tank capacity to the applicable rim seals of each
and vapor pressure criteria specifications in EFR either each
specified in Table 2 to Sec. 63.1063(a) time the storage
this subpart, items 1 and (b). tank is completely
through 5, or Table 2b to emptied and
this subpart, items 1 degassed or every
through 3. 10 years, whichever
occurs first (Sec.
63.1063(c)(2),
(d), and (e)); AND
ii. Performing seal
gap measurements on
the secondary seal
of each EFR at
least once every
year, and on the
primary seal of
each EFR at least
every 5 years (Sec.
63.1063(c)(2),
(d), and (e)); AND
iii. Keeping the
tank records
required in Sec.
63.1065.
3. IFR or EFR tank at an a. Repair the i. Repairing
existing, reconstructed, or conditions causing conditions causing
new affected source meeting storage tank inspection
any set of tank capacity inspection failures failures: before
and vapor pressure criteria (Sec. 63.1063(e)). refilling the
specified in Table 2 to storage tank with
this subpart, items 1 organic liquid, or
through 5, or Table 2b to within 45 days (or
this subpart, items 1 up to 105 days with
through 3. extensions) for a
tank containing
organic liquid; AND
ii. Keeping the tank
records required in
Sec. 63.1065(b).
4. Transfer rack that is a. Ensure that i. Ensuring that
subject to control based on organic liquids are organic liquids are
the criteria specified in loaded into loaded into
Table 2 to this subpart, transport vehicles transport vehicles
items 7 through 10, at an in accordance with in accordance with
existing, reconstructed, or the requirements in the requirements in
new affected source. Table 4 to this Table 4 to this
subpart, items 5 or subpart, items 5 or
6, as applicable. 6, as applicable.
b. Install and, i. Monitoring each
during the loading potential source of
of organic liquids, vapor leakage in
operate a vapor the system
balancing system. quarterly during
the loading of a
transport vehicle
or the filling of a
container using the
methods and
procedures
described in the
rule requirements
selected for the
work practice
standard for
equipment leak
components as
specified in Table
4 to this subpart,
item 4 and item 7.
An instrument
reading of 500 ppmv
defines a leak.
Repair of leaks is
performed according
to the repair
requirements
specified in your
selected equipment
leak standards.
c. Route emissions i. Continuing to
to a fuel gas meet the
system or back to a requirements
process. specified in Sec.
63.984(b).
5. Equipment leak component, a. For equipment i. Carrying out a
as defined in Sec. leak components leak detection and
63.2406, that operates in other than repair program in
organic liquids service at connectors, comply accordance with the
least 300 hours per year. with Sec. subpart selected
63.2346(m) and the from the list in
requirements of 40 item 5.a of this
CFR part 63, table.
subpart TT, UU, or
H.
b. In addition to i. Carrying out a
item 5.a of this leak detection and
table, beginning no repair program in
later than the accordance with the
compliance dates subpart selected
specified in Sec. from the list in
63.2342(e), comply item 5.b of this
with Sec. table.
63.2346(m) and the
requirements for
connectors in 40
CFR part 63,
subpart UU or H \1\.
6. Storage tank at an a. Route emissions i. Continuing to
existing, reconstructed, or to a fuel gas meet the
new affected source meeting system or back to requirements
any of the tank capacity the process. specified in Sec.
and vapor pressure criteria 63.984(b).
specified in Table 2 to
this subpart, items 1
through 6, or Table 2b to
this subpart, items 1
through 3.
b. Install and, i. Except for
during the filling pressure relief
of the storage tank devices, monitoring
with organic each potential
liquids, operate a source of vapor
vapor balancing leakage in the
system. system, including,
but not limited to
connectors, pumps,
valves, and
sampling
connections,
quarterly during
the loading of a
storage tank using
the methods and
procedures
described in the
rule requirements
selected for the
work practice
standard for
equipment leak
components as
specified in Table
4 to this subpart,
item 4 and item 7.
An instrument
reading of 500 ppmv
defines a leak.
Repair of leaks is
performed according
to the repair
requirements
specified in your
selected equipment
leak standards. For
pressure relief
devices, comply
with Sec.
63.2346(a)(4)(v).
If no loading of a
storage tank occurs
during a quarter,
then monitoring of
the vapor balancing
system is not
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2348, then you do not need to comply with item
5.b of this table.
0
33. Table 11 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 56361]]
Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As stated in Sec. 63.2386(a), (b), and (f), you must submit compliance
reports and startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report or a. The information Semiannually, and it
Periodic Report. specified in Sec. must be postmarked
63.2386(c), (d), or electronically
(e). If you had a submitted by
SSM during the January 31 or July
reporting period 31, in accordance
and you took with Sec.
actions consistent 63.2386(b).
with your SSM plan,
the report must
also include the
information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i)
except as specified
in item 1.e of this
table; AND.
b. The information See the submission
required by 40 CFR requirement in item
part 63, subpart 1.a of this table.
TT, UU, or H, as
applicable, for
connectors, pumps,
valves, and
sampling
connections; AND.
c. The information See the submission
required by Sec. requirement in item
63.999(c); AND. 1.a of this table.
d. The information See the submission
specified in Sec. requirement in item
63.1066(b) 1.a of this table.
including:
Notification of
inspection,
inspection results,
requests for
alternate devices,
and requests for
extensions, as
applicable.
e. Beginning no ....................
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the
requirement to
include the
information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) no
longer applies.
2. Immediate SSM report if a. The information i. Except as
you had a SSM that resulted required in Sec. specified in item
in an applicable emission 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 2.a.ii of this
standard in the relevant table, by letter
standard being exceeded, within 7 working
and you took an action that days after the end
was not consistent with of the event unless
your SSM plan. you have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
ii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), item
2.a.i of this table
no longer applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
34. Table 12 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEE
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions
requirements as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................ Applicability........... Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
Applicability after
standard established;
Permit requirements;
Extensions,
Notifications.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions............. Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Abbreviations. Units and abbreviations Yes.
for part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; Yes.
and Circumvention. Circumvention,
Severability.
Sec. 63.5........................ Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. Applications; Approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)..................... Compliance with GP apply unless Yes.
Standards/O&M compliance extension;
Applicability. GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).............. Compliance Dates for New Standards apply at Yes.
and Reconstructed effective date; 3 years
Sources. after effective date;
upon startup; 10 years
after construction or
reconstruction
commences for CAA
section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................. Notification............ Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................. [Reserved].............. .......................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................. Compliance Dates for New Area sources that become Yes.
and Reconstructed Area major must comply with
Sources That Become major source standards
Major. immediately upon
becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply when
they were an area
source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).............. Compliance Dates for Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in this subpart, which
must be no later than 3
years after effective
date; for CAA section
112(f) standards,
comply within 90 days
of effective date
unless compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).............. [Reserved].............. .......................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area Sources major must comply with
That Become Major. major source standards
by date indicated in
this subpart or by
equivalent time period
(e.g., 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... [Reserved].............. .......................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............... Operation & Maintenance. Operate to minimize Yes, before [date 3
emissions at all times. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2350(d) for general
duty requirement.
[[Page 56362]]
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).............. Operation & Maintenance. Correct malfunctions as Yes, before [date 3
soon as practicable. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............. Operation & Maintenance. Operation and Yes.
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable;
information
Administrator will use
to determine if
operation and
maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................. [Reserved].............. .......................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. SSM Plan................ Requirement for SSM Yes, before [date 3
plan; content of SSM years after date of
plan; actions during publication of final
SSM. rule in the Federal
Register]; however,
(1) the 2-day
reporting requirement
in paragraph Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iv) does
not apply and (2) Sec.
63.6(e)(3) does not
apply to emissions
sources not requiring
control.
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. Compliance Except During You must comply with Yes, before [date 3
SSM. emission standards at years after date of
all times except during publication of final
SSM. rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).............. Methods for Determining Compliance based on Yes.
Compliance. performance test,
operation and
maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).............. Alternative Standard.... Procedures for getting Yes.
an alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................. Opacity/Visible Emission You must comply with Yes, before [date 3
Standards. opacity and visible years after date of
emission standards at publication of final
all times except during rule in the Federal
SSM. Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(9).............. Opacity/Visible Emission Requirements for No; except as it
Standards. compliance with opacity applies to flares for
and visible emission which Method 22
standards. observations are
required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............. Compliance Extension.... Procedures and criteria Yes.
for Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Presidential Compliance President may exempt any Yes.
Exemption. source from requirement
to comply with this
subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2).................. Performance Test Dates.. Dates for conducting Yes.
initial performance
testing; must conduct
180 days after
compliance date.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).................. Section 114 Authority... Administrator may Yes.
require a performance
test under CAA section
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).................. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).................. Notification of If you have to Yes.
Rescheduling. reschedule performance
test, must notify
Administrator of
rescheduled date as
soon as practicable and
without delay.
Sec. 63.7(c)..................... Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirement to submit Yes.
Test Plan. site-specific test plan
60 days before the test
or on date
Administrator agrees
with; test plan
approval procedures;
performance audit
requirements; internal
and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)..................... Testing Facilities...... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Conditions for Performance tests must Yes, before [date 3
Conducting Performance be conducted under years after date of
Tests. representative publication of final
conditions; cannot rule in the Federal
conduct performance Register].
tests during SSM. No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2354(b)(6).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................. Conditions for Must conduct according Yes.
Conducting Performance to this subpart and EPA
Tests. test methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................. Test Run Duration....... Must have three test Yes; however, for
runs of at least 1 hour transfer racks per
each; compliance is Sec. Sec.
based on arithmetic 63.987(b)(3)(i)(A)-(B)
mean of three runs; and 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A)-
conditions when data (B) provide exceptions
from an additional test to the requirement for
run can be used. test runs to be at
least 1 hour each.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).................. Authority to Require Administrator has Yes.
Testing. authority to require
testing under CAA
section 114 regardless
of Sec. 63.7 (e)(1)-
(3).
Sec. 63.7(f)..................... Alternative Test Method. Procedures by which Yes.
Administrator can grant
approval to use an
intermediate or major
change, or alternative
to a test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)..................... Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes, except this
Analysis. performance test subpart specifies how
report; must submit and when the
performance test data performance test and
60 days after end of performance evaluation
test with the results are reported.
Notification of
Compliance Status; keep
data for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h)..................... Waiver of Tests......... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).................. Applicability of Subject to all Yes.
Monitoring Requirements. monitoring requirements
in standard.
[[Page 56363]]
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).................. Performance Performance Yes.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved].............. .......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Monitoring of Flares.... Monitoring requirements Yes, before [date 3
for flares in Sec. years after date of
63.11. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]; however,
flare monitoring
requirements in Sec.
63.987(c) also apply
before [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2380.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................. Monitoring.............. Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).............. Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements Yes.
Multiple Monitoring for installing
Systems. monitoring systems;
must install on each
affected source or
after combined with
another affected source
before it is released
to the atmosphere
provided the monitoring
is sufficient to
demonstrate compliance
with the standard; if
more than one
monitoring system on an
emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless
one monitoring system
is a backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................. Monitoring System Maintain monitoring Yes.
Operation and system in a manner
Maintenance. consistent with good
air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... Routine and Predictable Keep parts for routine Yes, before [date 3
SSM. repairs readily years after date of
available; reporting publication of final
requirements for SSM rule in the Federal
when action is Register].
described in SSM plan.. No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).............. CMS malfunction not in Keep the necessary parts Yes.
SSM plan. for routine repairs if
CMS malfunctions.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. Compliance with Develop a written SSM Yes, before [date 3
Operation and plan for CMS. years after date of
Maintenance publication of final
Requirements. rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).............. Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission
or parameter
measurements; must
verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. CMS Requirements........ CMS must be operating Yes; however, COMS are
except during not applicable.
breakdown, out-of-
control, repair,
maintenance, and high-
level calibration
drifts; COMS must have
a minimum of one cycle
of sampling and
analysis for each
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period; CEMS must have
a minimum of one cycle
of operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................. COMS Minimum Procedures. COMS minimum procedures. No.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).............. CMS Requirements........ Zero and high level Yes, but only applies
calibration check for CEMS. 40 CFR part
requirements. Out-of- 63, subpart SS
control periods. provides requirements
for CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).............. CMS Quality Control..... Requirements for CMS Yes, but only applies
quality control. for CEMS. 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS
provides requirements
for CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................. CMS Quality Control..... Must keep quality Yes, before [date 3
control plan on record years after date of
for 5 years; keep old publication of final
versions. rule in the Federal
Register], but only
applies for CEMS. 40
CFR part 63, subpart
SS provides
requirements for CPMS.
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2366(c).
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... CMS Performance Notification, Yes, but only applies
Evaluation. performance evaluation for CEMS, except this
test plan, reports. subpart specifies how
and when the
performance evaluation
results are reported.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes, but 40 CFR part
Method. Administrator to 63, subpart SS also
approve alternative provides procedures
monitoring. for approval of CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Alternative to Relative Procedures for Yes.
Accuracy Test. Administrator to
approve alternative
relative accuracy tests
for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)..................... Data Reduction.......... COMS 6-minute averages Yes; however, COMS are
calculated over at not applicable.
least 36 evenly spaced
data points; CEMS 1
hour averages computed
over at least 4 equally
spaced data points;
data that cannot be
used in average.
Sec. 63.9(a)..................... Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5)..... Initial Notifications... Submit notification Yes.
within 120 days after
effective date;
notification of intent
to construct/
reconstruct,
notification of
commencement of
construction/
reconstruction,
notification of
startup; contents of
each.
[[Page 56364]]
Sec. 63.9(c)..................... Request for Compliance Can request if cannot Yes.
Extension. comply by date or if
installed best
available control
technology or lowest
achievable emission
rate (BACT/LAER).
Sec. 63.9(d)..................... Notification of Special For sources that Yes.
Compliance Requirements commence construction
for New Sources. between proposal and
promulgation and want
to comply 3 years after
effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)..................... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)..................... Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 No.
Opacity Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)..................... Additional Notifications Notification of Yes; however, there are
When Using CMS. performance evaluation; no opacity standards.
notification about use
of COMS data;
notification that
exceeded criterion for
relative accuracy
alternative.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6).............. Notification of Contents due 60 days Yes; however, (1) there
Compliance Status. after end of are no opacity
performance test or standards and (2) all
other compliance initial Notification
demonstration, except of Compliance Status,
for opacity/visible including all
emissions, which are performance test data,
due 30 days after; when are to be submitted at
to submit to Federal the same time, either
vs. State authority. within 240 days after
the compliance date or
within 60 days after
the last performance
test demonstrating
compliance has been
completed, whichever
occurs first.
Sec. 63.9(i)..................... Adjustment of Submittal Procedures for Yes.
Deadlines. Administrator to
approve change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)..................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 No. These changes will
Information. days after the change. be reported in the
first and subsequent
compliance reports.
Sec. 63.10(a).................... Recordkeeping/Reporting. Applies to all, unless Yes.
compliance extension;
when to submit to
Federal vs. State
authority; procedures
for owners of more than
one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................. Recordkeeping/Reporting. General requirements; Yes.
keep all records
readily available; keep
for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).............. Records Related to Occurrence of each for Yes, before [date 3
Startup and Shutdown. operations (process years after date of
equipment). publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............. Recordkeeping Relevant Occurrence of each Yes, before [date 3
to Malfunction Periods malfunction of air years after date of
and CMS. pollution equipment. publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2390(f).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)............ Recordkeeping Relevant Maintenance on air Yes.
to Maintenance of Air pollution control
Pollution Control and equipment.
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)............. Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during SSM...... Yes, before [date 3
to SSM Periods and CMS. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).............. Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during SSM...... No.
to SSM Periods and CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)........ CMS Records............. Malfunctions, Yes.
inoperative, out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)............ Records................. Records when under Yes.
waiver.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... Records................. Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............ Records................. All documentation Yes.
supporting initial
notification and
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................. Records................. Applicability Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(14)............ Records................. Additional records for Yes.
CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................ Records................. Additional records for Yes, before [date 3
CMS. years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................. General Reporting Requirement to report... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................. Report of Performance When to submit to No. This subpart
Test Results. Federal or State specifies how and when
authority. the performance test
results are reported.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Reporting Opacity or What to report and when. Yes.
Visible Emissions
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................. Progress Reports........ Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................. SSM Reports............. Contents and submission. Yes, before [date 3
years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register].
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2386(d)(1)(xiii).
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............. Additional CMS Reports.. Must report results for Yes, except this
each CEMS on a unit; subpart specifies how
written copy of CMS and when the
performance evaluation; performance evaluation
2-3 copies of COMS results are reported;
performance evaluation. however, COMS are not
applicable.
[[Page 56365]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)........ Reports................. Schedule for reporting Yes; however, note that
excess emissions and the title of the
parameter monitor report is the
exceedance (now defined compliance report;
as deviations). deviations include
excess emissions and
parameter exceedances.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)......... Excess Emissions Reports Requirement to revert to Yes.
quarterly submission if
there is an excess
emissions or parameter
monitoring exceedance
(now defined as
deviations); provision
to request semiannual
reporting after
compliance for 1 year;
submit report by 30th
day following end of
quarter or calendar
half; if there has not
been an exceedance or
excess emissions (now
defined as deviations),
report contents in a
statement that there
have been no
deviations; must submit
report containing all
of the information in
Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-
(8) and 63.10(c)(5)-
(13).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii)...... Excess Emissions Report Requirements for No. This subpart
and Summary Report. reporting excess specifies the reported
emissions for CMS (now information for
called deviations); deviations within the
requires all of the compliance reports.
information in Sec.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(13)
and 63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................. Reporting COMS Data..... Must submit COMS data No.
with performance test
data.
Sec. 63.10(f).................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Procedures for Yes.
Reporting. Administrator to waive.
Sec. 63.11(b).................... Flares.................. Requirements for flares. Yes, before [date 3
years after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]; Sec.
63.987 requirements
apply, and the section
references Sec.
63.11(b).
No, beginning on and
after [date 3 years
after date of
publication of final
rule in the Federal
Register]. See Sec.
63.2380.
Sec. 63.11(c), (d), and (e)...... Control and work Alternative work Yes.
practice requirements. practice for equipment
leaks.
Sec. 63.12....................... Delegation.............. State authority to Yes.
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13....................... Addresses............... Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14....................... Incorporation by Test methods Yes.
Reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15....................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-21690 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P