[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68535-68553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21976]
[[Page 68535]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358; FRL-10655-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV93
New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) as the
preliminary results of the review of the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing
revisions to the NSPS that are applicable to volatile organic liquid
(VOL) storage vessels that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 4, 2023 under a new NSPS subpart. In the new
NSPS subpart, the EPA is proposing to reduce the vapor pressure
applicability thresholds In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise
the volatile organic compound (VOC) standards to reflect the best
system of emissions reductions (BSER) for affected storage vessels. We
are also proposing additional monitoring and operating requirements to
ensure continuous compliance with the standard. In addition, the EPA is
proposing degassing emission controls; clarification of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction requirements; requirements for electronic
reporting; and other technical improvements. The EPA is also proposing
to amend NSPS subpart Kb to apply to VOL storage vessels that commence
construction, reconstruction or modification after July 23, 1984 and on
or before October 4, 2023 and to add electronic reporting requirements.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2023.
Comments on the information collection provisions submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) are best assured of consideration by OMB if OMB receives a copy
of your comments on or before November 3, 2023.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before October 10, 2023, we will hold a virtual hearing. Please
refer to the 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-2023-0358, 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-2023-0358 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0358.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358, 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 the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. 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 U.S. EPA, Attn: Michael Cantoni, Mail Drop: E143-01,
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-5593; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by
email at [email protected]. If requested, the virtual hearing
will be held on October 19, 2023. The hearing will convene at 11:00
a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The EPA may
close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has
testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce
further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum.
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
the publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register
to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration
form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum or contact
the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be October 16, 2023. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will
post a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers at:
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as described in this
section, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team
at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine
if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or a special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by October
11, 2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. All
[[Page 68536]]
documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, 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.
Written Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of
information should be submitted as discussed in the Submitting CBI
section of this document.
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). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA
public comment policy; information about CBI or multimedia submissions;
and general guidance on making effective comments.
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.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov. 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, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and 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 the Written Comments section of this document. 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 and note the docket ID. 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.
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it to the following address: U.S. EPA,
Attn: OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. 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:
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CE cost effectiveness
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EFR external floating roof
EIA economic impact analysis
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Eastern Time
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
ICE incremental cost effectiveness
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
kPa kilopascals
LEL lower explosive limit
m3 cubic meters
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gauge
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions
TAC total annualized cost
TCI total capital investment
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VOL volatile organic liquid(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 what are the current NSPS
requirements?
C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
D. What data and information were used to support this action?
III. What actions are we proposing?
A. What vapor pressure applicability thresholds are we proposing
and why?
[[Page 68537]]
B. What other changes to applicability are we proposing and why?
C. What are the proposed BSER and compliance alternatives for
newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed storage vessels?
D. What is the BSER and standard of performance for new and
reconstructed storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less
than 11.1 psia?
E. What compliance alternatives are available for new and
reconstructed storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less
than 11.1 psia?
F. What is the BSER and standard of performance for new,
modified, and reconstructed storage vessels with maximum true vapor
pressures equal to or greater than 11.1 psia?
G. What actions constitute a modification for storage vessels
and why?
H. What are the BSER and standards of performance for modified
storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1
psia?
I. What control requirements are we proposing for IFR and EFR
storage vessels emptying and degassing and why?
J. What requirements are we proposing for storage vessel
testing, monitoring, and inspections and why?
K. Proposal of NSPS subpart Kc without startup, shutdown, and
malfunction exemptions
L. Electronic Reporting
M. Other Proposed Actions
N. Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the benefits?
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094 Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this proposal is
composed of VOL storage vessels regulated under Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 111, New Source Performance Standards. The 2022 North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for this source category
are 325, 324, and 422710. The NAICS codes serve as a guide for readers
outlining the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect.
The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable
to affected facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or
modification after the date of publication of the proposed standards in
the Federal Register. Federal, State, local and Tribal government
entities that own and/or operate storage vessels would be affected by
this action.
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 at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum. 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.
A memorandum showing the edits that would be necessary to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Kb and Kc proposed
in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0358). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also
will post a copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The EPA's authority for this proposed rule is CAA section 111,
which governs the establishment of standards of performance for
stationary sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and
modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source
performance standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the
scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which
standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards,
and distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source performance
standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard
if the ``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate
in light of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the
standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard,
the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for
pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source
category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must
then, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of
performance for new sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA
section 111(b)(5) generally precludes the EPA from prescribing a
particular technological system that must be used to comply with a
standard of performance. Rather, sources can select any measure or
combination of measures that will achieve the standard. CAA section
111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate ``a design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination
thereof'' if in his or her judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides
the circumstances under which prescribing or enforcing a standard of
performance is ``not feasible,'' such as, when the pollutant
[[Page 68538]]
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to emit or capture the
pollutant, or when there is no practicable measurement methodology for
the particular class of sources.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
B. What is this source category and what are the current NSPS
requirements?
The EPA promulgated NSPS subpart K, specific to storage vessels for
petroleum liquids, in 1974 (39 FR 9317, March 8, 1974). These standards
were amended several times before 1980, when EPA proposed to establish
revised NSPS for storage vessels for petroleum liquids as NSPS subpart
Ka (45 FR 23379, April 4, 1980). In 1982, the EPA published a list of
priority sources for which additional NSPS should be established (47 FR
951, January 8, 1982), and VOL storage vessels at synthetic organic
chemical manufacturers were included in the priority list. Pursuant to
the EPA's authority under CAA section 111, the Agency proposed (49 FR
29698, July 23, 1984) and promulgated (52 FR 11420, April 8, 1987) NSPS
for volatile organic liquid storage vessels (including petroleum liquid
storage vessels) for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after July 23, 1984, as NSPS subpart Kb.\1\ NSPS
subpart Kb regulates storage vessels with a capacity of 75 cubic meters
(m\3\) (~20,000 gallons) or more that store VOLs with a true vapor
pressure over 15.0 kilopascals (kPa) (~2.18 psia), and from storage
vessels with a capacity of 151 m\3\ (~40,000 gallons) or more that
store organic liquids with a true vapor pressure over 3.5 kPa (~0.51
psia). VOC emissions controls are required on storage vessels with a
capacity of 75 cubic meters (m\3\) (~20,000 gallons) or more that store
VOLs with a true vapor pressure over 27.6 KPa (~4.0 psia), and from
storage vessels with a capacity of 151 m\3\ (~40,000 gallons) or more
that store organic liquids with a true vapor pressure over 5.2 kPa
(~0.75 psia). NSPS subpart Kb emission controls include the use of
either an external floating roof (EFR), an internal floating roof
(IFR), or a closed vent system and a control device (see 40 CFR
60.110b(a) and 40 CFR 60.112b(a) and (b)). \2\ NSPS subpart Kb also
specifies testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and other
requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b through 40 CFR 60.116b to ensure
compliance with the standards. Storage vessels with an EFR consist of
an open-top cylindrical steel shell equipped with a deck that floats on
the surface (commonly referred to as a floating ``roof'') of the stored
liquid. Storage vessels with an IFR are fixed roof vessels \3\ that
also have a deck internal to the vessel that floats on the liquid
surface (commonly referred to as an internal floating ``roof'') within
the fixed roof vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 15, 2003 (68 FR 59329), the EPA finalized
amendments to NSPS subpart Kb to exempt certain storage vessels by
capacity and vapor pressure, exempt process tanks, and add a process
tank definition. At the same time, the EPA also amended the rule to
exempt storage vessels that are subject to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent
Extraction of Vegetable Oil Production.
\2\ All affected storage vessels storing organic liquids with a
true vapor pressure of 76.6 kPa or more must use a closed vent
system and a control device. See 40 CFR 60.112b(b).
\3\ A fixed roof storage vessel consists of a cylindrical steel
shell with a permanently affixed roof, which may vary in design from
cone or dome-shaped to flat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards set in NSPS subpart Kb for storage vessels with an
EFR or IFR are a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and
operational standards set pursuant to CAA section 111(h). These
standards require, among other things, that a rim seal be installed
continuously around the circumference of the vessel (between the inner
wall of the vessel and the floating roof) to prevent VOC emissions from
escaping to the atmosphere through gaps between the floating roof and
the inner wall of the storage vessel. For IFRs, NSPS subpart Kb allows
a single liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal (to be used
with or without a secondary seal), or a vapor-mounted primary seal in
combination with a secondary seal. For EFRs, NSPS subpart Kb allows
either a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal, both of which
must be used with a secondary seal; vapor-mounted primary seals are not
allowed for EFR.
NSPS subpart Kb also requires numerous deck fittings \4\ on the
floating roof to be equipped with a gasketed cover or lid that is kept
in the closed position at all times (i.e., no visible gap), except when
the device (deck fitting) is in actual use, to prevent VOC emissions
from escaping through the deck fittings. In addition, NSPS subpart Kb
requires owners and operators to conduct visual inspections to check
for defects in the floating roof, rim seals, and deck fittings (e.g.,
holes, tears, or other openings in the rim seal, or covers and lids on
deck fittings that no longer close properly) that could expose the
liquid surface to the atmosphere and potentially result in VOC emission
losses through rim seals and deck fittings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Numerous fittings pass through or are attached to floating
decks to accommodate structure support components or to allow for
operational functions. Typical deck fittings include, but are not
limited to access hatches, gauge floats, gauge-hatch/sample ports,
rim vents, deck drains, deck legs, vacuum breakers, and guidepoles.
IFR storage vessels may also have deck seams, fixed-roof support
columns, ladders, and/or stub drains.
\5\ For details about storage vessel emissions, refer to the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Chapter 7: Liquid
Storage Tanks, dated June 2020 which is available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS subpart Kb includes two primary alternative means of
compliance. Owners or operators may either comply with the consolidated
air rule provisions for storage vessels in 40 CFR part 65, subpart C,
or comply with the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for storage vessels in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
The substantive control requirements in these rules are the same as in
NSPS subpart Kb although they may have slight differences in the
details of the fitting and inspection requirements.
We estimate that there were approximately 9,100 storage vessels
subject to NSPS subpart Kb in 2022, with an estimated 240 storage
vessels becoming new affected facilities under the rule each year.
Under the current NSPS subpart Kb requirements, it is generally
difficult to become a modified storage vessel.
[[Page 68539]]
C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, CAA section 111 requires
the EPA to, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise
the standards of performance applicable to new, modified, and
reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards of performance,
those standards must reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER considering the cost of
achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicating that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
Any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also
considers cost effectiveness analysis as a useful metric and a means of
evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In
general, cost effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant
reductions realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In performing this
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and BSER determination
leads to standards of performance that apply to facilities that begin
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the date of
publication of the proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because
the new source performance standards reflect the best system of
emission reduction under conditions of proper operation and
maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates and determines
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission standards.
See section II.D of this preamble for information on the specific
data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.
D. What data and information were used to support this action?
We reviewed recent federal, State, and local rulemakings associated
with VOL storage vessels. We also reviewed vendor websites and
contacted selected floating roof suppliers to collect information to
support our review of the existing requirements for organic liquid
storage vessels and our BSER assessments. We met with industry
representatives that own and operate VOL storage vessels to discuss
their experience with various control equipment.
We used the equations in Chapter 7 of AP-42: Compilation of Air
Emission Factors to estimate emissions from different VOL storage
vessels based on size, contents, and control configuration (e.g., type
of floating roof with different seal and fitting controls). We
estimated emission reductions by comparing the controlled emissions
with emissions from an uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel.
Our cost estimates were based largely on vendor costs developed
from previous rulemakings. For some control methods, we had limited
recent data from vendors or State and local rulemakings. All costs were
escalated to 2022 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost
Index for capital expenditures and Bureau of Labor Statistics data for
labor rates.
III. What actions are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing revisions to the NSPS for VOL storage vessels
pursuant to the EPA's review of NSPS subpart Kb. The EPA is proposing
to codify the NSPS revisions proposed in this action in a new subpart
NSPS subpart Kc. The proposed NSPS subpart Kc would be applicable to
sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification
after October 4, 2023.
This section outlines the proposed actions for NSPS subpart Kc. The
EPA is proposing new vapor pressure applicability thresholds for
controls under NSPS subpart Kc. The EPA is also proposing new standards
for VOL storage vessels subject to control requirements. Under NSPS
subpart Kc we are proposing that the standard of performance reflecting
the application of BSER for VOL storage vessels subject to control
requirements and used to store liquids with maximum true vapor
pressures below 11.1 psia (76.6 kPa) is an IFR. The updated standards
are projected to increase the average control efficiency of IFR storage
vessels to 98 percent. As an alternative compliance to the proposed IFR
design standard, we are proposing to permit either the use of an EFR or
the use of a closed vent system and a control device that meet an
equivalent standard of control. For controlled storage vessels that
store liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater
than 11.1 psia (76.6 kPa), we are proposing to find that the BSER is a
closed vent system and a control device. We are proposing that the
standard of performance reflecting the emission limitation achievable
is a 98 percent reduction in VOC emissions (increased from 95 percent
in the NSPS subpart Kb). EPA is also including modification
requirements under NSPS subpart Kc and discusses the relevant criteria
for meeting modifications in this section. This section also details
the proposed testing, monitoring and inspection requirements, degassing
provisions,
[[Page 68540]]
provisions for SSM, and electronic reporting requirements. As described
in this section, the revisions proposed in this action were determined
to be cost-effective and to reflect the application of the best system
of emission reduction (BSER) for VOL storage vessels.
A. What vapor pressure applicability thresholds are we proposing and
why?
NSPS subpart Kb established control requirements, at 40 CFR
60.112b(a), for storage vessels based on vessel capacity and VOL vapor
pressures. In our review of NSPS subpart Kb, we assessed the vapor
applicability thresholds for affected facilities and for controls on
affected storage vessels to determine whether these thresholds needed
to be revised for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc. In NSPS subpart Kb there
are two different sets of vapor pressure applicability thresholds: one
for determining affected facilities and one for determining controls.
In NSPS subpart Kb, the vapor pressure applicability thresholds for
defining affected facilities were slightly lower than those used for
affected facilities for which controls were required. The EPA included
the two separate applicability requirements sets in NSPS subpart Kb,
one to identify storage vessels near the control applicability
thresholds and another to establish limited monitoring procedures for
vessels with variable components and vapor pressures. We are proposing
to not include specific vapor pressure applicability thresholds in
defining an affected facility under NSPS subpart Kc. As such, the
proposed affected facility under NSPS subpart Kc is any storage vessel
with a capacity of 20,000 gallons or more used to store a volatile
organic liquid without exclusion for storage vessels under a set vapor
pressure. This proposed change simplifies the applicability under NSPS
subpart Kc and establishes a baseline for monitoring and recordkeeping
in accordance with good air pollution control practices for storage
vessels that do not meet the vapor pressure emission control threshold.
In our review of NSPS subpart Kb, in assessing the vapor
applicability thresholds that require emission controls, we estimated
the cost of including an IFR as part of a new fixed roof storage vessel
installation for a variety of surrogate organic liquids covering a wide
range of vapor pressures for both 20,000 gallon and 40,000 gallon
capacity storage vessels. We used the AP-42 equations for liquid
storage tanks to estimate emissions for fixed roof storage vessels and
IFR storage vessels. Costs were estimated based on various vendor
quotes, escalated to 2022$. For more detail regarding the analyses
conducted, see memorandum Control Options for Storage Vessels included
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358.
For storage vessels of 20,000 gallon capacity or more but less than
40,000 gallon capacity, we evaluated the cost and cost effectiveness of
different vapor pressure applicability thresholds, including:
4.0 psia based on NSPS subpart Kb value (27.6 kPa)
1.9 psia based on thresholds used in several NESHAP
including 40 CFR part 63, subparts G and CC.
1.5 psia based on thresholds in South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 463.
1.0 psia to evaluate an option beyond 1.5 psia.
We conducted this analysis using a model storage vessel of 20,000
gallon capacity. We assessed costs for two different levels of IFR: one
meeting the basic requirements of NSPS subpart Kb and one with upgraded
seal requirements (requiring a mechanical shoe seal or liquid-mounted
primary seal with a rim-mounted secondary seal). Table 1 summarizes the
results of our analysis for these small storage vessels.
Table 1--Summary of Threshold Analysis for Storage Vessels With a Capacity Between 20,000 and 40,000 Gallons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \2\
VOC emissions without TAC \2\ with
Threshold reduction TCI \1\ ($) product product CE \3\ ($/ton
(tpy) recovery ($/ recovery ($/ VOC)
yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for Meeting NSPS Subpart Kb Requirements for IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 psia........................ 2.04 $48,877 $6,035 $4,257 $2,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.9 psia........................ 0.97 48,877 6,035 5,190 5,300
1.5 psia........................ 0.77 48,877 6,035 5,368 7,000
1.0 psia........................ 0.51 48,877 6,035 5,590 10,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for IFR with Upgraded Seal Requirements (`Option 1')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 psia........................ 2.29 55,008 6,793 4,802 2,100
1.9 psia........................ 1.09 55,008 6,793 5,847 5,000
1.5 psia........................ 0.86 55,008 6,793 6,046 7,000
1.0 psia........................ 0.57 55,008 6,793 6,295 11,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\2\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\3\ Cost effectiveness.
A similar analysis was conducted for storage vessels with a design
capacity of 40,000 gallons or more. For this analysis, we used a model
storage vessel with a 60,000 gallon capacity, which we consider
representative of storage vessels at the smaller end of the range of
storage vessels with a capacity of 40,000 gallons or more. We evaluated
the cost and cost effectiveness of different vapor pressure
applicability thresholds, including:
0.75 psia based on NSPS subpart Kb value (5.2 kPa).
0.50 based on thresholds in SCAQMD Rule 463.
0.35 psia to evaluate an option beyond 0.5 psia.
Table 2 summarizes the results of our analysis for storage vessels
with a capacity of 40,000 gallons or more.
[[Page 68541]]
Table 2--Summary of Threshold Analysis For Storage Vessels With a Capacity of 40,000 Gallons or More
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \2\
VOC emissions without TAC \2\ with
Threshold reduction TCI \1\ ($) product product CE \3\ ($/ton
(tpy) recovery ($/ recovery ($/ VOC)
yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for Meeting NSPS Subpart Kb Requirements for IFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.75 psia....................... 1.36 $54,979 $6,789 $5,609 $4,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.50 psia....................... 0.90 54,979 6,789 6,002 6,600
0.35 psia....................... 0.63 54,979 6,789 6,238 9,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for IFR with Upgraded Seal Requirements (`Option 1')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.75 psia....................... 1.42 62,914 7,769 6,532 4,600
0.50 psia....................... 0.95 62,914 7,769 6,944 7,300
0.35 psia....................... 0.66 62,914 7,769 7,192 10,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\2\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\3\ Cost effectiveness.
Based on this analysis, we are proposing for NSPS subpart Kc to
revise the vapor applicability thresholds that require emission
controls. We are proposing to revise the maximum true vapor pressure
threshold for small storage vessels (those with capacity of at least
20,000 gallons but less than 40,000 gallons) to 1.5 psia and for larger
storage vessels (those with capacity of 40,000 gallons or more) to 0.5
psia. These thresholds yield emission reductions at a cost of
approximately $6,000 and $7,000 per ton of VOC reduced respectively,
which is within the range of what the EPA has considered cost-effective
for the control of VOC emissions in other recent NSPS rulemakings. See,
e.g., 88 FR 29982 (May 9, 2023) (finding a value of $6,800/ton of VOC
emissions reductions cost-effective for automobile and light duty truck
surface coating operations (NSPS subpart MMa)). The cost effectiveness
for VOLs with vapor pressures less than the proposed maximum true vapor
pressure cutoffs are approximately $10,000 and $11,000 per ton of VOC
reduced. This is not cost-effective because it is significantly higher
than what the EPA has historically found to be cost-effective for VOC
regulations. The EPA solicits comment on the proposed vapor pressure
applicability described in this section.
B. What other changes to applicability are we proposing and why?
NSPS subpart Kb includes several provisions that exempt specific
groups of VOL storage vessels from applicability under the standard.
These exemptions are outlined in 40 CFR 60.110b (d) and include
specific exemptions for storage vessels that operate at coke oven by-
product plants, bulk gasoline plants, and gasoline service stations.
The exemptions include pressure vessels operating in excess of 204.9
kPA, vessels attached to mobile vehicles, and vessels that store
beverage alcohol. These exemptions are being carried over into the
proposal for NSPS Kc as the justifications for their exemption remains
unchanged from the original NSPS subpart Kb promulgation.
The EPA is also proposing to carry over the exemption requirements
in 40 CFR 60.110b(d)(4), which covers storage vessels with capacities
less than or equal to 1,589.874 m\3\ (~420,000 gallons) used for
petroleum or condensate stored, processed, or treated prior to custody
transfer. The EPA previously explained the applicability of this
exemption in the preamble to NSPS subpart Ka (45 FR 23377) stating,
``this exemption applies to storage between the time that the petroleum
liquid is removed from the ground and the time the custody of the
petroleum liquid is transferred from the well or producing operations
to the transportation operations. If it is determined in the future
that VOC emissions from new production field vessels smaller than
1,589,873 liters (420,000 gallons) are significant, separate standards
of performance will be developed.'' Since promulgation of NSPS subpart
Ka, the EPA promulgated subparts OOOO and OOOOa for the oil and natural
gas sector, which include standards of performance for these types of
storage vessels. The EPA has also proposed revised standards for these
sources in its latest review, as part of the proposed NSPS subpart
OOOOb and the emission guideline for existing sources at proposed
subpart OOOOc. See 87 FR 74702. As such, the EPA proposes to carry the
language of this exemption into NSPS subpart Kc.
NSPS subpart Kb also includes an exemption for vessels subject to
the NESHAP for solvent extraction for vegetable oil production outlined
in 40 CFR 63 subpart GGGG. The EPA determined as part of its review,
that the standards proposed in NSPS subpart Kc improve upon the
existing NESHAP subpart GGGG standards. As such, the EPA proposes that
vessels subject to NESHAP subpart GGGG, would not be exempted from NSPS
subpart Kc applicability.
The EPA solicits comment on these proposed exemptions and changes
to the applicability provisions.
C. What are the proposed BSER and compliance alternatives for newly
constructed, modified, and reconstructed storage vessels?
The EPA is proposing standards of performance that reflect the BSER
as well as alternative compliance standards for controlled storage
vessels under NSPS subpart Kc. The proposed BSER analyses and proposed
standards for NSPS subpart Kc are dependent on the maximum true vapor
pressure of a stored VOL and follow the precedent established in NSPS
subpart Kb. For storage vessels storing VOL with maximum true vapor
pressures less than 11.1 psia, the EPA discusses the BSER analysis and
proposes standards of performance for newly constructed and
reconstructed IFRs in section III.D. The EPA also is proposing two
alternative compliance options for storage vessels with maximum true
vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia. These alternative compliance
options are EFRs and closed vent system and control. Details regarding
alternative compliance standards for newly constructed and
reconstructed storage vessels are discussed in section III.E.
[[Page 68542]]
For storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures greater than
or equal to 11.1 psia, the EPA is proposing to determine that the BSER
is closed vent system and control, and the standard of performance
reflecting the BSER is a 98 percent reduction in VOC emissions. The
BSER analysis and standard of performance for storage vessels with VOL
maximum true vapor pressures greater than or equal to 11.1 psia are
discussed in section III.F. Additionally, we are proposing requirements
that are applicable to storage vessels that are controlled using a
closed vent system and a control device to meet either proposed
standard, and those proposed requirements are also discussed in section
III.F.
In section III.G the EPA proposes what constitutes a modification
for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc. Discussion regarding the BSER
analysis, standards of performance for modified storage vessels and
compliance alternatives are discussed in sections III.F and III.H.
D. What is the BSER and standard of performance for new and
reconstructed storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less
than 11.1 psia?
In our review of NSPS subpart Kb for storage vessels storing VOL
with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia, we focused on
control options for IFR storage vessels because IFR storage vessels are
more effective at controlling emissions and are technologically
achievable. Therefore, IFR storage vessel control options were
evaluated to determine BSER for VOL vapor pressures less than 11.1
psia. Because floating roof tanks are unsuitable for controlling VOL
with vapor pressures greater than or equal 11.1 psia, the EPA conducted
a separate analysis to determine the BSER and standard of performance
for those storage vessels.
The control options we evaluated for IFR storage vessels included:
Baseline. NSPS subpart Kb control requirements (with NSPS
subpart Kc proposed lower vapor pressure thresholds detailed in section
III.A)
Option IFR-1. NSPS subpart Kb but primary seal must either
be liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe seal and must have a rim-mounted
secondary seal.
Option IFR-2. Option 1 requirements + require fixed roof
legs or cable suspended roof (cannot have adjustable roof legs that
penetrate through the floating roof).
Option IFR-3. Option 2 requirements + require welded seems
and best guidepole fittings.
All three of the listed options above also include provisions for
requiring gauge-hatches/sample ports to be gasketed. We determined that
all of these IFR control options are in use in the industry and thus
adequately demonstrated.
The cost effectiveness of these control options is dependent on the
size and contents of the storage vessel. We estimated that
approximately 240 new storage vessels become subject to the NSPS
subpart Kb every year, such that 1,200 new storage vessels could become
subject to NSPS subpart Kc over the next five years if no change in
thresholds is adopted. We projected that with lower vapor pressure
thresholds, approximately 20 percent more storage vessels could become
subject to the NSPS subpart Kc standards each year. We assigned the
estimated 1,440 new storage vessels across a range of storage vessel
sizes and vapor pressures for the stored liquids to develop national
impact estimates for each IFR control option. For more information on
the nationwide cost analysis of IFR control options for new storage
vessels, see memorandum Control Options for Storage Vessels in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358.
The national impacts projected for each IFR control option are
presented in Table 3 of this preamble.
Table 3--Summary of National Impacts for Control Options for New and Reconstructed IFR Storage Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \3\
VOC emissions without TAC \3\ with Overall CE \1\ CE \4\ to Kb
Control option reduction \1\ TCI \2\ product product \4\ ($/ton baseline ($/ ICE \5\ ($/ton
(tpy) (million $) recovery recovery VOC) ton VOC) VOC)
(million $/yr) (million $/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline--Kb............................ 41,886 $127 $15.7 ($20.8) ($496) .............. ..............
Option IFR-1............................ 42,420 145 17.9 (19.1) (449) 3,180 3,180
Option IFR-2............................ 42,684 173 21.3 (15.8) (370) 6,250 12,272
Option IFR-3............................ 42,961 199 24.6 (12.8) (297) 7,470 10,966
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel.
\2\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\3\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\4\ Cost effectiveness.
\5\ Incremental cost effectiveness (compared to previous option).
Based on this analysis, we are proposing to determine that for new
and reconstructed storage vessels with vapor pressures less than 11.1
psia, BSER is Option IFR-1. Specifically, we are proposing to require
that the primary seal must either be liquid-mounted or a mechanical
shoe seal and must have a rim-mounted secondary seal. While Table 3
displays numerous options that have favorable cost effectiveness
values, incremental cost effectiveness was the determining factor in
selecting the appropriate IFR control option. The EPA estimated that
the incremental cost effectiveness of Option IFR-1 is projected to
yield emission reductions at a cost of approximately $3,200 per ton of
VOC reduced on average, which we determined is cost- effective and is
well within the range of what the EPA has considered cost-effective for
the control of VOC emissions. The other control options we evaluated
for IFR storage vessels had incremental cost effectiveness of $11,000
or more per ton of VOC reduced, which is well above what we have
determined to be cost-effective for the control of VOC emissions. IFRs
are the most common emission control method for VOL storage vessels and
thus are adequately demonstrated. Further, IFRs do not require power or
addition of add-on controls; therefore, there are minimal non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
IFRs with a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal and rim-
mounted secondary seal (Option IFR-1) were selected as the most
appropriate option for new and reconstructed storage vessels under the
BSER determination. The EPA therefore
[[Page 68543]]
proposes an equipment standard pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(5) that
would require that new storage vessels be constructed as IFR, that the
primary seal must either be liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe seal and
must have a rim-mounted secondary seal, that gauge-hatches/sample ports
to be gasketed, and that the guidepole configurations incorporate the
provisions outlined in the 2000 EPA Storage Tank Emissions Reduction
Partnership Program (STERPP).
The EPA solicits comment on the proposal to determine that the BSER
for storage vessels storing VOL with maximum true vapor pressures less
than 11.1 psia is Option IFR-1, or whether one of the alternative
options would be justified. The EPA also solicits comment on the
proposed equipment standard.
E. What compliance alternatives are available for new and reconstructed
storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia?
As discussed in section III.D of this preamble, we are proposing to
determine that, for new and reconstructed storage vessels with a
maximum true vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia, the BSER and equipment
standard is IFR with enhanced rim seal requirements: specifically, the
primary seal must either be liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe seal and
must have a rim-mounted secondary seal. We are also proposing to revise
the NSPS requirements for EFR storage vessels as an alternative
compliance option to equipment standard for newly constructed and
reconstructed storage vessels. The average control efficiency for the
proposed Option IFR-1 was determined to be 98 percent. In reviewing the
NSPS, we found that certain EFR storage vessels could achieve the same
level of control as the proposed control option for IFR storage vessels
(Option IFR-1). As such, we are proposing to permit the use of EFR
storage vessels that we determined achieve equivalent performance as an
IFR storage vessel across a range of different capacities. Based on AP-
42 emission calculation methods, we found that an EFR storage vessel
that has primary and secondary seals as specified in Option IFR-1,
welded seams (typical construction for EFR), and that use an unslotted
guidepole with gasketed sliding cover and pole wiper have emissions
comparable to an IFR storage vessel under Option IFR-1. If a slotted
guidepole is used, a liquid mounted primary seal must be used and the
slotted guidepole must have a gasketed sliding cover, pole sleeve and
pole wiper (with or without float). We recognize that other control
combinations for the EFR storage vessel may achieve comparable
emissions to an Option IFR-1 storage vessel depending on the size and
content of the storage vessel, and the typical meteorological
conditions. Although we are not attempting to identify every such
combination in proposing to codify this compliance alternative, CAA
section 111(h)(5) permits facilities to request an alternative means of
emission limitation to assess equivalency of EFR controls to IFR
controls under site-specific conditions.
We are also proposing to permit storage vessels with a maximum true
vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia to use closed vent system and
control devices as an alternative compliance to the equipment standard,
so long as the storage vessel achieves a 98 percent reduction in VOC
emissions to be equivalent to the proposed IFR standard. Such storage
vessels would be required to meet the proposed requirements for closed
vent systems and control devices described in section III.F.
The EPA solicits comment on these proposed compliance alternatives
for storage vessels with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 11.1
psia.
F. What is the BSER and standard of performance for new, modified, and
reconstructed storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures equal
to or greater than 11.1 psia?
As noted previously, the EPA is proposing that for newly
constructed and reconstructed VOL storage vessels with a maximum true
vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia, the BSER is IFR with enhanced rim
seal requirements. Because floating roof tanks are unsuitable for
controlling VOL with vapor pressures greater than or equal 11.1 psia,
the EPA conducted a separate analysis to determine the BSER and
standard of performance for those storage vessels that are new,
modified, or reconstructed. In NSPS subpart Kb, closed vent systems and
control devices are the BSER for storage vessels for organic liquids
with maximum true vapor pressures of 11.1 psia or greater and have
served as an alternative compliance option for storage vessels with
lower vapor pressures. Therefore, in reviewing NSPS subpart Kb, the EPA
also reviewed the control requirements associated with storage vessels
that use closed vent systems and control devices. We assessed the cost
and cost effectiveness of a closed vent system and control device for a
range of storage vessels used to store liquids with high vapor
pressures. We are proposing to continue to find the BSER to be closed
vent systems and control devices for new, modified, or reconstructed
storage vessels for organic liquids with maximum true vapor pressures
of 11.1 psia or greater, and to set the standard of performance to
require that these storage vessels must achieve a 98 percent reduction
in VOC emissions.
For storage vessels used to store organic liquids with maximum true
vapor pressures of 11.1 psia or greater, we estimated the cost of a
flare dedicated to a single storage vessel. We estimated the costs
separately for flares meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 (95
percent reduction) or using the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 (98
percent reduction). We used two times the maximum filling rate to size
the flares, we determined the time period needed at the maximum filling
rate to achieve the modeled working losses, and we determined the
average flow rate needed for the remaining time period to correspond to
the modeled standing losses. Because of the high vapor pressure of the
liquid contents, flares meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 are
expected to be able to use the methods in 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6) to
determine minimum net heating value of the gas stream. Depending on the
assist-type of the flare, supplemental gas may be needed during periods
of low flow, which is the vast majority of the time. We expect
facilities would use a pressure valve in the closed vent system to
prevent low flows and prevent back flow from the flare to the storage
vessel when emptying the storage vessel. These pressure valves could be
set to ensure gas flow to the flare is always sufficient to prevent
over-assisting, but we assumed flares with low flows would use
supplemental natural gas. For smaller storage vessels (20,000 to 60,000
gallons capacity), there were added costs associated with meeting the
combustion zone operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670. For the larger
storage vessels, routine flows from the storage vessels were sufficient
to meet the combustion zone operating limits in 40 CFR 63.670. We
estimate there would be 25 new storage vessels used for storing high
vapor pressure liquids for which closed vent system and control device
would be required, primarily in the 40,000 to 60,000 gallon capacity
range. For more details regarding the nationwide of costs for closed
vent systems and control devices, see memorandum Control Options for
Storage Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. The nationwide
impacts projected for these two control options evaluated for purposes
of NSPS
[[Page 68544]]
subpart Kc (95 percent and 98 percent control) are provided in Table 4
of this preamble.
Table 4--Summary of National Impacts for Control Options for Closed Vent Systems and Control Device for High
Vapor Pressure Liquids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \3\
VOC emissions without
Control option reduction \1\ TCI \2\ product CE \4\ ($/ton ICE \5\ ($/ton
(tpy) (million $) recovery VOC) VOC)
(million $/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 percent control.............. 928 $2.69 $2.61 $2,820 $2,820
98 percent control.............. 957 2.69 2.71 2,830 3,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel.
\2\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\3\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\4\ Cost effectiveness.
\5\ Incremental cost effectiveness.
Based on our analysis, we are proposing that the BSER for storage
vessels operating with maximum true vapor pressures equal to or greater
than 11.1 psia is the use of a closed vent system and control device
meeting a 98 percent control efficiency. The EPA considers the cost-
effectiveness of both control options to be within the range of what
the EPA has considered cost- effective for the control of VOC
emissions. While the incremental cost-effectiveness of 98 percent
control is slightly higher than for 95 percent control, it is also well
within the range of what the EPA has considered cost-effective.
Although these control devices use power and result in additional
combustion emissions, there is no significant difference between 95 and
98 percent control levels in as regards to the non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, or energy requirements. Accordingly, the EPA
proposes to find the use of a closed vent system and control device
meeting a 98 percent control efficiency is the BSER and proposes to set
a standard of performance for new, reconstructed, and modified storage
vessels operating with vapor pressures equal to or greater than 11.1
psia as 98 percent control of VOC emissions.
The EPA is also proposing to establish requirements for closed vent
systems and control devices to ensure that storage vessels using them
to comply with the proposed standards actually achieve 98 percent
control efficiency. In order for the closed vent system and control
device to meet 98 percent control efficiency, the storage vessel must
not vent to the atmosphere. Conservation vents and pressure relief
devices are often used to vent emissions from storage vessels when the
pressure within the storage vessel approaches the maximum design
pressure of the storage vessel. Many atmospheric storage vessels have
pressure ratings of 1 or 2 psig and would therefore vent often if the
vapor pressure of the stored liquid is above 2 psi. Consequently, to
ensure direct venting from the storage vessel does not occur, we are
proposing to require storage vessels have a design operating gauge
pressure no less than 1 psi greater than the maximum vapor pressure of
the liquid being stored and any back pressure anticipated when the
storage vessel is filled at its maximum rate. While vapor pressures are
commonly reported in terms of absolute pressure, a storage vessel
containing a liquid with a vapor pressure of 4 psia would generally
have a headspace pressure of 4 psi above atmospheric pressure, or 4
psig. Storage vessel owners or operators would also have to evaluate
the back pressure of the control system used and ensure that the closed
vent system can handle the maximum filling rate of the storage vessel
without increasing pressure in the storage vessel above this 5 psig
value or else establish a higher design and operating pressure for the
storage vessels. For example, if the back pressure of the closed vent
system (or the pressure drop from the storage vessel to the control
device) is 3 psi at the maximum filling rate, and the liquid stored has
a maximum true vapor pressure of 4 psia, the minimum opening pressure
of any pressure relief device on the storage vessel would have to be 8
psig (3+4+additional 1). We are also proposing to require that any
vacuum breaking device have a close pressure no less than 0.1 psig
vacuum to prevent losses from the vacuum breaker vent.
The EPA solicits comment on our proposed BSER determination and
standard of performance for new, reconstructed, and modified storage
vessels operating with vapor pressures equal to or greater than 11.1
psia, as well as the proposed requirements for closed vent systems and
control devices.
G. What actions constitute a modification for storage vessels and why?
For purposes of CAA section 111, modifications are defined as ``any
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of,'' an
existing facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to
which a standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility
or which results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which a
standard applies) into the atmosphere not previously emitted.\6\ 40 CFR
60.2. NSPS Subpart A further provides provisions explaining how a
modification is identified as well as defining certain exemptions to
those general rules. In particular, 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) states that the
``[u]se of an alternative fuel or raw material'' is not considered a
modification if the existing facility was designed to accommodate that
alternative use. In prior EPA actions making applicability
determinations for purposes of NSPS Kb, the EPA has previously cited to
this provision to assert that a change in the type of material stored
in a storage vessel is not, by itself, a modification if the storage
vessel is capable of accommodating the storage of the new materials.\7\
However, the EPA has revisited the previous interpretation as discussed
in the following paragraphs and now proposes, for purposes of NSPS Kc,
that a change in the liquid stored in the storage vessel to an organic
liquid with a higher maximum true vapor pressure does not constitute a
``use of an alternative fuel or raw material,'' and would be considered
a change in the method of operation of the storage vessel. Thus, the
EPA proposes that a change in the liquid stored which results in
increased
[[Page 68545]]
VOC emissions would be a modification under NSPS Kc. The EPA recognizes
that the proposed approach to modifications for purposes of NSPS
subpart Kc represents a change of the EPA's previous interpretation of
the provision in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) that asserted that change in liquid
alone did not trigger a modification. However, the EPA proposes to find
that this change in interpretation for purposes of defining a
modification for NSPS subpart Kc is appropriate, in particular, because
as discussed below the changes in the organic liquid stored in a
storage vessel do not constitute changes in ``fuel or raw material,''
as the primary function of this affected facility is the storage of
materials, and the materials stored are neither raw material nor fuel
inputs to a process at the facility itself. FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009) (when the Agency
acknowledges change in position, ``it suffices that the new policy is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and
that the Agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of
course adequately indicates'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(4).
\7\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA Applicability Determination Index,
Control Number: 0400015, (referencing 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4)-(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier in this preamble, as the EPA has defined
modification for purposes of CAA section 111, using a different fuel or
raw material in the process that the facility was specifically designed
for does not itself constitute a modification under the exemption
identified in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4). However, for storage vessels, the
primary function of this affected facility is the storage of materials,
and the materials stored are neither raw material nor fuel inputs to a
process at the facility itself. Therefore, for purposes of NSPS Kc, the
EPA now proposes to determine that the exemption outlined in 40 CFR
60.14(e)(4) does not apply, because the organic liquid stored in the
vessels subject to this part does not constitute fuels or raw
materials. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to consider the change in
materials stored in a storage vessel to be an operational change under
CAA section 111(a)(4). Thus, where an owner or operator changes the
operation of the tank to store materials with higher vapor pressures,
this change results in an increased emission potential. The EPA
proposes to find that this change is an operation meeting the
definition of ``modification'' under CAA section 111(a)(4) and 40 CFR
60.14(a). If the modified storage vessel meets the applicability
criteria of NSPS subpart Kc, then it would be subject to the standards
of performance and other requirements established in the final rule.
The EPA has identified no other exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) which
applies to a change in the organic liquid stored in a storage vessel.
The EPA further proposes to determine that a change in the organic
liquid stored at a storage vessel constitutes a modification under the
statutory definition because it is reasonable to consider a change in
the organic liquid stored to a new liquid with a higher true vapor
pressure to be a change in operation, especially because such a change
is expected to increase VOC emissions. Thus, the EPA proposes that a
change in the liquid stored which results in increased VOC emissions
would be a modification under NSPS subpart Kc. If the previous content
of the storage vessel was below the vapor pressure threshold, a change
in the liquid stored in the vessel to one that is above the vapor
pressure threshold would increase the amount of VOC emitted from the
storage vessel and should be considered a modification of the storage
vessel and trigger the NSPS subpart Kc control requirements.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed change in interpretation
of 40 CFR 60.14(e) as it applies to modifying storage vessels subject
to NSPS subpart Kc.
H. What are the BSER and standards of performance for modified storage
vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia?
The EPA evaluated BSER for modified storage vessels for NSPS
subpart Kc with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia. In
most cases, the EPA expects that modified storage vessels will have
existing fixed roofs, because IFRs were not previously required by NSPS
subpart Kb. The costs of retrofitting a fixed roof storage vessel with
an IFR are the same as the costs of adding an IFR to a new storage
vessel. Some modified storage vessels that newly trigger into the NSPS,
however, may already have IFRs, and upgrading only certain elements of
the IFR can have significantly different costs than when installing a
new IFR. Therefore, to assess BSER for modified storage vessels, we
developed national cost estimates separately for modified storage
vessels depending on whether or not the storage vessels had existing
IFRs prior to modification.
We estimate a total of 30 storage vessels would become newly
affected facilities due to modifications over the first 5 years after
promulgation of NSPS subpart Kc. We estimate 10 percent of these
storage vessels would have an existing IFR and that the existing IFR
was compliant with the IFR requirements in NSPS subpart Kb. For more
information on the nationwide cost analysis of IFR control options for
modified storage vessels, see memorandum Control Options for Storage
Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358.
Table 5 of this preamble summarizes the costs and cost
effectiveness of the impacts of modified storage vessels without an IFR
prior to the modification, under the baseline of the existing Kb
requirements and all three IFR options. The incremental costs are
somewhat higher than for new and reconstructed storage vessels because
we projected that the vapor pressures of the organic liquids stored in
the modified storage vessels would be near the vapor pressure
applicability threshold. Thus, we projected that storage vessels that
triggered into the NSPS subpart Kc because of a change in the liquid
stored would generally have lower vapor pressure organic liquids, on
average, than compared to new storage vessels. Based on this analysis,
we are proposing for NSPS subpart Kc to find that Option IFR-1
(enhanced rim seal requirements) is cost-effective and represents BSER
for modified fixed roof storage vessels. Like for new and reconstructed
sources, the cost-effectiveness of all options is well within the range
of what the EPA has considered to be cost-effective in past
rulemakings. However, while the incremental cost effectiveness of
Option IFR-1 is also reasonable, the incremental cost-effectiveness of
Option IFR-2 and Option IFR-3 are significantly higher than what the
EPA has previously found reasonable. Accordingly, while the cost-
effectiveness of all options is quite reasonable, the high incremental
cost-effectiveness is the determining factor in the EPA's consideration
of costs. The EPA's consideration of non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, as well as energy requirements, is also the same
as for new and reconstructed storage vessels. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to determine that Option IFR-1 is the BSER for existing
storage vessels with maximum true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia
that modify and do not have an existing floating roof. These proposed
requirements are also applicable to new sources (sources constructed
after the proposal date) that modify after the proposal date.
[[Page 68546]]
Table 5--Summary of National Impacts for Control Options for Modified Fixed Roof Storage Vessels With Maximum True Vapor Pressures Less Than 11.1 PSIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \3\
VOC emissions without TAC \3\ with
Control option reduction \1\ TCI \2\ product product CE \4\ ($/ton ICE \5\ ($/ton
(tpy) (million $) recovery ($/ recovery ($/ VOC) VOC)
yr) yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Kb............................................. 501 $2.32 $286,000 ($150,000) ($299) ($299)
Option IFR-1............................................ 507 2.65 327,000 (114,000) (224) 5,900
Option IFR-2............................................ 510 3.18 392,000 (51,200) (100) 21,100
Option IFR-3............................................ 513 3.67 453,000 7,300 14 19,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel.
\2\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\3\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\4\ Cost effectiveness.
\5\ Incremental cost effectiveness.
Table 6 of this preamble summarizes the costs and cost
effectiveness of the impacts of modified storage vessels with maximum
true vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia that already have an existing
IFR prior to the modification. The costs per ton of VOC reduced when
modifying controls on an existing IFR are much higher than when
installing a new IFR on an existing fixed roof storage vessel. The cost
effectiveness and incremental cost effectiveness of all three IFR
options are well above what the EPA has found to be reasonable for the
control of VOC emissions. Consequently, we are proposing for NSPS
subpart Kc that, for modified storage vessels with maximum true vapor
pressures less than 11.1 psia with an existing IFR, the NSPS subpart Kb
control requirements without upgrading the rim seal requirements
represent the application of BSER, and we propose to retain those
standards for these sources in NSPS subpart Kc.
Table 6--Summary of National Impacts for Control Options for Modified IFR Storage Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \2\
VOC emissions without TAC \2\ with
Control option reduction TCI \1\ ($) product product CE \3\ ($/ton ICE \4\ ($/ton
(tpy) recovery ($/ recovery ($/ VOC) VOC)
yr) yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Kb............................................. 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Option IFR-1............................................ 0.48 64,000 7,900 7,480 15,700 15,700
Option IFR-2............................................ 0.73 169,100 20,900 20,300 27,800 50,700
Option IFR-3............................................ 0.87 254,600 31,400 30,700 35,300 74,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Capital Investment (TCI).
\2\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\3\ Cost effectiveness.
\4\ Incremental cost effectiveness.
For existing EFR storage vessels, like existing IFR storage
vessels, improvements to the floating roof and guidepole design would
not result in significant additional emission reductions beyond those
achieved by the use of the EFR itself. As a result, as for the IFR
analysis just discussed, cost-effectiveness would be expected to be
quite high such that the costs associated with the limited additional
emission reductions would not be considered reasonable. Accordingly, we
propose for NSPS subpart Kc, that if the modified tank has an existing
EFR, the BSER and standard of performance is consistent with the EFR
requirements as specified in NSPS subpart Kb.
In very rare cases, a fixed roof storage vessel may already be
vented through a closed vent system to a control device at the time
that it undergoes a modification. In NSPS subpart Kb, the control
requirement for these control devices is 95 percent. As discussed in
section III.F. of this preamble, we are proposing to require storage
vessels with maximum true vapor pressures equal to or greater than 11.1
psia that are subject to NSPS subpart Kc to meet a 98 percent control
efficiency based on a BSER identified as a closed vent system and
control device. The primary difference between a flare, thermal
oxidizer, or carbon adsorption system achieving 98 percent control
efficiency rather than 95 percent control efficiency is largely in the
operation of the control system rather than the design. Thus, we
conclude that storage vessels that already vent through a closed vent
system to a control device can technically achieve 98 percent control
efficiency. As discussed in section III.F. of this preamble, we
evaluated the incremental cost of operating a control system to achieve
98 percent control efficiency compared to 95 percent control efficiency
and determined that it is cost-effective to meet a 98 percent control
requirement. We consider that the analysis in section III.F. of this
preamble to also be applicable to modified storage vessels because
there are no meaningful differences in the costs of achieving 98
percent control efficiency as compared to new or reconstructed storage
vessels. Therefore, for NSPS subpart Kc, we conclude that if a storage
vessel with an existing closed vent system routed to a control device
meets the qualifications for modification discussed in section III.G,
the BSER is a closed vent system to a control device and standard of
performance is 98 percent control of VOC emissions, the same as new or
reconstructed storage vessels.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed standards for modified
storage vessels, including whether the EPA should finalize any of the
alternative options.
[[Page 68547]]
I. What control requirements are we proposing for IFR and EFR storage
vessels emptying and degassing and why?
Occasionally, floating roof storage vessels need to be taken out of
service to clean, inspect, or repair the storage vessel or floating
roof. For example, some floating roof seal components may wear out more
quickly over time than the main structure of the floating roof.
Depending on the seal type, this repair may require that the storage
vessel be taken out of service. When the storage vessel is emptied, the
floating roof will land on support legs or, if suspended by cables,
reach a fixed height position. Commonly, the support legs or cable
suspension will have two different fixed settings. One setting would be
at a low height (for example, one foot) to maximize the working volume
of the storage vessel when it is in service. The other setting would be
a high ``maintenance'' height that allows maintenance crews to enter
the storage vessel and walk under the roof once the floating roof is
landed and the storage vessel is emptied. The vapor space can have
significant volatile content due to volatilization of the organic
liquid as the storage vessel is emptied or from liquid film that may
cling to the wall and floor after the tank is emptied. The VOC
emissions from the emptying and degassing process is dependent on the
vapor pressure of the liquid stored, the dimensions of the storage
vessel, and the height of the floating roof when landed (for
maintenance), which impacts the size of the vapor space below the
floating roof. The EPA evaluated different scenarios in which a control
device could be utilized to achieve a 98 percent destruction efficiency
until the vapor space concentration is within 10 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL).
We evaluated the cost and VOC emissions for a wide variety of
storage vessel sizes and VOL contents. We found that degassing controls
were generally only cost-effective for larger storage vessels with
vapor pressures greater than 1.5 psia. We evaluated the following
options to determine the applicability threshold for control during
degassing events:
Baseline: Uncontrolled degassing.
Degassing Option 1: Control degassing for storage vessels
with a capacity of 1-million gallon or more storing organic liquids
with a maximum true vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or more.
Degassing Option 2a: Control degassing for storage vessels
with a capacity of 300,000 gallon or more storing organic liquids with
a maximum true vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or more.
Degassing Option 2b: Control degassing for storage vessels
with a capacity of 1-million gallon or more storing organic liquids
with a maximum true vapor pressure of 0.5 psia or more.
Degassing Options 2a and 2b were both evaluated against Degassing
Option 1 to evaluate whether lowering the size threshold or lowering
the vapor pressure threshold could be cost- effective. Nationwide
impacts were estimated based on our projected distribution of storage
vessels. Furthermore, we estimated that storage vessels would be
emptied and degassed once every 10 years. For more details regarding
the nationwide estimated of degassing emissions and costs and emission
reductions for degassing controls, see memorandum Control Options for
Storage Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. The nationwide
impacts projected for the degassing control options are summarized in
Table 7 of this preamble. We evaluated the cost effectiveness and
incremental cost effectiveness of the three different options. While
all three options were cost-effective, degassing option 1 was selected
because the incremental cost effectiveness of the remaining options
exceeded reasonable values established for the control of VOC emissions
in prior rulemaking. Based on our analysis, we are proposing that, for
degassing emissions, a control device utilized to achieve a 98 percent
destruction efficiency is the BSER for storage vessels with a capacity
of 1-million gallon or more storing organic liquids with a maximum true
vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or more. The EPA's consideration of non-air
quality health and environmental impacts as well as energy requirements
is the same as considered for control devices in section III.F.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to establish a standard of performance of
98 percent control until the vapor space concentration is within 10
percent of the LEL for these storage vessels that applies during
degassing events.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed BSER and standard of
performance for degassing events, including the applicability threshold
for application of those standards.
Table 7--Summary of National Impacts for Degassing Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC \1\
VOC emissions without
Control option VOC emissions reduction product CE \2\ ($/ton ICE \3\ ($/ton
(tpy) (tpy) recovery VOC) VOC)
(million $/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 33.30 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Degassing Option 1.............. 18.92 14.38 $69,860 $4,859 ..............
Degassing Option 2a............. 14.89 18.41 119,000 6,465 $12,196
Degassing Option 2b............. 13.38 19.92 129,740 6,514 10,809
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital.
\2\ Cost effectiveness (CE).
\3\ Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE). The ICE of Degassing Options 2a and 2b are calculated against
Degassing Option 1.
J. What requirements are we proposing for storage vessel testing,
monitoring, and inspections and why?
Because the NSPS reflects BSER under conditions of proper operation
and maintenance, in doing our review, we also evaluate and determine
the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements needed to ensure compliance with the requirements of NSPS
subpart Kc. This section includes our discussion on current testing and
monitoring requirements of the NSPS subpart Kb and any revisions or
additions we are proposing to include for NSPS subpart Kc.
We reviewed and compared monitoring and inspection requirements
across several rules, including NSPS subpart Kb and the storage vessel
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and 40 CFR part 65, subpart
C. Generally, these requirements are similar to each other, and we
strove to develop monitoring and inspection requirements consistent
with these federal standards and that provide the best clarity for the
specific requirements. However, we note that the
[[Page 68548]]
current NSPS subpart Kb includes provision for inspections every 5
years for IFRs that have a dual seal system. We are proposing to
require dual seal IFRs for storage vessels with a maximum vapor
pressure less than 11.1 psia, but as discussed later in this section,
we are also proposing the use of lower explosive limit (LEL) monitoring
within the headspace of the IFR as a means to enhance inspections and
more readily identify malfunctioning internal floating roofs. Because a
top-side inspection can be easily conducted in conjunction with the
annual LEL monitoring, we are proposing to require annual LEL
monitoring and floating roof inspections for all floating roofs,
including IFRs with a dual seal system.
We are proposing to add annual monitoring of IFR storage vessels
using a LEL monitor to identify floating roofs with poorly functioning
seals or fitting controls. We identified at least two States or
localities (New Jersey rule 7:27-16 and SCAQMD Rule 1178) that have LEL
monitoring for IFR storage vessels. Our emission estimates from various
storage vessel requirements assume that proper seals and other
equipment are in-place and operating as required. If these controls are
not operating as intended, the emissions from these storage vessels can
be much higher. We found that the visual inspections are subjective and
may, at times, not be performed well. For example, although a hired
contractor for BP's Carson Refinery had reported no problems with the
facility's 26 floating roof storage vessels from 1994 to 2002, a SCAQMD
inspection ``revealed that more than 80 percent of the storage vessels
had numerous leaks, gaps, torn seals, and other defects that caused
excess emissions.'' \8\ Therefore, for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc, we
sought a less subjective means to monitor and verify performance of the
floating roofs. We concluded that periodic LEL monitoring could be used
to ensure the floating roofs are performing as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mokhiber, Russell. Multinational Monitor; Washington Vol.
24, Iss. 4, (April 2003): 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey and SCAQMD rules set a maximum LEL that triggers an
obligation for corrective action at the storage vessel, and we modeled
our proposed NSPS subpart Kc provision following these State rules. For
storage vessels installed after June 1, 1984, these rules set a maximum
LEL of 30 percent. However, the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) standard sets a maximum LEL of 25 percent for explosion
prevention for IFR storage vessels. Per our review, we conclude that
establishing a maximum LEL level for IFR storage vessels in NSPS
subpart Kc that will trigger an obligation for the owner and operator
to repair the IFR, discussed further in the next paragraph, which will
ensure the emission reductions expected by the application of BSER are
achieved. From the data we collected, there were very few measurements
that exceeded 25 percent LEL that did not also exceed 50 percent LEL.
Thus, when failures occurred, the LEL was often very high. Based on
these observations and considering the more stringent NFPA standard, we
propose for NSPS subpart Kc, for new, modified, and reconstructed
storage vessels, the use of LEL monitor to identify floating roofs with
poorly functioning seals or fitting controls and we propose that the
appropriate LEL levels for IFR storage vessels is 25 percent.
We acknowledge that it is difficult to estimate the emission
impacts of these LEL monitoring requirements because we do not have
data on the number of poorly functioning floating roofs. NSPS subpart
Kb already requires repair of floating roofs that fail inspection and
failure of the proposed NSPS subpart Kc LEL monitoring would trigger
the same repairs. As such, we consider that these repairs are already
required in NSPS subpart Kb and the LEL requirement predominately makes
the required inspections less subjective. In the worst-case scenario, a
poorly operated IFR storage vessel can have emissions similar to those
of a fixed roof storage vessel. In establishing the floating roof
requirements, we already determined that installing a floating roof was
cost-effective and that the costs of replacing a poorly functioning
floating roof is not significantly different from the costs of
retrofitting a fixed roof storage vessel. In our cost analysis, we
projected floating roofs have a 15-year life, so our annualized costs
account for IFR replacement every 15 years. We expect that most poorly
performing floating roofs can be repaired, rather than replaced, but we
expect that replacement will be necessary in some cases. We propose to
require in NSPS subpart Kc that for new, modified, and reconstructed
storage vessels whose IFRs have failed to the point that 25 percent LEL
is exceeded, the owner or operator must repair the IFR and, if
necessary, to replace the IFR when repairs are ineffective.
We are proposing in NSPS subpart Kc specific testing requirements
when monitoring LEL for storage vessels with IFRs. We are proposing
that LEL standard be assessed on a 5-minute rolling average basis and
that LEL monitoring be conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes unless an
exceedance is measured prior to completing 20 minutes of LEL
monitoring. We are proposing that LEL be measured within the storage
vessel no more than 3 feet above the IFR. We are proposing that LEL
monitoring be conducted when the wind speed at the top of the tank is 5
miles per hour or less where practicable, but the testing will be
invalid and must be reconducted at a later date (no later than 30 days
from the previous attempted measurement) if the wind speed at the top
of the tank is greater than the annual average wind speed at the site's
location or 15 miles per hour, whichever is less.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed testing, monitoring, and
inspection requirements, including whether our selection of maximum 25
percent LEL is appropriate, or whether this number should be higher or
lower.
There are a number of other monitoring and inspection requirements
included as part of this proposal. The EPA is proposing equipping
floating roof storage vessels with a visual or audible alarm system to
monitor when the floating roof approaches specified landing heights.
For closed vent systems, the EPA is proposing quarterly visual,
audible, and olfactory inspections, annual EPA Method 21 instrument
monitoring, and monitoring of bypasses. The EPA also proposes that
storage vessels using closed vent systems and control devices must
equip pressure relief devices with appropriate monitoring to identify
releases.
The EPA is proposing specific requirements for flare and non-flare
control devices to ensure they achieve the required control efficiency
on an ongoing basis. Specifically, we are proposing initial testing of
non-flare control devices and periodic testing every five years. During
the performance test, the owner or operator would set an operating
limit on the control device; continuous compliance with the operating
limit would be demonstrated on a 3-hour rolling average basis. We
propose that flares would be monitored consistent with the flare
requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC.
Lastly the EPA is proposing applying the requirements in 40 CFR
60.116b(f) for waste mixtures to all mixtures with indeterminate or
variable compositions.
K. Proposal of NSPS Subpart Kc Without Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Exemptions
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C.
[[Page 68549]]
Circuit) 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 (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 section
112 standard apply continuously. The EPA has determined the reasoning
in the Court's decision in Sierra Club applies equally to CAA section
111 because the definition of emission or standard in CAA section
302(k), and the embedded requirement for continuous standards, also
applies to the NSPS.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in
this rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general provisions in 40
CFR 60.11(c) currently exclude opacity requirements during periods of
SSM and the provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c) contains an exemption from non-
opacity standards. We are proposing in NSPS subpart Kc specific
requirements at 40 CFR 60.112c(a)(1) that override the general
provisions for SSM provisions. We are proposing a combination of
design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards in NSPS
subpart Kc that apply at all times.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
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 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 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 EPA to consider such events in setting CAA
section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).]
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 111 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 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 60.2 (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 proposes that its interpretation of the CAA
and, in particular, CAA section 111 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).
L. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of volatile organic
liquid storage vessels (including petroleum liquid storage vessels)
subject to NSPS subpart Kb and NSPS subpart Kc, submit electronic
copies of certain required notifications and reports through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (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. Specifically, the proposed
rule requires that for NSPS subpart Kb the reports specified in 40 CFR
60.115b(a)(1), 60.115b(a)(3), 60.115b(a)(4), 60.115b(b)(1),
60.115b(b)(2), 60.115b(b)(4), 60.115b(d)(1), 60.115b(d)(3), and
60.116b(d) be submitted as a portable document format upload in CEDRI,
and for NSPS subpart Kc the rule requires that owners and operators use
the appropriate spreadsheet templates to submit the initial
notification specified in 40 CFR 60.116c(a) and semiannual reports
specified in 40 CFR 60.116c(b) to CEDRI. Draft versions of the proposed
templates for the NSPS subpart Kc initial notification and semiannual
report are included in the docket for this action.\9\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates. We note that for NSPS subpart Kb, we are only
proposing to change the format of the reporting requirements to require
electronic reporting (i.e., we are not proposing any new data
elements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 40 CFR
part_60_Subpart_Kc_60.116c(a)_Initial_Notification.xlsx and 40 CFR
part_60_subpart_Kc_60.116c(b)_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These
circumstances are (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and
operators from noncompliance in
[[Page 68550]]
cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting
deadline for reasons outside of their control. 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.
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 \10\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \11\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\12\ 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,
referenced earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\11\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Other Proposed Actions
NSPS subpart Kb includes a number of technical methods which have
been updated or replaced in the NSPS subpart Kc proposal. Two of these
methods, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2879 and
American Petroleum Institute (API) Bulletin 2517, are used in
determining vapor pressures including the maximum true vapor pressure.
We propose to replace ASTM D2879, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature
of Liquids by Isoteniscope,'' with both ASTM D6378-22, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products,
Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion
Method),'' and ASTM D6377-20 ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Vapor Pressure of Crude Oil: VPCRx (Expansion Method).''
This change is consistent with the actions finalized in the 2020
amendments to the Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (85 FR
40740). ASTM D2879 involves both an isoteniscope and heating the sample
to a boil. The proposed replacement is an automated device method that
produces more accurate vapor pressure measurements. ASTM D6378-22 is
used for measuring vapor pressures between 7 kPa and 150 kPa. ASTM
D6377-20 is used for measuring vapor pressures between 29 kPa and 180
kPa. For each analysis, you must use a 4:1 vapor to liquid ratio.
Additionally, we propose replacing the API Bulletin 2517,
Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, with information
available in AP-42, Chapter 7. While API Bulletin 2517 does not
prescribe methods for measuring liquid vapor pressure, it acts as a
reference and includes a table of vapor pressures for pure substances
at temperatures between 40 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. API Bulletin
2517 also includes information for calculating Reid vapor pressures
crude oil and refined petroleum stocks. AP-42, Chapter 7 includes
comparable information and is publicly available. EPA is also proposing
not to incorporate ASTM D323 into the proposed subpart. ASTM D323,
``Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid
Method)'' is used for the determination of the Reid vapor pressure
which can be used in conjunction with ASTM D2879 for determining vapor
pressures. The inclusion of ASTM D6378 and ASTM D6377, makes the need
for ASTM D323 unnecessary in the proposed standard.
N. Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in NSPS subpart Kc will be the promulgation
date. Affected sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 4, 2023 must comply with all requirements of
NSPS subpart Kc, no later than the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA is proposing amendments to
NSPS subpart Kb to include electronic submission requirements. Affected
NSPS subpart Kb sources that commence construction, reconstruction or
modification after July 23, 1984, and before October 4, 2023 must
comply with the updated requirements to submit reports electronically
no later than the effective date of the final rule.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed revisions in NSPS subpart Kc reduce emissions of VOCs,
some of which may also be hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The EPA
estimates that the updated standards would reduce VOC emissions by
1,085 tons per year, which includes the impacts from new, modified, and
reconstructed storage vessels. More information regarding the air
quality impacts and emission reductions are included in the memorandum
Control Options for Storage Vessels.
B. What are the cost impacts?
This final action will cost (in 2022 dollars) approximately $20.6
million in total capital cost and result in total annualized cost
savings of $4.48 million per year (including product recovery) based on
our analysis of the proposed actions in NSPS subpart Kc. More
information about the estimated cost of the proposed actions can be
found in the memorandum Control Options for Storage Vessels.
C. What are the economic impacts?
For economic impact analyses of rules that directly affect a single
or a few industries, the EPA often prepares a partial equilibrium
analysis. In this type of economic analysis, the focus of the effort is
on estimating impacts on a single affected industry or several affected
industries, and all impacts of this rule on industries outside of those
affected are assumed to be zero or so inconsequential to not be
considered in the analysis. If the compliance costs, which are key
inputs to an economic impact analysis, are quite insignificant, then
the impact analysis could consist of a calculation of annual (or
annualized) costs as a percentage of sales for affected companies. This
latter type of analysis is called a screening analysis and is applied
when a partial equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis
approach is deemed not
[[Page 68551]]
necessary given the expected size of the impacts.
The net present value of the estimated cost impacts of the proposed
NSPS subpart Kc is $18.9 million, discounted at a 3 percent rate over a
5-year analytic time frame from 2024 to 2028 in 2022 dollars. Using a 7
percent discount rate, the net present value of the estimated cost
impacts is $16.9 million. The equivalent annualized value in 2022
dollars is a cost of approximately $4.1 million using a discount rate
of three and seven percent.
Storage vessels in NSPS subpart Kb are most closely associated with
the petroleum and coal products industry (NAICS 324000), chemical
products industry (NAICS 325000), and the petroleum bulk stations
terminals industry (NAICS 424710). While we do not know the precise
distribution of new and modified storage vessels across the affected
sectors, we know that there are affected storage vessels in the sectors
mentioned earlier in this preamble. These sectors contribute gross
value added, ranging from $129 to $440 billion per sector, to the
national economy. In comparison, the proposed requirements in NSPS
subpart Kc have estimated total costs of $20.6 million. The total cost
is the total incurred collectively amongst numerous sectors, and each
of the sectors examined have sales of at least $129 billion. Thus, the
compliance costs of this action are insignificant relative to the scale
for the sectors affected, and it is appropriate to evaluate the
economic impacts by conducting a screening analysis comparing the costs
to entity-level sales.
Given the results of the analysis, these economic impacts are
relatively low for affected industries and entities impacted by this
proposed rule, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs of the proposed rule 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. We also expect
minimal impacts on employment.
D. What are the benefits?
These proposed revisions in NSPS subpart Kc would reduce emissions
of VOCs, some of which may also be HAPs. Because VOCs react in the
atmosphere to produce ozone, these standards would help to reduce
atmospheric ozone concentrations and reduce health effects associated
with high levels of ozone. Furthermore, the proposed requirements to
submit reports and test results electronically would improve
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations
(people of color), low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is
intended to advance racial equity and support underserved communities
through Federal government actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' \13\ The EPA further defines fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' In recognizing that
people of color and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution. For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA
relies upon its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' \14\ which provides
recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality
analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource
constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and
circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action
may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) Create new
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through this action under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
\14\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are unable to quantitatively estimate the potential EJ impact of
NSPS subparts Kb and Kc for the following reasons. Over the next 5
years, the EPA estimates that 1,440 new tanks and 27 modified tanks
would be subject to NSPS subpart Kc. However, the locations of any new
VOL storage vessels that would be subject to NSPS subpart Kc are
unknown. Furthermore, there is insufficient data available regarding
the locations of existing VOL storage vessels. We estimate that there
are approximately more than 10,000 existing Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels, but do not have a list of specific units and their
locations. Therefore, we cannot perform a proximity demographic
analysis of populations near existing units as a proxy for units that
may be modified or reconstructed and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
Finally, because we based the analysis of the impacts and emission
reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain specifically
how the potential benefits of this rule would be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this rule.
However, we anticipate the proposed requirements in NSPS subpart Kc
would generally minimize future emissions in surrounding communities of
new, modified, or reconstructed VOL storage vessels. The three most
relevant industry NAICS industry segments affected under NSPS Kc
include Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS code 324000),
Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325000), and Petroleum and Bulk
Stations and Terminals (NAICS code 422710). Specifically, the EPA
determined that the standards should be revised to amend the vapor
pressure applicability thresholds, require stricter seal requirements
on IFR tanks, establish equivalent control requirements for external
floating roofs, and strengthen the closed vent system standard to
account for 98 percent destruction efficiency. The changes would have
beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations
exposed to emissions from new, modified or reconstructed VOL storage
vessels and would provide additional health protection for affected
populations, including communities already overburdened by pollution,
which are often people of color, low-income, and indigenous
communities.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be
[[Page 68552]]
found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094 Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2791.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The EPA is proposing requirements for storage vessels including
periodic inspections based on the type of storage vessel. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with NSPS subpart
Kc.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of VOL storage
vessels.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kc).
Estimated number of respondents: 588.
Frequency of response: Initially and Semiannually.
Total estimated burden: 16,394 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,009,357 (per year), includes $528,240 in
annualized capital and no operation or 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 3,
2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
C. 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 small
businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. The Agency has
determined that small entities may experience an impact of likely below
1 percent relative to sales for any affected small entity, and an even
larger margin before it would approach a 1 percent impact for a
substantial number of small entities. Details of this analysis are
presented in the memorandum Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Tanks) included in the docket.
D. 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It would 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. NSPS subpart Kb includes provisions for storage
vessels that already have impacts on Tribal Governments that have tanks
in excess of 20,000 gallons that meet the vapor pressure cutoffs for
general rule applicability or control applicability. The NSPS subpart
Kc proposal includes some updates to the VOC standards and monitoring
requirements for storage vessels that meet the revised vapor pressure
cutoffs for control. Additionally, basic requirements for recordkeeping
and good air pollution control practices are being proposed for all
storage vessels greater than 20,000. These changes would only impact
storage vessels that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
the proposal date. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer government-to-
government consultation with tribes and will conduct additional
outreach to inform them of the content of the proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. These proposed
revisions would reduce emissions of VOCs, some of which may also be
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These standards would help to reduce
atmospheric ozone concentrations and reduce health effects associated
with high levels of ozone.
However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.
Information on how the Policy was applied is available under
``Children's Environmental Health'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action for Kb and Kc involves technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards.
Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B,
3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. The EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 21, 22, and 25A.
Additional information
[[Page 68553]]
for the voluntary consensus standard search and determinations can be
found in the memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for Review of Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels). All
potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) for this rule. Although there were
no applicable voluntary consensus standards identified, we are amending
40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference two ASTM methods as discussed
in section III.M. These include the following:
ASTM D6377-20, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure of Crude Oil: VPCRx (Expansion Method). The
method is an automated device method for measuring vapor pressures for
crude oils samples between 29 kPa and 180 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C. The
method is suitable for testing with a 4:1 vapor-liquid ratio.
ASTM D6378-22, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method). The method is
an automated device method for measuring vapor pressures between 7 kPa
and 150 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C for tested samples with boiling points at 0
[deg]C. The method is suitable for volatile organic liquids,
hydrocarbons and liquid petroleum products sampled at a 4:1 vapor-
liquid ratio.
The ASTM standards are available from the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the
human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this
action result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities
with EJ concerns. Over the next 5 years, the EPA estimates that 1,440
new tanks and 27 modified tanks will be subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
However, the locations of any new VOL storage vessels that would be
subject to NSPS subpart Kc are not known. Furthermore, there is
insufficient data available regarding the locations of existing VOL
storage vessels is also not known. The EPA estimates that there are
approximately more than 10,000 existing vessels subject to NSPS subpart
Kb, but do not have a list of specific units and their locations.
Therefore, we cannot perform a proximity demographic analysis of
populations near existing units as a proxy for units that may be
modified or reconstructed and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
Finally, because we based the analysis of the impacts and emission
reductions on model plants, we are not able to ascertain specifically
how the potential benefits of this rule would be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this rule.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in in section IV.E. All pertinent supporting documents such as the
technical memo, ``Control Options for Storage Vessels'' which discusses
the costs and environmental impacts of the regulatory options
considered have been placed in the docket.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-21976 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P