National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review, 56288-56365 [2019-21690]

Download as PDF 56288 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0074; FRL–10000–80– OAR] RIN 2060–AT86 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (OLD) source category. The EPA is proposing amendments to the storage tank and equipment leak requirements as a result of the residual risk and technology review (RTR). The EPA is also proposing amendments to allow terminals the option to implement a fenceline monitoring program in lieu of the enhancements to the storage tank and equipment leak requirements; correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; add operational requirements for flares; and make other minor technical improvements. We estimate that these proposed amendments would reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from this source category by 386 tons per year (tpy), which represents an approximate 16-percent reduction of HAP emissions from the source category. SUMMARY: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before November 20, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before October 28, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/organic-liquidsdistribution-national-emissionstandards-hazardous. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0074, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2018–0074 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0074. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0074, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0074. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 1185; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address: Diem.Art@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk assessment, contact Mr. Ted Palma, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5470; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: Palma.Ted@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Ms. Gerri PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Garwood, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 2406; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: Garwood.Gerri@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–1395; and email address: Cox.John@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at Hunt.Virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0074. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 0074. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0074. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model APCD air pollution control device API American Petroleum Institute ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATSDR Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Btu/scf British thermal units per standard cubic foot CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMS continuous monitoring system EIA Energy Information Administration EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy GACT generally available control technology HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, also known as the hazardous organic NESHAP HQ hazard quotient ICR Information Collection Request IFR internal floating roof IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer LDAR leak detection and repair MACT maximum achievable control technology PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56289 MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NHVcz net heating value in the combustion zone gas NHVvg net heating value of the flare vent gas NOCS Notification of Compliance Status OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PDF portable document format POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million ppmv parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PRD pressure relief device psia pounds per square inch absolute REL reference exposure level RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate USGS U.S. Geological Survey UV–DOAS ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy VCS voluntary consensus standard VOC volatile organic compound(s) Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56290 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)? B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? E. What other actions are we proposing? F. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992), the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to, those activities associated with the storage and distribution of organic liquids other than gasoline, at sites which serve as distribution points from which organic liquids may be obtained for further use and processing. The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. The OLD NESHAP is codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. Organic liquids are any crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and fuel oil, fuel that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pound per square inch absolute (psia)). Emission sources controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and sampling connections) that have the potential to leak. The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in the OLD NESHAP. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION Source category and NESHAP Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259, 3261, 3361, 3362, 3399, 4247, 4861, 4869, 4931, 5622. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ organic-liquids-distribution-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0074). II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this action. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) standards in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)1 of approximately 1in-10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56291 factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91– 030, July, 1992), the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to, those activities associated with the storage and distribution of organic liquids other than gasoline, at sites that serve as distribution points from which organic liquids may be obtained for further use and processing. The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. Organic liquids are any crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56292 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules fuel oil, fuel that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia). The OLD NESHAP applies only to major sources of HAP (i.e., sources that have the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP). Facilities subject to this NESHAP fall into two types, either (1) petrochemical terminals primarily in the business of storing and distributing organic liquids or (2) chemical production facilities or other manufacturing facilities that have either a distribution terminal not subject to another major source NESHAP or have a few miscellaneous storage tanks or transfer racks that are not otherwise subject to another major source NESHAP. Equipment controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and sampling connections) that have the potential to leak. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 contains the criteria for control of storage tanks and transfer racks. If a storage tank of a certain threshold capacity stores crude oil or a non-crude organic liquid having a threshold sum of partial pressures of HAP, then compliance options are either to (1) route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that achieves a 95-percent control efficiency or (2) comply with work practice standards of 40 CFR part 63 subpart WW (i.e., operate the tank with a compliant internal floating roof (IFR) or a compliant external floating roof), route emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system of a process, or route emissions through a vapor balancing system that meets requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4). Storage tanks storing noncrude organic liquids having a sum of partial pressures of HAP of at least 11.1 psia do not have the option to comply using an internal or external floating roof tank. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 contains the criteria for control of transfer racks, which are based on the facility-wide organic liquid loading volume for organic liquids having threshold HAP content expressed in percent HAP by weight of the organic liquid. For transfer racks required to control HAP emissions, the standards are either to (1) route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that achieves 98-percent control efficiency or (2) operate a compliant vapor balancing system. Transfer rack VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 systems that fill containers of 55 gallons or greater are required to comply with specific provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP or operate a vapor balancing system. The NESHAP requires leak detection and repair for certain equipment components associated with storage tanks and transfer racks subject to this subpart and for certain equipment components associated with pipelines between such storage tanks and transfer racks. The components are specified in the definition of ‘‘equipment leak components’’ at 40 CFR 63.2406 and include pumps, valves, and sampling connection systems in organic liquid service. The owner or operator is required to comply with the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. This requires the use of Method 21 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘Method 21’’) to determine the concentration of any detected leaks and to repair the component if the measured concentration exceeds the definition of a leak within the applicable subpart. Pressure relief devices on vapor balancing systems are required to be monitored quarterly for leaks. An instrument reading of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater defines a leak. Leaks must be repaired within 5 days. The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in the OLD NESHAP. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? The EPA used several sources to develop the list of existing facilities subject to the OLD NESHAP. All facilities in the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the Toxics Release Inventory having a facility source type as petroleum storage facility or with a primary facility NAICS code beginning with 325, representing the chemical manufacturing sector, were queried to create a comprehensive base facility list. We supplemented this list with facility lists from the original OLD NESHAP rule, the Marine Vessel Loading NESHAP, a list of petrochemical storage facilities from the Internal Revenue Service, and from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) tool PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (https://echo.epa.gov). The EPA reviewed title V air permits to determine which facilities on the comprehensive list were subject to the OLD NESHAP. The current facility list consists of 177 facilities subject to the OLD NESHAP. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? We are relying on technical reports and memoranda that the EPA developed for flares used as air pollution control devices (APCDs) in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and New Source Performance Standards rulemaking (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). These technical reports and memoranda can be found in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket for that action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682. The Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket contains a number of flare-related technical reports and memoranda documenting numerous analyses the EPA conducted to develop the final suite of operational and monitoring requirements for refinery flares. We are incorporating this docket by reference in this rule. Even though we are incorporating the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket by reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including a list of specific technical support documents in Table 1 of the memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, in this docket for this action. Also related to the enhancements we are proposing for flares, we are citing the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak Terminal Deer Park consent decree, available at https:// www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-northamerica-inc-clean-air-act-settlementagreement and included in the docket for this action. We are also relying on background information about the fenceline monitoring program established for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682. We are incorporating this docket by reference in this rule. Even though we are incorporating the docket by reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including the following document in the docket for this action memorandum, Fenceline Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final Rule. Lastly, we are incorporating by reference into this action all the information associated with the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules development of the current OLD NESHAP standards at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0138. This docket includes the materials from the legacy Docket ID No. A–98–13 associated with the development of the original OLD NESHAP. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will protect the public health. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately one-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risk with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56293 and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category. Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability, and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263 D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56294 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emission standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.B of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 described in the eight primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009,4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.5 They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? The OLD facility list was developed as described in section II.C of this preamble and currently consists of 177 facilities identified as being subject to the OLD NESHAP. The emissions modeling input files were developed using the EPA’s 2014 NEI. The complete OLD facility list is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. The EPA used the 2014 NEI data for these facilities to create the risk assessment model input files using all available HAP emissions records and other emission release parameters. From the whole facility risk assessment model input file, the EPA identified emission sources within the OLD source category from the 2014 NEI data such as source classification codes (SCCs) and SCC descriptions, emission unit descriptions, and process descriptions to identify emissions that are subject to OLD and those that are not. For example, emission units that were described as chemical production process vents were marked as being out of the source category. For many facilities in the source category, the EPA used information in the title V permit to relate emissions in the 2014 NEI and to assign whether the emissions are within the OLD source category. In several cases, in the absence of definitive information that would place the emissions out of the OLD source category, if the 2014 NEI data indicated 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. 5 U.S. EPA SAB. Review of EPA’s draft, Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing’’ May 2010. https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 the emissions were associated with a storage tank, a transfer rack or equipment leaks, the emissions are presumed to be in the OLD source category. For 21 sources, there were no HAP emissions in the 2014 NEI that were able to be attributed to OLD equipment. The EPA reviewed emissions release point information such as release point location; emission release point type (stack verses fugitive); temperature; and the correlation between stack diameter, velocity, and volumetric flow. In some cases, we corrected release point locations where the original location was outside of the apparent facility boundary. During the process of quality assuring the modeling file input data, for some cases, we obtained specific information from facility contacts. On November 6, 2018, we also posted a draft of the model input file on the EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ organic-liquids-distribution-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. We received feedback from two companies and included those comments in the docket for this action. Except for removing facilities having no OLD applicability, the EPA did not make any of the changes to the modeling file in response to these comments after posting the draft model input file on the EPA’s website because none of the changes would impact the conclusions of the source category risk results. A record of all changes made to the risk assessment model input file throughout the quality assurance process is provided in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) For the risk assessment modeling purposes, we modeled 2014 NEI reported actual emissions for the OLD source category. In preparation of this RTR, we did not conduct an information collection of the equipment in this source category. Instead, we relied primarily upon the 2014 NEI emissions data and readily available title V permit information to characterize the actual emissions from the source category. We consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk assessment model. 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).6 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.7 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, 6 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 7 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56295 which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 8 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These values are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer 8 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56296 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 9 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 9 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled, NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at http:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search. do?details=&vocabName= IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,10 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use 10 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We have been applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point, reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile),11 and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. These assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario and, although less conservative than our previous approach, is still sufficiently conservative given that it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated 11 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this action. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 for a specified exposure duration.’’ 12 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.13 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for 12 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 13 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 single exposures to chemicals.’’ 14 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For this source category, we used the default acute emissions multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases for which an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed consisted of determining the maximum off-site acute HQ for each facility that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 14 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ ERPG%20Committee%20Standard% 20Operating%20Procedures%20%20%20March%202014%20Revision%20% 28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56297 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). For the OLD source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Therefore, we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB– HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2013-08/ documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB–HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP to assess the potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56298 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher scenario and farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previouslydeveloped Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 fish consumption 15) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 16). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.17 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, 15 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 16 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. 17 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population—children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options? In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and incremental risk reductions. 6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the OLD source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the OLD source category, we identified emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), lead compounds, HCl, and HF. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 health-protective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56299 potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56300 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. We flagged source category records of that NEI dataset as described in section II.C of this preamble. We performed quality assurance and quality control on the whole facility dataset, including the source category records. The facilitywide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. 8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 bound estimate of risk.18 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.19 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,20 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, 18 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&gloss aryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 19 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 20 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56301 may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.21 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from the previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the 21 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56302 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)? In this action, we are proposing the following pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3): 22 (1) Adding 22 The EPA has authority under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to set MACT standards for previously unregulated emission points. The EPA also retains the discretion to revise a MACT standard under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) (see Portland Cement Ass’n v. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 monitoring and operational requirements for flares used as an APCD and (2) requesting comment on whether the EPA should add requirements and clarifications for pressure relief devices (PRD). The results and proposed decisions based on the analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are presented below. 1. Flares The EPA is proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to amend the operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category because we have determined that the current requirements for flares are not adequate to ensure the level of destruction efficiency needed to conform with the MACT standards for the OLD source category. A flare is a type of APCD used in the OLD source category to control emissions from a single emission source (i.e., a storage tank or a transfer rack) or multiple emission sources (i.e., a combination of several storage tanks and/or transfer racks). We have determined that 27 flares at 16 OLD facilities would be affected by these proposed operating and monitoring requirements (see the memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in the docket for this action). The requirements applicable to flares in the OLD NESHAP are set forth in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are cross-referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The OLD NESHAP allows storage tanks and transfer racks to vent through a closed vent system and flare that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. In general, flares used as APCDs at OLD facilities are expected to achieve a minimum destruction efficiency of at least 98 percent by weight, when designed and operated according to the General Provisions. Studies on flare performance, however, indicate that these General Provision requirements are inadequate to ensure proper performance of flares at refineries and other petrochemical facilities (including chemical manufacturing facilities), particularly when either assist steam or assist air is used, but also when no assist is used.23 The data from the recent EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011), such as when it identifies an error in the original standard. See also Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d at 426 (upholding the EPA action establishing MACT floors, based on post-compliance data, when originally-established floors were improperly established). 23 Based on review of NEI description fields and a sampling of air permits, we believe the majority of flares at OLD facilities are non-assisted. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 studies on flare performance 24 clearly indicate that combustion efficiencies begin to deteriorate at combustion net heating values above 200 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) and that an operating limit of 200 Btu/scf in the flare vent gas, as currently provided in the General Provisions for unassisted flares, does not ensure that these flares will achieve an average destruction efficiency of 98 percent. Therefore, we believe the proposed amendments described in this section are necessary to ensure that OLD facilities that use flares as APCD meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling HAP emissions. In fact, at least one recent consent decree addresses inefficient flare operations at a large bulk terminal in the OLD source category.25 The General Provisions of 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that flares are (1) steamassisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted; (2) operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any two consecutive hours); and (4) operated with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. These General Provisions also specify both the minimum heat content of gas combusted in the flare and maximum exit velocity at the flare tip. The General Provisions specify monitoring for the presence of the pilot flame and the operation of a flare with no visible emissions. For other operating limits, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requires an initial flare compliance assessment to demonstrate compliance but specifies no monitoring requirements to ensure continuous compliance. In 2012, the EPA compiled information and test data collected on flares and summarized its preliminary findings on operating parameters that affect flare combustion efficiency (see the technical report, Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0682–0191, which has been incorporated into the docket for this action). The EPA submitted the report, along with a charge statement and a set of charge questions, to an external peer review panel.26 The panel, consisting of 24 Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 0682–0191. 25 See the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak Terminal Deer Park consent decree, available at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-northamerica-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-agreement. 26 These documents can also be found at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/ petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technologyreview-and-new-source. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 individuals representing a variety of backgrounds and perspectives (i.e., industry, academia, environmental experts, and industrial flare consultants), concurred with the EPA’s assessment that the following three primary factors affect flare performance: (1) The flow of the vent gas to the flare; (2) the amount of assist media (e.g., steam or air) added to the flare; and (3) the combustibility of the vent gas/assist media mixture in the combustion zone (i.e., the net heating value, lower flammability limit, and/or combustibles concentration) at the flare tip. However, in response to peer review comments, the EPA performed a validation and usability analysis on all available test data as well as a failure analysis on potential parameters discussed in the technical report as indicators of flare performance. The peer review comments are in the memorandum, Peer Review of Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0682–0193, which has been incorporated into the docket for this action. These analyses resulted in a change to the population of test data the EPA used and helped form the basis for the flare operating limits promulgated in the 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (80 FR 75178). We are also relying on the same analyses and proposing the same operating limits for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category. The Agency believes, given the results from the various data analyses conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule (see section II.D of this preamble, which states that the Petroleum Refinery RTR Docket is incorporated by reference into the docket for this action),27 that the operating limits promulgated for flares used in the Petroleum Refinery Sector are also appropriate and reasonable and will ensure flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category meet the HAP removal efficiency at all times. Therefore, to ensure clarity and consistency in terminology with the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule (80 FR 75178), we are proposing at 40 CFR 27 See technical memorandum, Flare Performance Data: Summary of Peer Review Comments and Additional Data Analysis for Steam-Assisted Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682– 0200 for a more detailed discussion of the data quality and analysis. See technical memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating Limits for Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0682–0206 for a more detailed discussion of the failure analysis. See technical memorandum, Flare Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0682–0748 for additional analyses on flare performance standards based on public comments received on the proposed refinery rule. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56303 63.2380 to directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule flare definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in the OLD source category with certain clarifications and exemptions as discussed in this section of the preamble. Currently, the MACT standards in the OLD NESHAP cross-reference the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b) for the operational requirements for flares used as APCD (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS). This proposal specifies all operational and monitoring requirements that are intended to apply to flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category. All of the flare requirements in this proposed rulemaking are intended to ensure compliance with the MACT standards in the OLD NESHAP when using a flare as an APCD. a. Pilot Flames This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category operate pilot flame systems continuously when organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP references the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE), which specify that a flare used as an APCD should operate with a pilot flame present at all times. Pilot flames are proven to improve flare flame stability, and even short durations of an extinguished pilot could cause a significant reduction in flare destruction efficiency. In this action, we are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include in the OLD NESHAP the existing provisions that flares operate with a pilot flame at all times and be continuously monitored for a pilot flame using a thermocouple or any other equivalent device. We are also proposing to add a continuous compliance measure that would consider each 15-minute block when there is at least 1 minute where no pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to the flare as a deviation from the standard. The proposed requirements are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(b) and (g). See section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare pilot flames. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56304 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules b. Visible Emissions This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category operate with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP references 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify that a flare used as an APCD should operate with visible emissions for no more than 5 minutes in a 2-hour period. Owners or operators of these flares are required to conduct an initial performance demonstration for visible emissions using Method 22 of appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘Method 22’’). We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General Provisions and instead crossreference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include the limitation on visible emissions. We are also proposing to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible emissions demonstration should be conducted the first-time regulated materials are routed to the flare. With regard to continuous compliance with the visible emissions limitation, we are proposing daily visible emissions monitoring for whenever regulated material is routed to the flare and visible emissions are observed from the flare. On days the flare receives regulated material, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares monitor visible emissions at a minimum of once per day using an observation period of 5 minutes and Method 22. Additionally, whenever regulated material is routed to the flare and there are visible emissions from the flare, we are proposing that another 5-minute visible emissions observation period be performed using Method 22, even if the required daily visible emissions monitoring has already been performed. If an employee observes visible emissions, then the owner or operator of the flare would perform a 5-minute Method 22 observation to check for compliance upon initial observation or notification of such event. In addition, in lieu of daily visible emissions observations performed using Method 22, we are proposing that owners and operators be allowed to use video surveillance cameras. We believe that video surveillance cameras would be at least as effective as the proposed daily 5minute visible emissions observations using Method 22. We are also proposing to extend the observation period for a flare to 2 hours whenever visible emissions are observed for greater than 1 continuous minute during any of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 required 5-minute observation periods. Refer to 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (h) for these proposed requirements. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding visible emissions. c. Flare Tip Velocity This action consolidates provisions related to flare tip velocity. The OLD NESHAP references the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify maximum flare tip velocities based on flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted, or air-assisted) and the net heating value of the flare vent gas. These maximum flare tip velocities are required to ensure that the flame does not ‘‘lift off’’ the flare (i.e., a condition where a flame separates from the tip of the flare and there is space between the flare tip and the bottom of the flame), which could cause flame instability and/or potentially result in a portion of the flare gas being released without proper combustion. We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General Provisions and instead crossreference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to consolidate the specification of maximum flare tip velocity into the OLD NESHAP as a single equation, irrespective of flare type (i.e., steamassisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted). The proposed flare tip velocity specifications are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(d), (i), and (k). We posit that the owner or operator would likely follow the provisions at 40 CFR 63.670(i)(4) and (k)(2)(ii) to determine the flare tip velocity on a 15minute block average basis, which allows use of a continuous pressure/ temperature monitoring system and engineering calculations in lieu of the more intricate monitoring options also specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. See section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance. Based on analysis conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule, the EPA identified air-assisted test runs with high flare tip velocities that had high combustion efficiencies (see technical memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Evaluation of Flare Tip Velocity Requirements, in Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0682–0212). These test runs exceeded the maximum flare tip velocity limits for air-assisted flares using the linear equation in 40 CFR 63.11(b)(8). When these test runs were compared with the test runs for non- PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 assisted and steam-assisted flares, the air-assisted flares appeared to have the same operating envelope as the nonassisted and steam-assisted flares. Therefore, for air-assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category, we are proposing to use of the same equation that non-assisted and steamassisted flares currently use to establish the flare tip velocity operating limit. Finally, we are also proposing not to include the special flare tip velocity equation in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i)(A) for non-assisted flares with hydrogen content greater than 8 percent. This equation, which was developed based on limited data from a chemical manufacturer, has very limited applicability for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category because it only provides an alternative for non-assisted flares with large quantities of hydrogen. We believe few, if any, flares in the OLD source category control vent gas with large quantities of hydrogen. Nevertheless, we are proposing to allow owners and operators the use of the existing compliance alternative for hydrogen (i.e., a corrected heat content) that is specified in 40 CFR 63.670 which we believe provides a better way for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with high hydrogen content to comply with the rule while ensuring proper destruction performance of the flare (refer to the Petroleum Refinery preamble, 80 FR 75178, for further details about the corrected heat content for hydrogen). Therefore, we are proposing to not include this special flare tip velocity equation as a compliance alternative for non-assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with hydrogen content greater than 8 percent. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare-tip velocity. d. Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone Gas The current requirements for flares in 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that the flare vent gas meets a minimum net heating value of 200 Btu/scf for non-assisted flares and 300 Btu/scf for air- and steamassisted flares. The OLD NESHAP references these provisions (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), but neither the General Provisions nor the OLD NESHAP include specific requirements for monitoring the net heating value of the vent gas. Moreover, recent flare testing results indicate that the minimum net heating value alone does not address instances when the flare may be overassisted because it only considers the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules gas being combusted in the flare and nothing else (e.g., no assist media). However, many industrial flares use steam or air as an assist medium to protect the design of the flare tip, promote turbulence for the mixing, induce air into the flame, and operate with no visible emissions. Using excessive steam or air results in dilution and cooling of flared gases and can lead to operating a flare outside its stable flame envelope, thereby reducing the destruction efficiency of the flare. In extreme cases, over-steaming or excess aeration can snuff out a flame and allow regulated material to be released into the atmosphere without complete combustion. As previously noted, we believe the majority of flares at OLD facilities are non-assisted. However, for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category that are either steam- or airassisted, it is critical that we ensure the assist media be accounted for. Recent flare test data have shown that the best way to account for situations of overassisting is to consider the gas mixture properties at the flare tip in the combustion zone when evaluating the ability to combust efficiently. As discussed in the introduction to this section, the external peer review panel concurred with our assessment that the combustion zone properties at the flare tip are critical parameters to know in determining whether a flare will achieve good combustion. The General Provisions, however, solely rely on the net heating value of the flare vent gas. In this action, in lieu of requiring compliance with the operating limits for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the General Provisions, we are proposing to cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include in the OLD NESHAP a single minimum operating limit for the net heating value in the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) of 270 Btu/scf during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted, air-assisted, and nonassisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category. The proposed requirements are set forth at 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(e) and (m). The Agency believes, given the results from the various data analyses conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, that this NHVcz operating limit promulgated for flares in the Petroleum Refinery Sector source category is also appropriate and reasonable and will ensure flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category meet the HAP destruction efficiencies in the standard at all times when operated in concert with the other proposed flare requirements (e.g., pilot flame, visible emissions, and flare tip velocity VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 requirements) (see the memoranda titled Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating Limits for Flares and Flare Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0206 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0748, respectively). In general, refineries are expected to need a flare gas flow monitor and either a gas chromatograph, total hydrocarbon analyzer, or calorimeter to comply with the final suite of operational and monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 63.670 (primarily because refinery flare gas can be highly variable in composition and flaring events can be unpredictable and episodic in nature). However, flares at OLD facilities control a limited amount of flare vent gas streams compared to more numerous and variable waste streams at petroleum refineries. Given that OLD emission sources are storage tanks and transfer racks, the range of organic liquids being distributed through these emissions sources are likely known and have consistent composition and flow. Therefore, due to the more certain nature of gas streams at OLD facilities, we anticipate that owners or operators of flares in the OLD source category would use process knowledge, engineering calculations, and grab samples as their compliance approach specified at 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6). Instead of continuously monitoring composition and net heating value of the flare vent gas (NHVvg), we anticipate owners and operators would be able to characterize the vent gases that could be routed to the flare based on a minimum of seven grab samples (14 daily grab samples for continuously operated flares) and determine the NHVvg that will be used in the equation at 40 CFR 63.670(m)(1) for all flaring events (based on the minimum net heating value of the grab samples) to determine NHVcz. We are also proposing to allow engineering estimates to characterize the amount of gas flared and the amount of assist gas (if applicable) introduced into the system. For example, we believe that the use of fan curves to estimate air assist rates would be acceptable. We anticipate that owners or operators of flares at OLD facilities would be able to use the net heating value determined from the initial sampling phase and measured or estimated flare vent gas and assist gas flow rates, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with the standards. We believe most, if not all, owners or operators of flares in the OLD source category would be able to use this compliance approach. Finally, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares in the OLD source PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56305 category that use grab sampling and engineering calculations to determine compliance must still assess compliance with the NHVcz operating limit on a 15minute block average using the equation at 40 CFR 63.670(m)(1) and cumulative volumetric flows of flare vent gas, assist steam, and premix assist air. See section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to NHVcz. e. Data Averaging Periods for Flare Gas Operating Limits Except for the visible emissions operating limits as described in section IV.A.1.b, we are proposing to use a 15minute block averaging period for each proposed flare operating parameter (i.e., presence of a pilot flame, flare tip velocity, and NHVcz) to ensure that the flare is operated within the appropriate operating conditions. We consider a short averaging time to be the most appropriate for assessing proper flare performance because flare vent gas flow rates and composition can change significantly over short periods of time. Furthermore, because destruction efficiency can fall precipitously when a flare is controlling vent gases below (or outside) the proposed operating limits, short time periods where the operating limits are not met could seriously impact the overall performance of the flare. Refer to the Petroleum Refinery preambles (79 FR 36880 and 80 FR 75178) for further details supporting why we believe a 15-minute averaging period is appropriate. We solicit comment on this proposed revision. f. Emergency Flaring We are not proposing the work practice standards for emergency flaring that are currently allowed at 40 CFR 63.670(o) for refinery flares because we do not believe emergency shutdown situations that could occur at a petroleum refinery would exist for the storage and transfer operations covered by the OLD regulations. Should an emergency occur during an organic liquids transfer, the transfer operation could be halted, which in turn would also stop the flow of gas to the flare. Similarly, tank breathing losses are fairly steady and predictable and, except for a force majeure situation, would not produce any rapid increases in gas flow to a flare. We solicit comment on this proposed decision. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56306 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules g. Impacts of the Flare Operating and Monitoring Requirements The EPA expects that the newly proposed requirements for flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category will affect 27 flares of various flare tip designs (e.g., steam-assisted, airassisted, and non-assisted flare tips) that receive flare vent gas flow on a regular basis (i.e., other than during periods of SSM). Costs were estimated for each flare for a given facility, considering the proposed compliance approach discussed in this section of the preamble. The results of the impact estimates are summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. The baseline emission estimate and the emission reductions achieved by the proposed rule were estimated by back-calculating from the NEI-reported volatile organic compounds (VOC) and HAP controlled emissions assuming various levels of control (assuming all flares at OLD facilities operate at a combustion efficiency of either 90 percent, 92 percent, or 95 percent instead of 98 percent). We note that the requirements for flares we are proposing in this action will ensure compliance with the MACT standards. As such, these proposed operational and monitoring requirements for flares have the potential to reduce excess emissions from flares by as much as 64 tpy of HAP and 645 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline control efficiency of 90 percent) or 24 tpy of HAP and 242 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline control efficiency of 95 percent). The VOC compounds are non-methane, nonethane total hydrocarbons. According to the modeling file we used to assess risk (see section III.C.1 of this preamble), there are approximately 39 individual HAP compounds (28 organic HAP compounds and 11 other HAP compounds) included in the emission inventory for flares, but many of these are emitted in trace quantities. A little more than half of the HAP emissions from flares are attributable to 1,3butadiene, cumene, and vinyl acetate. For more detail on the impact estimates, see the technical memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2018–0074. TABLE 2—NATIONWIDE COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE PROPER FLARE PERFORMANCE [2016$] Total capital investment (million $) Control description Flare Operational and Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................ 0.19 0.36 Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.36 2. Pressure Relief Devices khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total annualized costs (million $/year) The acronym ‘‘PRD’’ means pressure relief device and is common vernacular to describe a variety of devices that release gas to prevent overpressurization in a system. A PRD does not release emissions during normal operation but is used only to release unplanned, nonroutine discharges whenever the system exceeds a pressure setting. Typically, the EPA considers PRD releases to result from an operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected causes that require immediate venting of gas from process equipment to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. At OLD operations, the EPA is aware of PRDs installed on storage tanks, transport vehicles (i.e., cargo tank or tank car), and vapor balancing systems. For the OLD NESHAP, PRDs are not subject to the emission limits in the rule but are subject to work practice standards. Because the EPA has determined for a number of reasons that it is not practicable to measure emissions from a PRD release in any source category, NESHAP rules prescribe work practices instead of emission limits. When the vapor balancing option is used, the OLD NESHAP work practice requires that no PRD on the storage tank or on the cargo VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 tank or tank car shall open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (i.e., breathing losses). To avoid breathing losses, the valve pressure must be set to no less than 2.5 psia (unless an owner/operator can justify that a different value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses). In addition, the PRD must be monitored quarterly to identify any leaks to the atmosphere while the vent is in the closed position. A leak is defined as an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater, and any leak that is detected must be repaired within 5 days. For OLD storage tank operations that comply using allowable methods in the OLD NESHAP other than vapor balancing, the OLD NESHAP requires venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices or fuel gas system or back to process or comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. The EPA is proposing to clarify that PRDs on vapor return lines of a vapor balancing system are also subject to the vapor balancing system requirements of 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv). We request comments on whether work practices should be adopted for PRDs that are not part of a vapor balancing system and whether work practices similar to those promulgated for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC are necessary and appropriate for OLD PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 operations. We do not believe similar high-pressure events such as those possible on equipment in petroleum refineries are applicable to the storage and transfer operations subject to the OLD NESHAP because we do not expect the kind of conditions that produce high-pressure events at large refinery process equipment (e.g., non-routine evacuation of process equipment) to occur at storage tanks or transfer operations subject to the OLD NESHAP (generally storage and transfer of liquids stored at pressures close to atmospheric pressure). If there are non-vapor balancing system PRDs, we request further information on the nature of these devices, including the following: Whether these PRDs are in heavy liquid service; whether they have a design pressure setting of greater than or less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge; whether they release only in response to thermal expansion of fluid; and whether they are pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the PRD is vented through a control system. Finally, we request comment on whether monitoring devices should be required to be installed and operated to ensure the owner and operator is able to demonstrate continuous compliance with the standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv) that no PRD shall open E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes. B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described in section III.C of this preamble, for the OLD source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted and multipathway and environmental risk screening assessments on the PB–HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 56307 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results Table 3 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment for the source category. More detailed information on the risk assessment can be found in the risk document, available in the docket for this action. TABLE 3—ORGANIC LIQUIDS DISTRIBUTION (NON-GASOLINE) SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS Number of facilities 1 Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 2 Population at increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million Annual cancer incidence (cases per year) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 3 157 ........................................... 20 350,000 0.03 0.4 Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 4 HQREL = 1 (toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform). 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 2 Maximum 3 Maximum khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based on actual emissions could be as high as 20-in-1 million, with 1,3-butadiene from equipment leaks as the major contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 33 years. About 350,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from this source category, with about 3,600 of those people estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source category could be up to 0.4 (respiratory) driven by emissions of chlorine from equipment leaks, and no one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1. For the OLD source category, it was determined that actual emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACTallowable emissions. The risk results summarized above, based on actual source category emissions, therefore, also describe the risk results based on allowable emissions. 2. Acute Risk Results Table 3 of this preamble provides the maximum acute HQ (based on the REL) of 1, driven by actual emissions of toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures. As noted previously, for this source category, the primary emission sources of toluene (storage tanks), formaldehyde (unidentified source), and chloroform (equipment leaks) emissions were each VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 modeled with an hourly emissions multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. The maximum acute HQ reflects the highest value estimated to occur outside facility boundaries. As presented in Table 3 of this preamble, no facilities are estimated to have an acute HQ greater than 1. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results Of the 157 facilities included in the assessment, 24 facilities reported emissions of carcinogenic PB–HAP (POM and arsenic) with six facilities exceeding the Tier 1 screening value of 1. For emissions of the non-carcinogenic PB–HAP (cadmium and mercury), eight facilities reported emissions with no facility exceeding the Tier 1 screening value of 1 for cadmium or mercury. One facility’s emission rates of POM exceeded the screening value by a factor of 9 and a factor of 3 for arsenic. Due to the theoretical construct of the screening model, these factors are not directly translatable into estimates of risk or HQs for these facilities; rather they indicate that the initial multipathway screening assessment does not rule out the potential for multipathway impacts of concern. For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway screening threshold emission rate for one or more PB–HAP, we used additional facility site-specific information to perform a Tier 2 assessment and determine the maximum chronic cancer and noncancer impacts for the source category. Based on the Tier 2 multipathway cancer assessment, POM emissions exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening value by a factor of 4 for the PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 fisher scenario and 6 for the farmer scenario. Arsenic emissions did not exceed the Tier 2 cancer screening value. POM and arsenic combined exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening value by a factor of 6 for the farmer scenario and a factor of 4 for the gardener scenario. An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in any of the tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a noncarcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, a Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate of 5 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower than 5in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the conservative, or healthprotective, assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the screening tiers, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. Further cancer screening was not warranted based upon the conservative nature of the screen. Tier 2 noncancer screening threshold emission rates for both mercury and cadmium emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2 results presented above, additional screening or site-specific assessments were not deemed necessary. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56308 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the OLD source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and mercury emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. POM emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility for a no-effect level (sediment community) by a maximum screening value of 6. A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for POM emissions. In the Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated for POM. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI are based on emissions from all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and non-MACT sources). The results indicate that 61 facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 25 of those facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 10in-1-million, 10 facilities have a facilitywide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million, and one facility has a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1,000-in-1 million. There are VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 21 additional facilities in the facilitywide dataset that are not in the MACT actual dataset. For these facilities, permits or other information show applicability to OLD, but no 2014 NEI information regarding HAP emissions for these facilities reasonably match with any equipment that could be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These facilities are not included in Table 3 of this preamble but are included in the population risk estimates in this paragraph. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 2,000-in-1 million, primarily driven by ethylene oxide from a non-category source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.9 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 1.1 years. Approximately 5,300,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and nonMACT sources at the facilities in this source category. Approximately 1,500,000 of these people are estimated to have cancer risks above 10-in-1 million, with 88,500 people estimated to have cancer risks above 100-in-1 million, and 1,000 people estimated to have cancer risks above 1,000-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI (kidney) for the source category is estimated to be 10, mainly driven by emissions of trichloroethylene from a non-category source. Approximately 1,100 people are exposed to noncancer HI levels above 1, based on facility-wide emissions from the facilities in this source category. Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide (described above), which are driven by emission sources that are not part of the OLD source category, we intend to evaluate those facility-wide estimated emissions and risks further and may address these in a separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is addressing ethylene oxide based on the results of the latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country (NATA is the Agency’s nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 identify areas, pollutants, or types of sources for further examination). The latest NATA estimates that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to potential elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S. (less than 1 percent of the total number of tracts). These elevated risks are largely driven by an EPA risk value that was updated in late 2016. The EPA will work with industry and state, local, and tribal air agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide— starting with air toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities and commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting site-specific risk assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission control strategies for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post updates on its work to address ethylene oxide on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the OLD source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.28 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 of this preamble below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. 28 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56309 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—OLD DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—50 km STUDY AREA RADIUS Population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million Nationwide Total Population ........................................................................................................................... Population with HI greater than 1 Source Category 317,746,049 350,000 0 White and Minority by Percent White ............................................................................................................................................ Minority ........................................................................................................................................ 62 38 26 74 0 0 Minority by Percent African American ......................................................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 12 0.8 18 7 13 0.3 58 2 0 0 0 0 Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 14 86 32 68 0 0 Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 14 86 32 68 0 0 Linguistically Isolated by Percent khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... The results of the OLD source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 350,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one with a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by OLD emissions, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, is greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the following demographics: Minority, African American, Hispanic or Latino, Below Poverty Level, Over 25 and without a High School Diploma, and Linguistically Isolated. The remaining demographic group percentages are the same or less than the corresponding nationwide percentages. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors For Populations Living Near Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual emissions from OLD operations located at major sources of HAP, and we considered these in determining acceptability. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to actual or allowable emissions from the source category is 20-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 33 years. Approximately 350,000 people face an increased cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to actual HAP PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 6 14 0 emissions from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. The screening assessment of worst-case inhalation impacts indicates a worstcase maximum acute HQ of 1 for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform based on the 1-hour REL for each pollutant. Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a three-tier screening assessment of the PB–HAP emitted by facilities in this source category. The only pollutants with elevated Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening values are POM (cancer). The Tier 2 screening value for POM was 6 which means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower than 6-in-1 million. For noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value for both cadmium and mercury is less than 1. In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are well below 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit of acceptability. In E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56310 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules addition, the highest chronic noncancer TOSHI is well below 1, indicating low likelihood of adverse noncancer effects from inhalation exposures. The maximum acute HQ for all pollutants is 1 based on the REL for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform. There are also low risks associated with ingestion, with the highest cancer risk lower than 6-in-1 million and the highest noncancer hazard below 1, based on a Tier 2 multipathway assessment. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable for this source category. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any emission reduction measures necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the risks associated with these emissions. Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are acceptable for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and in this ample margin of safety analysis, we considered all of the available health information along with the cost and feasibility of available HAP control measures. Under the technology review, we identified more stringent storage tank and leak requirements, and we determined that these requirements are cost effective. However, for this ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the estimated change in risks, and while there was some decrease in both the MIR and the number of people exposed to cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, we determined that the current NESHAP already provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health due primarily to the baseline risk levels. We note, however, that we are proposing to adopt the cost-effective measures under the technology review, as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble. D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? 1. Storage Vessels finished products for distribution at OLD facilities. Most storage vessels are vertical cylindrical designs with either a fixed or floating roof. Emissions from storage vessels occur due to tank content expansions (breathing losses) and tank content movements (working losses). Under the current OLD NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.2346 and Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63, the owner or operator of an existing or new storage tank meeting certain capacity and average annual true vapor pressure of organic HAP criteria must reduce the total organic HAP emissions from the storage tank by one of three control options. The first option is to reduce total organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight using a closed vent system routed to a (1) flare, (2) non-flare APCD, or (3) fuel gas system or process meeting applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The second option is to comply with vapor balancing requirements. The third option is to either install an IFR with proper seals or install an external floating roof with proper seals and enhanced fitting controls meeting applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Table 5 of this preamble outlines the current rule applicability thresholds for these storage tank control requirements. Storage vessels are used for storing liquid feedstocks, intermediates, or TABLE 5—CURRENT OLD NESHAP STORAGE TANK CAPACITY AND AVERAGE TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS FOR CONTROL Tank contents and average true vapor pressure of total Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 organic HAP Existing/new source and tank capacity Existing affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Existing affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any of the capacity criteria specified above. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil. Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules As part of our technology review for storage vessels, we identified the following emission reduction options: (1) Revising the average true vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources requiring control to align with those of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (‘‘HON,’’ 40 CFR part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds are lower and (2) in addition to requirements specified in option 1, requiring leak detection and repair (LDAR) using Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof storage vessels (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent by weight control requirements. We identified option 1 as a development in practices, processes, and control technologies because it reflects requirements and applicability thresholds that are widely applicable to existing tanks that are often collocated with OLD sources and which have been found to be cost effective for organic liquid storage tanks. The OLD NESHAP 56311 applicability thresholds for new sources are more stringent than other similar rules. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the capacity and average true vapor pressure thresholds for new source storage tanks. Table 6 of this preamble lists the proposed capacity and average true vapor pressure thresholds for control. Note that we also propose to clarify that condensate and crude oil are considered to be the same material with respect to OLD applicability (see section IV.E.3 of this preamble for more details on this clarification). TABLE 6—PROPOSED OLD NESHAP STORAGE TANK CAPACITY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS FOR CONTROL UNDER CONTROL OPTION 1 Existing/new source and tank capacity Tank contents and average true vapor pressure of total Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 organic HAP Existing affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <75.7 cubic meters (20,000 gallons). Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥13.1 kilopascals (1.9 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥5.2 kilopascals (0.75 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. Not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored organic liquid is ≥76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). Existing affected source with a capacity ≥75.7 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) and <151.4 cubic meters (40,000 gallons). Existing affected source with a capacity ≥151.4 cubic meters (40,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Existing affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any of the capacity criteria specified above. Option 2 is an improvement in practices because these monitoring methods have been required by other regulatory agencies since promulgation of the OLD NESHAP to confirm the vapor tightness of tank seals and gaskets to ensure compliance with the standards. Further, we have observed leaks on roof deck fittings through monitoring with Method 21 that could not be found with visual observation techniques. See the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the docket to this action for further background on this control option. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 This proposed option would apply to any fixed roof storage tank that is part of an OLD affected source that is not subject to the 95 percent by weight and equivalent controls according to the proposed thresholds above. The proposed requirements of option 2 would apply to new and existing sources for storage tanks having a capacity of 3.8 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) or greater that store organic liquids with an annual average true vapor pressure of 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia) or greater. Table 7 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the two options considered to be cost effective and the expected reduction in modeled PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions from storage tank emission points. We also evaluated other storage tank control options beyond these two, including installation of geodesic domes on external floating roof tanks, during our technology review, but did not find them to be generally cost effective and, therefore, have not discussed them in detail here. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the docket to this action. Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each of the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56312 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules options, we consider control options 1 and 2 to be cost-effective strategies for further reducing emissions from storage tanks at OLD facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP requirements for storage tanks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to storage tanks based on technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). TABLE 7—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR STORAGE TANKS AT OLD SOURCES 1 [2016$] Total capital investment ($) Control option 1 ................................ 2 ................................ 1 Recovery 2,380,000 0 Total annualized costs w/o credits ($/year) 309,000 30,000 VOC emission reductions (tpy) 127,000 (118,000) HAP emission reductions (tpy) 202 164 VOC cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 117 95 VOC cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 1,500 180 630 (720) HAP cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 2,600 320 HAP cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 1,100 (1,200) credits represent the savings in product that would not be lost from tank losses or fitting leaks. 2. Equipment Leaks Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or liquids that escape to the atmosphere through many types of connection points (e.g., threaded fittings) or through the moving parts of certain types of process equipment during normal operation. Equipment regulated by the OLD NESHAP includes pumps, PRDs (as part of a vapor balancing system), sampling collection systems, and valves that operate in organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year. The OLD NESHAP provides the option for equipment to meet the control requirements of either 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks— Control Level 1 Standards), UU (National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards), or H (National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks). The equipment leak requirements vary by equipment (component) type and by requirement (i.e., subpart TT, UU, or H) but generally require LDAR programs using Method 21 to monitor at certain frequencies (e.g., monthly, quarterly, every 2 quarters, annually) and specify leak definitions (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 10,000 ppm) if the component is in gas or light liquid service. The LDAR provisions for components in heavy liquid service require sensory monitoring and the use of Method 21 to monitor leaks identified through sensory monitoring. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total annualized costs with credits ($/year) Our technology review for equipment leaks identified two developments in LDAR practices and processes: (1) Adding connectors to the monitored equipment component types at a leak definition of 500 ppm (i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with either 40 CFR part 63, subparts UU or H) and (2) eliminating the option of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT for valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems, essentially requiring compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or H. These two proposed practices and processes are already in effect at sources that are often collocated with OLD NESHAP sources, such as in the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). Further, we have found that several OLD sources are permitted using various state LDAR regulations that incorporate equipment leak provisions at the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU requirement level or above and also require connector monitoring as part of the facility’s air permit requirements. For equipment leaks control option 1, the baseline is that connectors are not controlled using a LDAR program since the current OLD NESHAP does not include them as equipment to be monitored. For control option 2, the impact is lowering the leak definitions for valves and pumps to account for the differences in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. That is, valves in light liquid service would drop from a leak definition of 10,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and pumps would drop from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv. Sampling connection requirements are the same for the two subparts. Table 8 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the two options considered and the expected reduction in modeled emissions from equipment leak emission points. During our technology review, we also evaluated additional options for controlling equipment leaks, which would have had lower leak definitions for valves and pumps than the two options identified here. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the docket to this action. Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each of the options, we consider control option 1 to be a cost-effective strategy for further reducing emissions from equipment leaks at OLD facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP for equipment leaks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are not proposing option 2 because we consider this option to not be cost effective. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to equipment leaks based on technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). TABLE 8—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS AT OLD SOURCES 1 [2016$] Control option 1 ................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 Total capital investment ($) 1,640,000 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Total annualized costs w/o credits ($/year) 567,000 Jkt 250001 Total annualized costs with credits ($/year) VOC emission reductions (tpy) 490,000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 300 Fmt 4701 HAP emission reductions (tpy) VOC cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 174 Sfmt 4702 VOC cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 1,900 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 1,600 21OCP2 HAP cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 3,300 HAP cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 2,800 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56313 TABLE 8—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS AT OLD SOURCES 1—Continued [2016$] Control option 2 ................................ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1 Recovery Total capital investment ($) 2,509,000 Total annualized costs w/o credits ($/year) 565,000 Total annualized costs with credits ($/year) VOC emission reductions (tpy) 516,000 HAP emission reductions (tpy) 54 VOC cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 31 VOC cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 10,500 9,500 HAP cost effectiveness w/o credits ($/ton) 18,000 HAP cost effectiveness with credits ($/ton) 16,500 credits are the savings in product that would not be lost from equipment due to leaks. 3. Transfer Racks Transfer racks are process equipment that transfer liquids from storage vessels into cargo tanks (i.e., tank trucks and railcars). Emissions from transfer racks occur as the organic liquid is loaded into the cargo tank, thereby displacing the vapor space in the tank above the liquid’s surface. These emissions can be affected primarily by the turbulence (i.e., splashing) during loading, temperature of the liquids, and volume transferred. The current OLD NESHAP requires control of transfer racks in organic liquid service through a variety of means, but with an equivalent control efficiency of 98 percent. This control efficiency was determined during the NESHAP rulemaking to be achievable by well-designed and operated combustion devices (69 FR 5054, February 3, 2004). We evaluated the thresholds for control in the current rule against the 2012 proposed uniform standards for storage vessels and transfer operations (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–2010–0871) and found that the current thresholds for controls are equivalent or more stringent than those in proposed in 2012. We also considered an option that would apply 98-percent control requirements for transfer racks to large throughput transfer racks transferring organic liquid materials that are 5 percent or less by weight HAP. We analyzed the population of transfer racks and identified potentially affected transfer racks. Considering the costs of control and the HAP emissions for these racks, this option was also found to be cost ineffective. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to change the emission standard for transfer racks. For more information, see the Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Transfer Racks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category memorandum in the docket for this action. 4. Fenceline Monitoring Alternative The EPA is proposing a fenceline monitoring program as an alternative compliance option for certain VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 requirements being proposed in this action. The fenceline monitoring option would be available to existing and new OLD facilities in lieu of implementing certain proposed requirements for storage vessels and equipment leaks. OLD operations located at facilities that are required to implement a fenceline monitoring program under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC would not be eligible to use this alternative compliance option. The rationale for excluding petroleum refineries from exercising the fenceline monitoring alternative is because these facilities already implement a fenceline monitoring program for benzene and because only a few refineries have OLD operations, which contribute a small proportion of the refineries overall HAP emissions inventory. We believe petroleum refineries should continue to implement fenceline monitoring under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. We are proposing optional fenceline monitoring as an advancement in monitoring practice because of the significant quantities of HAP emissions originating from OLD operations that are fugitive in nature, and as such, are impractical to directly measure (for example, fixed roof tanks, external floating roof tanks, equipment leaks, uncontrolled transfer operations). Direct measurement of fugitive emissions from sources such as storage vessels and equipment leaks can be costly and difficult, especially if required to be deployed on all OLD sources of fugitive emissions throughout the source category.29 This is a major reason why 29 In general, testing fugitive sources requires methodologies for which the EPA has not developed standard test methods and for which there are few contractors that can perform such testing. While it may be possible to obtain data on some fugitive sources, the testing requires intense planning and analysis by highly qualified experts in order to limit the data uncertainty and isolate the fugitive sources. These techniques often require very expensive equipment to obtain results. Additionally, by their nature, fugitive sources have more variable emissions than point sources, making it more difficult to determine representative testing conditions. Point source emissions occur at all times that the process operates and are routed through a stack where mass emissions may be determined by measuring concentration and flow, PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 fugitive emissions associated with OLD operations are generally estimated using factors and correlations rather than by direct measurement. For example, equipment leak emissions are estimated using emissions factors or correlations between leak rates and concentrations from Method 21 instrument monitoring. Relying on these kinds of approaches introduces uncertainty into the emissions inventory for fugitive emission sources. As part of the technology review, we evaluated developments in processes, practices, and control technologies for measuring and controlling fugitive emissions from individual emission points at OLD sources. For storage vessels, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to lower the vapor pressure threshold for emission control for storage tanks at existing sources having capacities of 20,000 to 50,0000 gallons and we are proposing to require monitoring of components on fixed roof storage tanks. For equipment leaks, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to include connectors in the LDAR program. We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD operations may implement a fenceline monitoring program in lieu of the proposed technology review amendments for storage tanks and equipment leaks discussed above. In summary, if an owner or operator opts to implement the fenceline monitoring alternative standard, then the facility would not need to perform connector monitoring for equipment leaks, would not need to perform annual inspections on storage tank closures, and would not need to install controls for storage tanks between 20,000 and 50,000 gallons pursuant to Table 2b. Instead of complying with these requirements, the facility would need to develop a detailed inventory of allowable HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility, including identification of which equipment are in OLD service; whereas equipment such as connectors only exhibit emissions when there is an issue that needs to be addressed. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56314 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules determine which HAP to monitor based on emissions from OLD equipment; run the HEM–3 model to determine the annual average modeled concentration of each HAP; set an action level based on the modeled concentration of selected HAP; submit the modeling input file and results to the EPA for approval; deploy passive sample tubes on the fenceline of your facility every 14 days using Method 325A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 (‘‘Method 325A’’); have the passive tubes analyzed for the selected HAP using Method 325B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 (‘‘Method 325B’’); calculate the difference of the highest recorded concentration minus the lowest recorded concentration (i.e., delta C) for each sample period; calculate a rolling annual average delta C for each selected HAP; report recorded concentrations and calculated delta C values to the EPA electronically; and, if the rolling annual average delta C is greater than the action level established from the modeling effort, then the facility must perform a root cause analysis and take corrective action to bring the annual average delta C to below the action level. Like the petroleum refinery fenceline monitoring results, the EPA plans to make the reported monitored data publicly available. Details about this optional fenceline monitoring program are described in the subsections below: (a) Developments in Monitoring Technology and Practices; (b) Analytes to Monitor; (c) Concentration Action Level; (d) Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors; (e) Reporting Monitoring Results; (f) Reducing Monitoring Frequency; (g) Corrective Action Requirements; and (h) Costs Associated with Fenceline Monitoring Alternatives. The EPA is proposing this option for several reasons: (1) There is concern that the uncertainty surrounding estimated fugitive emissions from OLD operations may be underestimating actual fugitive emissions from OLD operations; (2) the proposed fenceline monitoring program would provide owners and operators a flexible alternative to appropriately manage fugitive emissions of HAP from OLD operations if they are significantly greater than estimated values; and (3) the proposed frequency of monitoring time-integrated samples on a 2-week basis would provide an opportunity for owners and operators to detect and manage any spikes in fugitive emissions sooner than they might have been detected from equipment subject to annual or quarterly monitoring in the proposed amendments or from VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 equipment that is not subject to equipment leak monitoring in the proposed rule. The EPA believes the proposed fenceline monitoring alternative would be equivalent to the proposed technology review revisions it would replace. The EPA is proposing to establish the trigger for root cause analysis and corrective action based on modeled HAP concentrations emitted from OLD equipment and considering the expected concentrations of HAP at the fenceline from all equipment at the facility. The HAP to be monitored are those having the most HAP emissions from OLD equipment at the facility including those that are emitted from equipment that would have been subject to the proposed requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks had the owner or operator of the facility not opted to implement the alternative fenceline monitoring. If actual annual average delta C is at or below the modeled values considering allowable emissions adjusted to reflect compliance with the connector monitoring and proposed amendments to the storage tank requirements, then fugitive emissions from the facility having OLD operations would be considered equivalent to the level of control that would be required by these proposed amendments. If the actual annual average delta C is above the action level, then the facility must perform root cause analysis and, if the cause is from emissions at the facility, then the facility would be required to reduce emissions to a level so that the annual average delta C is below the action level. As discussed above, we believe the proposed fenceline monitoring option would achieve an equivalent level of HAP emissions reductions as the proposed amendments to the storage tank and equipment leak requirements that this program would replace and would be appropriate under CAA section 112(d)(6) to propose as an alternative equivalent requirement to address fugitive emissions from OLD sources. Regarding uncertainty in emissions, emissions of HAP from OLD operations are often fugitive, that is, emissions that are not routed through a stack or cannot reasonably be measured. Emissions from storage tanks that are not routed through a closed vent system to control are usually calculated using equations in Chapter 7 of the EPA’s Compilation of Air Emissions Factors (AP–42).30 Equipment leaks are often calculated using presumptive emission factors for different types of equipment (e.g., valves, pump seals, sampling connections, connectors) in specific types of service (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid) using the EPA’s Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates.31 There is uncertainty surrounding these emission factors. Actual emissions may be different if the equipment is operating at different conditions than those used to set the emission factors. A large proportion of HAP emissions from OLD operations are inventoried by calculating emissions using these emission factors and protocols. By monitoring fenceline concentrations of HAP and comparing the annual average concentrations to the concentrations that would be expected from modeling the emissions calculated using emission factors, the owner or operator would be able to determine if the emissions from the facility are close to those that were calculated in the inventory used to generate the action level. In this way, fenceline monitoring is a method that can help evaluate whether the uncertainty surrounding the calculations used to estimate fugitive emissions at a particular facility is a concern. Regarding the opportunity to detect spikes in fugitive emissions earlier, the 2-week sample time is more frequent than the LDAR requirements in the proposed rule (quarterly, annual) and more frequent than the proposed floating roof inspection requirements (annual for closure devices on fixed roof tanks, annual top-side floating roof inspections, and close-up inspections of floating roof seals when the storage tanks are emptied and degassed). This provides an opportunity to detect problems sooner than they otherwise might be detected. Also, there is an opportunity for the monitors to detect emissions from equipment that would not otherwise be detected with the requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks in the proposed amendments to this rule. Fenceline monitoring would provide the opportunity to identify any significant increase in emissions (e.g., a large equipment leak or a significant tear in a storage vessel seal) in a more timely manner, which would allow owners or operators to identify and reduce HAP emissions more rapidly than if a source relied solely on the existing monitoring and inspection methods required by the OLD NESHAP. Small or short-term increases in emissions are not likely to raise the fenceline concentration above the action level, so a fenceline 30 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch07/ index.html. 31 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi? Dockey=P1006KE4.txt. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 monitoring approach will generally target larger emission sources that have the most impact on the ambient pollutant concentration near the facility. Further, selection of the HAP to monitor are based on the emissions from OLD operations that would be subject to these proposed amended requirements (connector monitoring, tank closure inspections, and revised storage tank vapor pressure thresholds for control) at the facility. The action level would be set using modeled concentrations of these HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility and would represent an equivalent level of control to the proposed enhancements to the storage tanks and equipment leak requirements. Therefore, we conclude that, over the long term, the HAP emission reductions achieved by complying with the fenceline monitoring alternative would be equivalent to, or better than, compliance with the enhanced standards being proposed here because of the potential for earlier detection of significant emission leaks and the potential to address fugitive emissions that are not being reflected in the HAP emission inventories due to the uncertainty surrounding how those emissions are calculated. The following proposed requirements would not apply if a source chooses to comply with the fenceline monitoring alternative: (1) Lower threshold (i.e., tank vapor pressure and volume) for requiring emission controls on tanks expressed in proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE; (2) inspection of closure devices on fixed roof tanks expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2343(e)(4); and (3) LDAR monitoring for connectors expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1). The proposed revisions, if finalized, would not change a facility’s responsibility to comply with the emissions standards and other requirements of the OLD NESHAP as currently in effect and the amendments to the rule other than the three identified above in this paragraph. We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to the fenceline monitoring alternative based on technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). a. Developments in Monitoring Technology and Practices The fenceline monitoring alternative is a practicable NESHAP requirement because of developments in monitoring technology. The EPA reviewed the available literature and identified several methods for measuring fenceline emissions. The methods analyzed were (1) Passive diffusive tube monitoring VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 networks; (2) active monitoring station networks; (3) ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy (UV– DOAS) fenceline monitoring; (4) openpath Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); (5) Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) monitoring; and (6) solar occultation flux monitoring. We considered these monitoring methods as developments in practices under CAA section 112(d)(6) for purposes of all fugitive emission sources at OLD operations. While each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses, we conclude that a passive diffusive tube monitoring network is the most appropriate fenceline monitoring technology that has been demonstrated and is applicable to OLD operations. We conclude that DIAL and solar occultation flux can be used for shortterm studies, but these methods are not appropriate for continuous monitoring. While active monitoring stations, UV– DOAS, and FTIR are technically feasible, passive diffusive tubes have been demonstrated to be feasible and commercially available with substantially lower capital and operating costs. We, therefore, are proposing to require the use of passive diffusive tubes as the monitoring technology for the fenceline monitoring alternative for OLD operations. Our evaluation of the six alternative fugitive monitoring technologies is summarized in the proposal preamble for the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR at 79 FR 36880 (June 30, 2014). For this action, we have not evaluated any other fugitive emissions monitoring techniques beyond those described in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR. While the discussion in the proposal preamble of the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR is in the context of emissions from a petroleum refinery, passive tube monitoring is equally applicable to HAP emitted by OLD operations. The method for conducting fenceline monitoring using this technology is prescribed in Methods 325A and 325B. The method is applicable to any VOC that has been properly validated under Method 325B. Table 12.1 of Method 325B lists benzene and 17 additional organic compounds having verified method performance and validated uptake rates for specified sorbents used in the passive sampling tubes. Owners and operators of an OLD operation can obtain approval from the EPA for additional HAP compounds or different sorbents by conducting validation testing described in Addendum A of Method 325B or in one of the following national/international standard methods: ISO 16017– PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56315 2:2003(E), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6196–03 (Reapproved 2009), BS EN 14662– 4:2005, or a method reported in the peer-reviewed open literature. b. Analytes To Monitor For facilities that opt to implement fenceline monitoring at 40 CFR 63.2348(b)(2), we are proposing to specify how to determine the HAP to monitor and the action level that determines when root cause and corrective action must be taken. There is a wide variety of organic liquids stored at different facilities in the nation. Accordingly, we do not believe there is a single HAP that is suitable to universally represent an accurate indicator of the performance of tank and other fugitive emission control strategies across all OLD facilities. To ensure an effective monitoring framework, we are proposing that a facility that chooses the fenceline monitoring alternative would monitor simultaneously for at least the number of HAP that will represent the HAP emissions from the OLD operations at the facility. We are proposing that each facility would monitor for the organic HAP that has the most annual allowable emissions from OLD operations. If this HAP is emitted from the equipment that would have been subject to the proposed new requirements (i.e., the connectors subject to the equipment leak provisions at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1) and the storage tanks that would have been subject to the control criteria at proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE or 40 CFR 63.2343(e)(4)), then monitoring that HAP at the fenceline is sufficient. Otherwise, the facility must monitor that HAP as well as additional HAP necessary to ensure that the HAP being emitted from sources that would have been subject to additional control are monitored through the fenceline program, i.e., each piece of OLD equipment that would have been subject to controls emits at least one HAP monitored at the fenceline. We are soliciting comment on whether one of the analytes should be set as benzene, which is a pollutant common to most terminals subject to the OLD NESHAP. We are also soliciting comment on whether different criteria should be established to determine which analytes should be monitored and reported. c. Concentration Action Level We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(b)(3), the method by which the facility would determine the action level for each monitored HAP. The action level is compared to the annual E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56316 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules average delta C to determine whether a root cause analysis, and potentially corrective action to reduce emissions, is triggered. The action level would be set for each HAP as an air concentration, expressed in micrograms per cubic meter, equal to the highest modeled fenceline concentration for the selected HAP. As input to the modeling, each facility would be required to prepare an inventory of their allowable emissions assuming full compliance with the final revised OLD NESHAP developed from this regulatory action. To ensure consistency and equity among affected sources, each facility would follow guidance developed by the EPA for preparing the emissions inventory and conducting modeling using the HEM–3 model, which contains an atmospheric dispersion model and meteorological data. A draft of the proposed guidance is available for review and comment in the docket for this proposed action (see Draft Guidance on Determination of Analytes and Action Levels for Fenceline Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution Sources). In order to be eligible for the fenceline monitoring option, we are proposing the monitored HAP’s site-specific action level derived from the modeling must be at least 5 times greater than the method detection limit for the HAP. This requirement will ensure that sources are not unreasonably put into a corrective action routine due solely to the relationship between the action level and the method detection limit. For any 2-week sampling period, if the lowest recorded value falls below the method detection limit for an analyte, then for the purposes of calculating the delta C, a zero is used. Also, if all sample results for any 2-week sample period are below the method detection limit, then you must use the method detection limit as the highest sample result for the purposes of calculating the delta C, effectively making delta C equal to the method detection limit. Therefore, if the action level is set to a value too close to the method detection limit, then achieving an annual average delta C at or below the action level could become difficult because only a few detectable readings could bring the annual average delta C above the action level when those readings are averaged with the method level of detection for the other sample periods. Therefore, requiring an action level of at least 5 times greater than the method limit of detection would alleviate this difficulty and prevent cases where root cause analysis and corrective action are required simply due to the way detectable concentrations are averaged with the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 method limit of detection which is close to the action level. To reduce the likelihood of this occurring, we are setting an appropriate requirement that the method detection limit be well below the action level for the HAP. We propose that owners or operators of an existing affected OLD operation would conduct modeling and submit the results and proposed action levels to the Administrator no later than 1 year after the effective date of the final rule, then deploy samplers and begin collecting data no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. For new sources, if an owner or operator elects to conduct a fenceline monitoring program, we are proposing that the owner or operator would (1) model and submit for EPA approval action levels within 3 months after establishment of allowable emissions in the title V permit, (2) begin monitoring upon commencement of operation, (3) submit the first report no later than 45 days following the end of the calendar quarter in which 1 full year of monitoring data was collected, and (4) subsequently submit monitoring reports by the end of each subsequent calendar quarter. d. Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(c) specification of the passive monitoring locations. Facilities that use the fenceline monitoring alternative must deploy and operate monitors by following the requirements of Methods 325A and 325B. Method 325A requires deployment of a minimum of 12 monitors around the fenceline, although the minimum number and the placement of monitors depends on the size, shape, and linear distance around the facility, as well as the proximity of emissions sources to the property boundary, as described in the method. Method 325A also specifies the requirements for sample collection, while Method 325B specifies the requirements for sample preparation and analysis. The EPA is proposing that passive fenceline monitors would be deployed and sampling would commence starting 2 years after the effective date of this final rule. Passive sorbent tubes would be used to collect 2-week timeintegrated samples. For each 2-week period, the facility would determine a delta C, calculated as the lowest sorbent tube sample value subtracted from the highest sorbent tube sample value. This approach is intended to subtract out the estimated contribution from background emissions that do not originate from the OLD facility. The delta C for the most PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 recent 26 sampling periods would be averaged to calculate an annual average delta C. The annual average delta C would be determined on a rolling basis, meaning that it is updated with every new sample (i.e., every 2 weeks, a new annual average delta C is determined from the most recent 26 sampling periods). This rolling annual average would be compared against the relevant concentration action level. e. Reporting Monitoring Results After 1 full year of monitoring, the fenceline monitoring reports would be submitted electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), to the EPA on a quarterly frequency. Because the concentration action level is compared to an annual average delta C, monitoring data from 1 full year is needed to assess compliance with the requirements of the alternative fenceline compliance option. Therefore, we are proposing that OLD owners and operators would not be required to submit the initial fenceline monitoring report until after 1 full year of data is available. The initial report would be required to be submitted no later than 45 days following the end of the calendar quarter in which 1 full year of monitoring data is obtained. Each subsequent compliance report would include monitoring data collected for the calendar quarter following the data reported in the previous report and would be due no later than 45 days following the end of the calendar quarter covered by the monitoring. For example, if the effective date of this rule is March 27, 2020, then the establishment of the action levels must be submitted to the EPA or the delegated authority by March 27, 2021; fenceline monitoring would begin by March 27, 2022; the first report would include data collected from March 27, 2022, through March 31, 2023; and the first report would be submitted by May 15, 2023. At that point, quarterly reporting would commence; the next report would include data collected from April 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023, and would be submitted by August 14, 2023. See section IV.E.2 of this preamble for further discussion on reporting fenceline monitoring data. f. Reducing Monitoring Frequency To reduce the burden of monitoring, we are proposing provisions at 40 CFR 63.2348(e)(3) that would allow OLD owners or operators to reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling locations where ambient air concentrations are consistently well below the fenceline concentration action level for all analytes. Specifically, E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 we are allowing owners or operators to monitor every other 2-week period (i.e., skip period monitoring) if over a 2-year period, each sample collected at a specific monitoring location is at or below one tenth of the action level for each analyte. If every sample collected from that sampling location during the subsequent 2 years is at or below one tenth of the action level, the monitoring frequency may be reduced from every other sampling period to once every sixth sampling period (approximately quarterly). After an additional 2 years, the monitoring can be reduced to once every thirteenth sampling period (semiannually) and finally to annually after another 2 years, provided the samples continue to be at or below one tenth of the action level during all sampling events at that location. If at any time a sample for a monitoring location that is monitored at a reduced frequency returns a concentration greater than one tenth the action level, the owner or operator must return to the original sampling requirements for 1 quarter (monitor every 2 weeks for the next six monitoring periods for that location). If every sample collected during that quarter is at or below one tenth the action level, then the sampling frequency reverts back to the reduced monitoring frequency for that monitoring location; if not, then the sampling frequency reverts back to the original monitoring frequency, with samples being taken every 2-week period. g. Corrective Action Requirements If at any time the annual average delta C exceeds the action level for any of the monitored HAP, then a root cause analysis is required to determine the source of the emissions that caused the exceedance and whether corrective action is needed to return monitored delta C concentrations to below the relevant action level. As described previously, the EPA is proposing that the owner or operator analyze the samples and compare the rolling annual average fenceline concentration, adjusted to remove the estimated background emissions, to the concentration action level. This section summarizes the corrective action requirements in this proposed rule. We are proposing that the calculation of the rolling annual average delta C for each monitored HAP must be completed within 45 days after the completion of each 2-week sampling period. If the rolling annual average delta C exceeds the respective concentration action level for any monitored HAP, the facility must, within 5 days of determining the concentration action level has been VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 exceeded, initiate a root cause analysis to determine the primary cause, and any other contributing cause(s), of the exceedance. The facility must complete the root cause analysis and implement corrective action within 45 days of initiating the root cause analysis. We are not proposing specific controls or corrections that would be required when the concentration action level is exceeded because the cause of an exceedance could vary greatly from facility to facility and episode to episode, since many different sources emit fugitives. Rather, we are proposing to allow facilities to determine, based on their own analysis of their operations, the action that must be taken to reduce air concentrations at the fenceline to levels at or below the concentration action level. If, upon completion of the corrective action described above, the owner or operator exceeds the action level for the next 2-week sampling period following the completion of a first set of corrective actions, the owner or operator would be required to develop and submit a corrective action plan that would describe the corrective actions completed to date. The plan would include a schedule for implementation of emission reduction measures that the owner or operator can demonstrate as soon as practical. The plan would be submitted to the Administrator within 60 days of an exceedance occurring during the next 2-week sampling period following the completion of the initial round of corrective action. The corrective action plan does not need to be approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator is not deemed out of compliance with the concentration action level, provided that the appropriate corrective action measures are taken according to the time frame detailed in the corrective action plan. We anticipate that the fenceline monitoring requirements and associated corrective action provisions would provide an alternative compliance option to reduce exposure to HAP that we believe would not pose an unreasonable burden on OLD operations. Assuming the inventories and associated modeling conducted by the OLD operators are accurate, we expect that few, if any, facilities will need to engage in required corrective action. We do, however, expect that facilities may identify ‘‘poorperforming’’ sources (e.g., those with unusual leaks) from the fenceline monitoring data and, based on this additional information, will take action to reduce HAP emissions before they otherwise would have been aware of the PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56317 issue through existing inspection and enforcement measures. In some instances, a high fenceline concentration may be affected by a nonOLD emission source that is collocated within the property boundary. The likely instances of this situation would be leaks from equipment or storage vessels from processes that are subject to the HON (40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H), the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF), or the NESHAP for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR part 63, subpart R). Whenever the action level is exceeded, we are proposing that the OLD owner or operator must take whatever corrective action is needed to reduce the relevant HAP air concentration to below the action level concentration, including corrective actions for any contributing sources that are under common ownership or common control of the OLD operation and that are within the plant site boundary. We conclude that requiring corrective action for all commonly owned or controlled equipment is reasonable because the fenceline alternative is an optional control strategy and would likely be selected if the OLD facility determined that the fenceline alternative provides an economic advantage or potential cost savings or if the facility otherwise wishes to perform fenceline monitoring as a more effective and flexible way to manage fugitive emissions. In a situation where collocated equipment is not under common ownership or control of the OLD owner or operator, then the rule provisions for adjusting for background HAP concentrations, previously discussed in this section of the preamble, would apply. h. Costs Associated With Fenceline Monitoring Alternatives The cost for fenceline monitoring is dependent on the sampling frequency and the number of monitoring locations needed based on the size and geometry of the facility. For typical storage terminals subject to the OLD NESHAP, we assume the size of each facility would be less than 750 acres and the number of monitoring sites to be no more than 18 based on the specifications in Methods 325A and 325B. We use the same approach to estimate costs as outlined in the June 2015 technical memorandum, Fenceline Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final Rule, from the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, also available in the docket for this action. We estimate the first-year installation and equipment costs for the passive tube monitoring system could cost up to $95,370. We estimate that E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56318 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 annualized costs for ongoing monitoring to facilities that choose to implement this alternative compliance option would be up to $35,000 per year per facility, and total annualized costs would be up to $45,000 per year per facility. These figures are expressed in year 2016$. The primary goal of a fenceline monitoring network is to ensure that owners and operators properly monitor and manage fugitive HAP emissions. Because we are proposing a concentration action level that each facility derives by modeling fenceline HAP concentrations after full compliance with the proposed and existing requirements of the OLD NESHAP, as amended by this proposed action, the fenceline concentration action level would be set at levels that each facility in the category can meet. Therefore, we do not project any additional HAP emission reductions beyond the proposed requirements that the alternative fenceline monitoring compliance option would achieve. However, if an owner or operator has underestimated the fugitive emissions from one or more sources (e.g., a leak develops or a tank seal or fitting fails), then a fenceline monitoring system would likely identify those excess emissions earlier than under current and proposed amended monitoring requirements. The fenceline monitoring system would ensure that HAP emissions in excess of those projected would be addressed, potentially more completely and quickly than the requirements replaced by implementing the fenceline monitoring. We note that any costs for a fugitive monitoring system would be offset, to some extent, by product recovery because addressing these leaks more quickly has the potential to reduce product losses. E. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other changes to require electronic reporting of emissions test results, and to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 1. SSM Requirements In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.2378(b). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General Provisions table to subpart EEEE’’) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2350(c) to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. In addition, we are proposing to make the portion of the ‘‘deviation’’ definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that specifically addresses SSM periods no longer applicable beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Finally, because 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE requires closed vent systems and APCDs to meet certain requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(l) to make portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (those applicable references related to the SSM exemption) no longer applicable. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 We are proposing that, emissions from startup and shutdown activities must be included when determining if all the standards are being attained. As currently proposed in 40 CFR 63.2378(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart ‘‘at all times,’’ except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. Emission reductions for transfer rack operations are typically achieved by routing vapors to an APCD such as a flare, thermal oxidizer, or carbon adsorber. It is common practice in this source category to start an APCD prior to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so the APCD would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We expect APCDs would be operating during startup and shutdown events in a manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these APCDs will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring parameter operating limits set during the performance test. We do not expect startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from storage vessels or equipment leaks. Working and breathing losses from storage vessels are the same regardless of whether the process is operating under normal operating conditions or if it is in a startup or shutdown event. Leak detection programs associated with equipment leaks are in place to detect leaks, and, therefore, it is inconsequential whether the process is operating under normal operating conditions or is in startup or shutdown. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances’’). As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ’invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an APCD with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the APCD was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 75211–14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56319 consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Finally, in keeping with the elimination of the SSM exemption, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(m) to remove the use of SSM exemption provisions located in subparts referenced by the OLD NESHAP (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts H, SS, and UU) when the owner or operator is demonstrating compliance with the OLD NESHAP. b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability Table 40 CFR 63.2350(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2350(d) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56320 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2350(d) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2350(d). The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.2350(d) would require that the owner or operator operate and maintain any affected source, including APCD and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For example, in the event of an emission capture system or APCD malfunction for a controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in 40 CFR 63.2350(d), the facility would need to cease the controlled operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions during emission capture system and APCD malfunctions are minimized. SSM Plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that section 112 standards generally apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6) Performance testing. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ We are also proposing to remove a similar requirement at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(5). 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The proposed regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. Also, the EPA is proposing to add language at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6) that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator upon request such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,’’ but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Refer to section PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 IV.A.1 of this preamble for discussion of this proposed revision. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2366(c) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).’’ We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2390(f). The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions require the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2390(f) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2390(f)(3). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. 40 CFR 63.2386 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Similarly, we are also proposing that the references to this specific provision (i.e., 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)) at 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(5) and Table 11 to subpart EEEE would no longer be applicable. 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual compliance report already VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., organic liquid loading rates and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We would no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments would eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) (at 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(5) and item 1.a of Table 11 to subpart EEEE) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. Requirements for flares. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.11(b) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no’’ in which 40 CFR 63.11(b) would be no longer applicable beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Refer to section IV.A.1 of this preamble for discussion of this proposed revision. c. Requirements for Safety Devices We are proposing to remove the safety device opening allowance of 40 CFR 63.2346(i) beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Pressure relief device provisions are discussed in more detail in section IV.A.2 of this preamble. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56321 d. Proposed Revisions Related to the Periods of Planned Routine Maintenance of a Control Device and Bypass of Routing Emissions to a Fuel Gas System or Process Under the current OLD rule, there are two allowances for storage tank and transfer rack emission limits to exceed the standard for up to 240 hours per year: (1) Periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device and (2) bypass of the fuel gas system or process if emissions are routed to these for control. In 2004, the EPA added these allowances in the final rule in response to a comment that suggested that an allowance is needed for planned routine maintenance of control devices when storage tanks cannot be taken out of service.32 These allowances represent periods of shutdown for the control devices used to comply with the standards, so we are proposing to remove these allowance periods for transfer racks and storage tank working losses to be consistent with our proposal to eliminate other SSM event exemptions discussed earlier in this section of the preamble. For transfer rack operations and storage tank working losses, most facilities would likely be able to plan transfers to occur when the control device is not shut down for maintenance. The owner or operator of a storage tank or transfer operation also would have the option to continue to transfer organic liquids during the planned routine maintenance of the control device by operating a temporary control device to meet the standards during these periods. We propose to continue to allow storage tank breathing losses to occur during planned routine maintenance of a control device for up to 240 hours per year because these emissions would be significantly less than emptying and degassing a storage tank prior to conducting planned routine maintenance on a control device. We request comment on whether we should allow some period of exceedance for solely tank breathing losses during planned routine maintenance of a control device. See the memorandum, 240-hour Exceedance Allowance Control Analysis, in the docket for this action for details on alternative control costs and impacts. We expect this change to result in emission reductions of HAP. However, we do not have enough information to make an accurate estimate of the HAP 32 See Response to Comments Document For Promulgated Standards—Organic Liquid Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Industry [A–98–13 V– C–01], available at Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2003–0138–0031. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56322 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules emission reductions, and we are not including any in the environmental impacts, although we expect these HAP emission reductions could be up to 390 tpy based on assumptions about pump rates and number of hours needed for the planned routine maintenance of the control device at each controlled transfer rack. We present the cost impacts of this proposed revision in section V.C of this preamble. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Electronic Reporting Requirements We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, NOCS reports, and fenceline monitoring reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 33 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. The proposed rule requires that NOCS reports be submitted as a PDF upload in CEDRI. For compliance reports and fenceline monitoring reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. Draft versions of the proposed templates for these reports are available in the docket for this action.34 We specifically request comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the templates. 33 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 34 See OLD_Compliance_Report_Draft_ Template.xlsx and OLD_Fenceline_Report_Draft_ Template.xlsx, which are available in the docket for this action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. We are providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2386(i). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2386(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 35 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agency35 The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 wide policy 36 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.37 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action. 3. Other Amendments and Corrections The EPA has noted a situation where compliance assurance may be challenged or possibly compromised due to the current rule’s requirements for emission sources not requiring control as specified in 40 CFR 63.2343. In the current provisions, the ‘‘annual average true vapor pressure’’ definition contains the determination options, which include some testing methods as options but also allow for standard reference texts. The EPA is proposing to require testing and recordkeeping to confirm the annual average true vapor pressure at least every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the tank’s contents, whichever occurs first, to ensure the tank’s applicability and confirm that it should not be subject to the 95-percent control requirements of the regulation. We are also proposing that this periodic testing requirement may be met if the OLD responsible official has been provided a certificate of analysis that includes vapor pressure analysis data for the tank’s contents by the liquid’s supplier within the 5-year period. The HAP content determination requirements are not expressly stated in the ‘‘organic liquids’’ definition, but there are HAP content determination methods listed in 40 CFR 63.2354. The methods include testing and analysis, material safety data sheets, or certified product data sheets. No frequency for making these determinations are specified in the current OLD NESHAP. Similar to the annual true vapor pressure, we are proposing a requirement that the contents of tanks that are claimed to be not subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less than 5-percent HAP (and, therefore, do not meet the definition of ‘‘organic liquids’’ within the OLD NESHAP) 36 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 37 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules should be tested every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the tank’s contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm that the tank is not storing ‘‘organic liquids’’ and, therefore, is not subject to the rule. We are also proposing that this periodic testing requirement may be met if the OLD responsible official has been provided HAP content analysis data for the tank’s contents by the liquid’s supplier within the 5-year period. The EPA is requesting comment on the need for these periodic testing and analysis confirmations and also whether a definition of ‘‘significant change to the tank’s contents’’ is necessary for implementation purposes. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2354(c), which specified the determination of HAP content of an organic liquid, by adding the voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ATSM D6886–18, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography,’’ as another acceptable method. We are also proposing to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that requires analysis by Method B or Method C in section of 4.3 of the VCS, ASTM D6886–18, when organic liquids contain formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride. The rationale for adding the use of ASTM D8668–18 and its use as a governing method for organic liquids that contain formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride results from the inability of Method 311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to detect the presence of these compounds. We are proposing to amend the definition of the term ‘‘annual average true vapor pressure’’ at 40 CFR 63.2406 by replacing one of the acceptable methods for the determination of vapor pressure. We propose to replace the method, ASTM D2879, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope,’’ with the method, ASTM D6378–18a, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method).’’ ASTM D2879, the method in the current OLD NESHAP, requires the use of an isoteniscope and involves heating the sample until it boils, which can result in the loss of volatiles before the vapor pressure is measured. The method we are proposing as a replacement is a newer, automated device method that does not have this step and is expected to produce more accurate vapor pressure measurements for organic VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 liquids regulated in the OLD NESHAP. This method is suitable for a range of vapor to liquid ratios of 4:1 to 1:1. We are also proposing that the use of this method to determine vapor pressure of a liquid for the purposes of this rule sets the vapor to liquid ratio at 4:1. Also, we are proposing to clarify in the definition of the term ‘‘annual average true vapor pressure’’ regarding how the American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, third edition, February 1989 (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) can be used to calculate vapor pressure. API Publication 2517 does not prescribe methods that measure the vapor pressure of a liquid. However, this publication does serve as a standard reference, although, it is somewhat dated. It contains a table of vapor pressures of a few pure substances at temperatures between 40 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It also has charts and equations that can calculate true vapor pressure from stock temperature and Reid vapor pressure for crude oils and refined petroleum stocks. AP–42 Chapter 7, which is publicly available, contains similar information regarding the determination of vapor pressure as described in API Publication 2517. For these reasons, we are proposing to remove specific reference to API Publication 2517 in the definition of the term ‘‘annual average true vapor pressure.’’ At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control devices, we are proposing to clarify that Method 18 of appendix A–6 to 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘Method 18’’) and Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 (‘‘Method 320’’) are not appropriate for a combustion control device because these methods would not detect the presence of HAP, other than those HAP present at the inlet of the control device, that may be generated from the combustion device. Also, we are specifying that Method 320 is not appropriate if the gas stream contains entrained water droplets. At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(4) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control devices, for cases in which formaldehyde is present in the uncontrolled vent stream, we are proposing to allow the use of Method 320 or Method 323 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to measure the removal of formaldehyde by the control device provided there are no entrained water droplets in the gas stream. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56323 At Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, item 1.a.i.(3), we are replacing the specification of Method 3 of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 with Method 3A of appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60 because Method 3A is more accurate. At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(ii)(B), we are proposing to clarify that ASTM D6420– 99 (Reapproved 2004) may be used as an alternative to Method 18 for target compounds not listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99 provided that you must demonstrate recovery of the compound in addition to the other conditions stated in the current rule. At 40 CFR 63.2366(c), we are proposing to add specification of written procedures for the operation of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). At 40 CFR 63.2366(d), we are proposing to add specification of location of sampling probe for CEMS. At 40 CFR 63.2406, we are proposing to add a definition of the term condensate and to specify its regulation in this rule in the same way crude oil is regulated at the definition of the term ‘‘organic liquid’’ and at Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. We are defining the term condensate using the same definition that is used in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. We are making this clarification to ensure that condensate (which, like crude oil, is an unrefined reservoir fluid having significant quantities of HAP) is treated in the same manner as crude oil in the OLD NESHAP. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects and reports data regarding crude oil and lease condensate production in EIA Form-914 as combined values and defines crude oil to include lease condensate.38 EIA defines crude oil in its glossary as ‘‘Crude oil: A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include 1. Small amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure after being recovered from oil well (casing head) gas in lease separators and are subsequently comingled with the crude stream without being separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a liquid from natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities and later mixed into the crude stream is also included; 2. Small amounts of 38 Monthly Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/ production/. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56324 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil, such as sulfur and various metals; 3. Drip gases, and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar sands, oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.’’ 39 Therefore, because the current definition of crude oil at 40 CFR 63.2406 defines crude oil to mean any fluid named crude oil and because condensates are a significant part of crude oil production stream and are often sold as fluids called condensate, we are adding the term condensate and using it in the proposed amendments to ensure that unrefined reservoir fluids named as condensate, that have HAP contents with a similar range as crude oils, are being regulated in the same manner as crude oil in the OLD NESHAP. We are adding the definition of the terms ‘‘pressure relief device’’ and ‘‘relief valve’’ at 40 CFR 63.2406. The definitions of these terms are the same as those included in the Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule (see 83 FR 60696, November 26, 2018) and currently used at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. We are also proposing to revise the term ‘‘pressure relief valve’’ to ‘‘relief valve’’ at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(v). Finally, there are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE to clarify text or correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 9 of this preamble. TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EDITORIAL, CLARIFICATION, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART EEEE Citation(s) Proposed revision 40 CFR 63.2338(c) ................................................................... Referencing correction. Change ‘‘paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)’’ to ‘‘paragraphs (c)(1) through (3)’’ because there is no paragraph (c)(4). Referencing correction. Change ‘‘in § 63.2382(a) and (b)(1) through (3)’’ to ‘‘in § 63.2382(a) and (b),’’ because there is no paragraph (b)(3). Removing two uses of the extraneous phrase ‘‘identified in paragraph (a) of this section.’’ Correcting the spelling of the word ‘‘gauge.’’ Referencing correction. Change ‘‘paragraph (b) or this section’’ to ‘‘paragraph (c) or this section.’’ Referencing correction for U.S. Department of Transportation transport vehicle requirements from ‘‘pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for cargo tanks and 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars’’ to ‘‘qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars’’. Referencing correction: Change ‘‘in § 63.2338(b)(1) through (4)’’ to ‘‘in § 63.2338(b)(1) through (5)’’ because the last item in the list was not included. Removing the word ‘‘EPA’’ from the phrase ‘‘EPA Method’’ where the phrase precedes designation of a method published in title 40 of the CFR. 40 CFR 63.2342(d) .................................................................. 40 CFR 63.2343(a) .................................................................. 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(v) .......................................................... 40 CFR 63.2343(c)(1)(iii) ......................................................... 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(ii) and (d)(2); 40 CFR 63.2362(b)(2); 40 CFR 63.2390(c)(2); and item 6 of Table 5 to Subpart EEEE. 40 CFR 63.2350(a) .................................................................. 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(i)(B), (b)(3), (c); 40 CFR 63.2406(b) definition of ‘‘vapor-tight transport vehicle;’’ and Table 5 to Subpart EEEE. 40 CFR 63.2354(c) ................................................................... 40 CFR 63.2366(a) .................................................................. 40 CFR 63.2406 ....................................................................... Table 9 to Subpart EEEE ......................................................... Table 12 to Subpart EEEE ....................................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 F. What compliance dates are we proposing? Amendments to the OLD NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(d)(6) are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). Changing the term used for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s hazard communication standard from ‘‘material safety data sheet (MSDS)’’ to ‘‘safety data sheet (SDS).’’ Spelling out ‘‘continuous monitoring system’’ before the acronym ‘‘CMS,’’ which is a term defined at 40 CFR 63.2. In the definition of the term, annual average true vapor pressure, removing the word ‘‘standard’’ from ‘‘standard conditions’’ because the conditions specified in this definition are not standard conditions as defined at 40 CFR 63.2 and used in this subpart. In item 8, correcting a cross-reference citation from 63.2366(c) to 63.2366(b). Adding an entry for § 63.7(e)(4), which specifies the Administrator has the authority to require performance testing regardless of specification of performance testing at § 63.7(e)(1)–(3). Changing the entry for § 63.10(d)(2), Report of Performance Test Results, from Yes to No. Proposed 40 CFR 63.2386 specifies how and when the performance test results are reported. Changing the entry for § 63.10(e)(3)(vi)–(viii), Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report, from Yes to No. This information is required to be submitted at proposed 40 CFR 63.2386. For all of the requirements we are proposing under CAA sections 112(d)(2), (3), and (d)(6), we are proposing all affected sources must comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the compliance date shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 years after the effective date of the standard. (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s threeyear maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].’’ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In determining what compliance period is as expeditious as 39 EIA Glossary, https://www.eia.gov/tools/ glossary/index.php. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and change operating procedures. We are proposing new monitoring requirements for flares under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). We anticipate that these requirements could require engineering evaluations and, possibly in some limited cases, require the installation of new flare monitoring equipment and possibly new control systems to monitor and adjust assist gas (air or steam) addition rates. Installation of new monitoring and control equipment on flares will require the flare to be taken out of service. Depending on the configuration of the flares and flare header system, taking the flare out of service may also require a significant portion of the OLD source to be shut down, especially if the facility is primarily a bulk organic liquids terminal. Therefore, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply with the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares. Under our technology review for equipment leaks under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are proposing to revise the LDAR requirements to add connectors to the monitored equipment. Also, as a result of our technology review for storage tanks, we are proposing to lower applicability thresholds for tanks requiring 95percent HAP control so that more tanks will require control than with the existing OLD NESHAP. Furthermore, we are proposing tank fitting LDAR requirements for fixed roof storage tanks that are below the applicability threshold for 95-percent HAP control. We project some owners and operators would require engineering evaluations, solicitation and review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation of control equipment, which would require affected storage tanks to be out of service while the retrofits with IFR or closed vent systems are being installed. In addition, facilities will need time to read and understand the amended rule requirements and update standard operating procedures. Therefore, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply with the proposed storage tank and equipment leak provisions. Finally, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 develop and implement an SSM plan; we are also proposing electronic reporting requirements. We are positing that facilities would need some time to successfully accomplish these revisions, including time to read and understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown, as defined in the rule, and make any necessary adjustments, and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 3 years after the effective date of the final rule to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 3 years of the regulation’s effective date. For new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after the publication date of this proposed action, we are requiring compliance upon initial startup. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? There are 177 sources currently operating OLD equipment subject to the OLD NESHAP. A complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the OLD NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. EPA projects four new liquids terminals and one major terminal expansion that would be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These new sources are not included in the risk assessment modeling effort but are included in the impacts analysis. B. What are the air quality impacts? The risk assessment model input file identifies approximately 2,400 tons HAP emitted per year from equipment regulated by the OLD NESHAP. The predominant HAP compounds include toluene, hexane, methanol, xylenes (mixture of o, m, and p isomers), benzene, styrene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride, methyl tert- PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56325 butyl ether, and ethyl benzene. More information about the baseline emissions in the risk assessment model input file can be found in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. This proposed action would reduce HAP emissions from OLD NESHAP sources. The EPA estimates HAP emission reductions of approximately 386 tpy based on our analysis of the proposed actions described in sections IV.D.1 and 2 in this preamble. More information about the estimated emission reductions of this proposed action can be found in the document, National Impacts of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. We estimate a resulting reduction of the MIR from 20-in-1 million to about 10-in-1 million. Likewise, population exposed to a cancer risk of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from 350,000 to about 220,000. While not explicitly calculated, we would expect commensurate reductions in other risks metrics such as incidence, acute risk, multipathway risks, and ecological risks. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate the total capital costs of these proposed amendments to be approximately $4.5 million and the total annualized costs (including recovery credits) to be $1.8 million per year (2016 dollars). We also estimate the present value in 2016 of the costs is $8.4 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $6.2 million at 7 percent (2016 dollars). Calculated as an equivalent annualized value, which is consistent with the present value of costs in 2016, the costs are $1.8 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.5 million at a discount rate of 7 percent (2016 dollars). The annualized costs include those for operating and maintenance, and recovery credits of approximately $400,000 per year from the reduction in leaks and evaporative emissions from storage tanks. To estimate savings in chemicals not being emitted (i.e., lost) due to the equipment leak control options, we applied a recovery credit of $900 per ton of VOC to the VOC emission reductions in the analyses. The $900 per ton recovery credit has historically been used by the EPA to represent the variety of chemicals that are used as reactants and produced at E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56326 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities,40 however, we recognize that this value is from a 2007 analysis and may be outdated. Therefore, we solicit comment on the availability of more recent information to potentially update the value used in this analysis to estimate the recovery credits. We used an interest rate of 5 percent to annualize the total capital costs. These estimated costs are associated with amendments of the requirements for storage tanks, LDAR, flares, and transfer racks. Table 10 of this preamble shows the estimated costs for each of the equipment types. Detailed information about how we estimated these costs are described in the following documents available in the docket for this action: National Impacts of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category, and Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP. TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE, IN MILLIONS [2016$] Equipment type Capital cost Annual recovery credits Total annualized cost (with annual recovery credits) Storage tanks ....................................................................................... LDAR—connector monitoring .............................................................. Flares ................................................................................................... Transfer racks ...................................................................................... 2.68 1.64 0.19 0.00 0.41 0.57 0.36 0.88 0.33 0.08 N/A N/A 0.08 0.49 0.36 0.88 Total .............................................................................................. 4.51 2.22 0.41 1.81 E. What are the benefits? The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission reductions of HAP associated with this proposed action. However, we expect The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/ organic-liquids-distribution-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2018–0074 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are 40 U.S. EPA. 2007. Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/E7- 13203/standards-of-performance-for-equipmentleaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicalsmanufacturing). EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0699. D. What are the economic impacts? The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of the proposal are calculated as the percentage of total annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact to ultimate parent owners of OLD facilities while presuming no impact on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners affected by this proposal will incur total annualized costs of 0.2 percent or greater of their revenues. This estimate reflects the total annualized costs without product recovery as a credit. Thus, these economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs of the proposal are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Total annualized cost (without annual recovery credits) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 this proposed action would result in benefits associated with HAP emission reductions and lower risk of adverse health effects in communities near OLD sources. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules provided on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/organic-liquids-distributionnational-emission-standards-hazardous. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to OMB for review. This action is a significant regulatory action because it is likely to result in a rule that raises novel legal or policy issues. This regulatory action is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. The EPA has prepared an economic analysis, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), which is available in the docket for this proposed rule. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in the EPA’s analysis of the potential costs and benefits associate with this action. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1963.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this action, and it is briefly summarized here. We are proposing amendments that would change the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for OLD operations. The proposed amendments also require electronic reporting of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 performance test results and reports and compliance reports. The information would be collected to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of OLD operations at major sources of HAP are affected by these proposed amendments. These respondents include, but are not limited to, facilities having NAICS codes: 4247 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers), 4861 (Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil), and 4931 (Warehousing and Storage). Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 and 114 of the CAA. Estimated number of respondents: 181 facilities. Frequency of response: Once or twice per year. Total estimated burden: 5,967 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $820,212 (per year), which includes $216,154 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than November 20, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are all small businesses. The Agency has determined that nine small entities are affected by these proposed amendments, which is 9 percent of all affected ultimate parent businesses. These nine small businesses may experience an impact of annualized PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56327 costs of less than 0.20 percent of their annual revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the docket for this action. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities that have been identified as being affected by this action are owned or operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in contained in sections III.A and C and sections IV.B and C of this preamble and in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which includes how risks to infants and children are addressed, and which is available in the docket for this action. The EPA expects that the emission reductions of HAP resulting from this proposed action would improve children’s health. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56328 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA expects this proposed action would not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, natural gas production, or electricity production. We estimate that this proposed action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports or exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, all of which are under the threshold screening criteria for compliance with this Executive Order established by OMB, no significant adverse energy effects are expected to occur. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the OLD NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, and 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and Methods 301, 311, 316, 320, 325A, and 325B of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA’s reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of Method 301 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for particular VCS. No applicable VCSs were identified for Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 27, and 316. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 Seven VCSs were identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule: (1) The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10– 1981 Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B manual portion only and not the instrumental portion. Therefore, we are proposing to add this standard as a footnote to item 1.a.i.(3) of Table 5 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(1). ASME PTC 19.10 specifies methods, apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases covered by this method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. Included are instrumental methods as well as (normally, wet chemical) methods. This method is available at the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990. See https:// wwww.ansi.org and https:// www.asme.org. (2) The VCS ASTM D6420–18, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry.’’ This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known, and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 should not be specified as a total VOC method. Therefore, we are proposing to add this standard as a footnote to Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(93). We are also proposing to update reference to the older version of this standard (i.e., ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2004) at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) to the new 2018 version and are proposing to remove reference to the old version of this standard at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(90) for use in the OLD NESHAP. ASTM D6420 is a field test method that employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GCMS) to determine the mass concentration of any subset of 36 compounds listed in this method. Mass emission rates are determined by multiplying the mass concentration by the effluent volumetric flow rate. This PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 field test method employs laboratory GCMS techniques and QA/quality control (QC) procedures in common application. This field test method provides data with accuracy and precision similar to most laboratory GCMS instrumentation. (3) The VCS ASTM D6735–01(2009), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 26 or Method 26A from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources, which is specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which is cited in the OLD NESHAP. For further information about the EPA’s proposal to allow the use of this VCS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, see the EPA’s Ethylene Production RTR proposed amendments in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0357. It is not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this notice of proposed rulemaking. (4) The VCS California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310, ‘‘Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 311. However, we are not proposing to specify use of this method in the OLD NESHAP because CARB Method 310 is designed to measure the contents of aerosol cans and would not be well suited for organic liquid samples regulated under the OLD NESHAP. It is not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this notice of proposed rulemaking. (5) The VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 320. In the September 22, 2008, NTTA summary, ASTM D6348–03(2010) was determined equivalent to Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348–12e1 is an extractive FTIR based field test method used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target analytes from stationary source effluent. Because an FTIR analyzer is potentially capable of analyzing hundreds of compounds, this test method is not analyte or source specific. This field test method employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. Concentration results are provided. ASTM D6348–12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348–03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct measurement of a certified E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348– 01(2010) version. The VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. We are proposing to allow the use of this VCS as an alternative to Method 320 at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) and (4) and at Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE under conditions that the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348–12e1, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5); %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%; if the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, then the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest); and the %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) × 100. We are proposing to incorporate this method at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(85) for use in the OLD NESHAP. (6) The VCS ISO 16017–2:2003, ‘‘Indoor, Ambient and Workplace Air Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds by Sorbent Tube/ Thermal Desorption/Capillary Gas Chromatography—Part 2: Diffusive Sampling,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Method 325B. This VCS is already incorporated by reference in Method 325B. (7) The VCS ASTM D6196–03(2009), ‘‘Standard Practice for Selection of Sorbents, Sampling and Thermal Desorption Analysis Procedures for Volatile Organic Compounds in Air,’’ is an acceptable alternative to Methods 325A and 325B. This VCS is already incorporated by reference in Method 325B. Additionally, the EPA proposes to use ASTM D6886–18, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography,’’ and ASTM D6378–18a, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and HydrocarbonOxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method).’’ ASTM D6886–18 is proposed to be used as one acceptable method to determine the percent weight of HAP in organic liquid, especially for liquids that contain a significant amount of carbon tetrachloride or formaldehyde, which are not detected using the Flame Ionization Detector based standard in the governing method currently cited in the OLD NESHAP (i.e., Method 311). ASTM D6378–18a is proposed to be used as a method to determine the vapor pressure of a liquid and whether equipment that stores or transfers such liquid is subject to emission standards of the OLD NESHAP. The ASTM methods proposed for incorporation by reference are available at ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See https://www.astm.org/. During the comment period, these methods are available in read-only format at https:// www.astm.org/EPA.htm. Finally, the EPA proposes to use EPA–454/B–08–002, ‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements Version 2.0 (Final).’’ If an owner or operator of an OLD source opts to implement a fenceline monitoring program proposed at 40 CFR 63.2348 and if the owner or operator opts to collect meteorological data from an on-site meteorological station, then the proposed rule requires the owner or operator to standardize, calibrate, and operate the meteorological station according to the procedures set forth in this document. This document is available in the docket for this action. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in risks between demographic groups, including the African American, Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50 km of OLD facilities has a higher percentage of minority, lower income, and lower education PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56329 people when compared to the nationwide percentages of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities, the risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable, and emissions reductions from the proposed revisions will benefit these groups the most. The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.B and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Operations, which is available in the docket for this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 26, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. In paragraphs (h)(31) and (32), removing the phrase ‘‘63.2406,’’ without replacement; ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a), (e)(1) and (h)(85); ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(100) through (111) as paragraphs (h)(103) through (114), paragraphs (h)(92) through (99) as paragraphs (h)(94) through (101), and paragraphs (h)(89) through (91) as paragraphs (h)(90) through (92), respectively; ■ d. Adding new paragraph (h)(89); ■ e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(91); ■ f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93); ■ g. Adding new paragraph (h)(102); and ■ h. Revising paragraph (n)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56330 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the EPA must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, telephone number 202–566–1744, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ nara.gov or go to www.archives.gov/ federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved for §§ 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ. * * * * * (h) * * * (85) ASTM D6348–12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for §§ 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE. * * * * * (89) ASTM D6378–18a, Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and HydrocarbonOxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method), approved December 1, 2018, IBR approved for §§ 63.2343(b)(5) and 63.2406. * * * * * (91) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2004, IBR approved for §§ 63.457(b), 63.485(g), VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 60.485a(g), 63.772(a), 63.772(e), 63.1282(a) and (d), and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH. * * * * * (93) ASTM D6420–18, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2018, IBR approved for § 63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE. * * * * * (102) ASTM D6886–18, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography, approved October 1, 2018, IBR approved for § 63.2354(c). * * * * * (n) * * * (2) EPA–454/B–08–002, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 24, 2008, IBR approved for §§ 63.658(d), 63.2348(d) and appendix A to this part: Method 325A. * * * * * Subpart EEEE—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) 3. Section 63.2338 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 63.2338 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? * * * * * (c) The equipment listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and used in the identified operations is excluded from the affected source. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 63.2342 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: § 63.2342 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to the schedule identified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable. * * * * * (b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you have an existing affected source, you must PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 comply with this subpart according to the schedule identified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable. * * * * * (d) You must meet the notification requirements in §§ 63.2343 and 63.2382(a), as applicable, according to the schedules in § 63.2382(a) and (b)(1) through (2) and in subpart A of this part. Some of these notifications must be submitted before the compliance dates for the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart. (e) An affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section upon initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. An affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section upon initial startup. (1) The requirements for storage tanks not requiring control specified in § 63.2343(b)(4) through (7). (2) The requirements for storage tanks at an existing affected source specified in § 63.2346(a)(5) and (6), § 63.2386(d)(3)(iii), § 63.2396(a)(4), Table 2 to this subpart, footnote (2), and Table 2b to this subpart. (3) The equipment leak requirements specified in § 63.2346(l), Table 4 to this subpart, item 7, and footnote (1), Table 10 to this subpart, item 5.b.i and footnote (1). (4) The fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, § 63.2386(k), and § 63.2390(i) according to the compliance dates specified in paragraph (f) of this section. (5) The flare requirements specified in § 63.2346(k), § 63.2382(d)(2)(ix), § 63.2386(d)(5), § 63.2390(h), Table 2 to this subpart, footnote (1), Table 3 to this subpart, item 7.d, Table 8 to this subpart, items 1.a.iii and 2.a.iii, and Table 9 to this subpart, item 7.e. (6) The requirements specified in § 63.2346(m), § 63.2350(d), § 63.2366(c), § 63.2390(f) and (g), § 63.2386(c)(11) and (12), § 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii) and (f) through (j), § 63.2378(e), Table 9 to this subpart, footnote (1), and Table 10 to this subpart, items 1.a.i and 2.a.ii. (7) The performance testing requirements specified in § 63.2354(b)(6). (f) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in § 63.2348: E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules (1) An affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must submit modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels according to the requirements of § 63.2348(b) upon initial startup or [date 1 year after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must submit modeling results, proposed analytes and action levels according to the requirements of § 63.2348(b) as part of your permit application for the new OLD operations. (2) An affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of the modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and be in compliance with all requirements of § 63.2348 upon initial startup or [date 2 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. An affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of the modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and must be in compliance with all requirements listed in § 63.2348 by initial startup. ■ 5. Section 63.2343 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(7); ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii); and ■ d. Adding paragraph (e). The revisions and additions read as follows: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2343 What are my requirements for emission sources not requiring control? This section establishes the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for emission sources identified in § 63.2338 that do not require control under this subpart (i.e., under § 63.2346(a) through (e)). Such emission sources are not subject to any other notification, recordkeeping, or reporting sections in this subpart, including § 63.2350(c), except as indicated in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. (a) For each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons), you must comply with paragraph (e) of this section. Also, for each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 gallons) and for each transfer rack subject to this subpart that only unloads organic liquids (i.e., no organic liquids are loaded at any of the transfer racks), you must keep documentation that verifies that each storage tank and transfer rack identified in paragraph (a) of this section is not required to be controlled. The documentation must be kept up-to-date (i.e., all such emission sources at a facility are identified in the documentation regardless of when the documentation was last compiled) and must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious inspection and review according to § 63.10(b)(1), including records stored in electronic form in a separate location. The documentation may consist of identification of the tanks and transfer racks identified in paragraph (a) of this section on a plant site plan or process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). (b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, for each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6, you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. * * * * * (4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must monitor each potential source of vapor leakage from each fixed roof storage tank and its closure devices for leaks as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A–7 of this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after previous monitoring is performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains organic liquid. (A) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per million. (B) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A–7 to this chapter, except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56331 of the initial and post-test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage. (C) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent from the initial calibration response, you must re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with instrument readings below the appropriate leak definition and above the leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the percent of negative drift/divided by 100). (ii) An instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) or greater defines a leak. (iii) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each decision to use an extension, as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. Not repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage tank within the time frame specified in this paragraph is a deviation. If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the second extension period, report the date when the fixed roof storage tank was emptied or repaired in your compliance report. (A) Records for a first extension must include a description of the defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank during the extension period. (B) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or repaired by the end of the second extension period. (C) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied, if applicable. (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic vapor pressure analyses or obtain vapor pressure analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according to the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section to demonstrate that the annual average true vapor pressure of the organic liquid E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56332 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules associated with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each periodic vapor pressure analysis, you must use ASTM D6378–18a (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), a vapor to liquid ratio of 4:1, and the actual annual average temperature as defined in this subpart. Maintain records of each periodic annual average true vapor pressure analysis according to the requirements of § 63.2394. (i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October 21, 2019, you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor pressure analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic vapor pressure analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank are a different commodity since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first. (ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor pressure analysis no later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by § 63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic vapor pressure analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank are a different commodity since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first. (6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic HAP content analyses or obtain HAP content analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according to the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section to demonstrate that the HAP content of the organic liquid associated with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each periodic HAP content analysis, you must use the procedures specified in § 63.2354(c), except you may not use voluntary consensus standards, safety data sheets (SDS), or certified product data sheets. Maintain records of each periodic HAP content analysis according to the requirements of § 63.2394. (i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 21, 2019, you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic HAP content analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank have changed significantly since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first. (ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content analysis no later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by § 63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic HAP content analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank have changed significantly since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first. (7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) apply. (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section, the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section apply to the following storage tanks: (A) Storage tanks at an existing affected source subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2b of this subpart, items 1 through 3. (B) Storage tanks at a reconstructed or new affected source subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 3 through 6. (ii) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(7)(i) of this section. Instead, you may continue to comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section for each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6. (c) * * * (1) * * * (iii) If you are already submitting a Notification of Compliance Status or a first Compliance report under PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 63.2386(c), you do not need to submit a separate Notification of Compliance Status or first Compliance report for each transfer rack that meets the conditions identified in paragraph (c) of this section (i.e., a single Notification of Compliance Status or first Compliance report should be submitted). * * * * * (e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each fixed roof storage tank having a capacity less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) but greater than 3.8 cubic meters (1,000 gallons) storing an organic liquid with an annual average true vapor pressure greater than 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia), you must monitor each closure device and potential source of vapor leakage as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A–7 of this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after the previous monitoring is performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains organic liquid. (i) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per million. (ii) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A–7 to this chapter, except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage. (iii) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent, you must re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration. (2) An instrument reading of 500 ppmv or greater defines a leak. (3) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of up to 30 additional days E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules each. Keep records documenting each decision to use an extension, as specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. Not repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage tank within the time frame specified in this paragraph is a deviation. If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the second extension period, report the date when the fixed roof storage tank was emptied or repaired in your compliance report. (i) Records for a first extension must include a description of the defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank during the extension period. (ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or repaired by the end of the second extension period. (iii) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied, if applicable. ■ 6. Section 63.2346 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), paragraph (a)(4)(v) introductory text, and paragraph (a)(4)(v)(A); ■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), (d)(2), (e), (f) and (i); and ■ d. Adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m). The revisions and additions read as follows: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2346 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards must I meet? (a) Storage tanks. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) and (m) of this section, for each storage tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For each storage tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart, item 6, you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (4) of this section. (1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 for meeting emission limits, except substitute the term ‘‘storage tank’’ at each occurrence of the term ‘‘storage vessel’’ in subpart SS. (2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (m) of this section. * * * * * (4) * * * (ii) Transport vehicles must have a current certification in accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) qualification and maintenance requirements of 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars. * * * * * (iv) No pressure relief device on the storage tank, on the vapor return line, or on the cargo tank or tank car, shall open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (breathing losses). (v) Pressure relief devices must be set to no less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) at all times to prevent breathing losses. Pressure relief devices may be set at values less than 2.5 psig if the owner or operator provides rationale in the notification of compliance status report explaining why the alternative value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses at all times. The owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (a)(4)(v)(A) through (C) of this section for each relief valve. (A) The relief valve shall be monitored quarterly using the method described in § 63.180(b). * * * * * (5) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure criteria, and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 no longer apply. Instead, for each storage tank at an existing affected source storing organic liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. (6) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Instead, you may continue to comply with the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria and the emission limits specified for storage PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56333 tanks at an existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1. (b) * * * (1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable requirements for transfer racks specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for meeting emission limits. (2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (m) of this section. * * * * * (c) Equipment leak components. Except as specified in paragraph (l) of this section, for each pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year, you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. Pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are insulated to provide protection against persistent subfreezing temperatures are subject to the ‘‘difficult to monitor’’ provisions in the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart. (d) * * * (2) Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars. (e) Operating limits. For each high throughput transfer rack, you must meet each operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart for each control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart whenever emissions from the loading of organic liquids are routed to the control device. Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the requirements for monitored parameters as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for storage vessels and, during the loading of organic liquids, for low throughput transfer racks, respectively. Alternatively, you may comply with the operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart. (f) Surrogate for organic HAP. For noncombustion devices, if you elect to E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56334 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction requirement in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart using total organic compounds (TOC) rather than organic HAP, you must first demonstrate, subject to the approval of the Administrator, that TOC is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP in your case; that is, for your storage tank(s) and/or transfer rack(s), the percent destruction of organic HAP is equal to or higher than the percent destruction of TOC. This demonstration must be conducted prior to or during the initial compliance test. * * * * * (i) Safety device. Opening of a safety device is allowed at any time that it is required to avoid unsafe operating conditions. Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. * * * * * (k) Flares. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, if you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare then you must comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2380 instead of the requirements in § 63.987 and the provisions regarding flare compliance assessments at § 63.997(a), (b), and (c). (l) Equipment leak components. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraph (c) of this section no longer applies. Instead, you must comply with paragraph (l)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, for each connector, pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year, you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. Connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are insulated to provide protection against persistent sub-freezing temperatures are subject to the ‘‘difficult to monitor’’ provisions in the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart. (2) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you may choose to comply with this paragraph instead of paragraph (l)(1) of this section. For each pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 for at least 300 hours per year, you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. Pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are insulated to provide protection against persistent sub-freezing temperatures are subject to the ‘‘difficult to monitor’’ provisions in the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart. (m) Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (19) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, subpart SS, and subpart UU. (1) The second sentence of § 63.181(d)(5)(i) of subpart H. (2) § 63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS. (3) The phrase ‘‘except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart’’ in § 63.984(a) of subpart SS. (4) The phrase ‘‘except during periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart’’ in § 63.985(a) of subpart SS. (5) The phrase ‘‘other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions’’ in § 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS. (6) § 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS. (7) § 63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS. (8) The term ‘‘breakdowns’’ from § 63.998(b)(2)(i) of subpart SS. (9) § 63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS. (10) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions’’ from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS. (11) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions’’ from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS. (12) The phrase ‘‘, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of this section’’ from § 63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS. (13) The second sentence of § 63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS. (14) § 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS. (15) § 63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS. (16) § 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS. (17) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU. (18) The phrase ‘‘(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (19) The phrase ‘‘(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’ from § 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU. ■ 7. Section 63.2348 is added to read as follows: § 63.2348 What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet? (a) If you own or operate a facility that is not required to conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to § 63.658, then you may opt to conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to this section. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(f), if you choose to comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2343(b)(7)(ii) and § 63.2346(a)(6) and (l)(2), then you must conduct sampling along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with Methods 325A and 325B of appendix A of this part and paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section. (b) You must determine your target analytes for monitoring and site-specific action level for each analyte as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must use EPA’s Guidance on Determination of Analytes and Action Levels for Fenceline Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution Sources to develop your HAP emissions inventory and conduct your modeling. The HAP emissions inventory is set at allowable emissions from all equipment at the source under common control of the owner and operator of the OLD operation. For this modeling effort, modeled allowable emissions from storage tanks and equipment leaks must be adjusted to take into account the requirements at §§ 63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) for the purpose of setting the analytes and action level of the fenceline monitoring program. (2) You must determine at least one target analyte as prescribed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Each analyte must have an available uptake rate at Table 12.1 of Method 325B of appendix A to this part or must have an uptake rate for the selected sorbent validated using Addendum A of Method 325B of appendix A to this part. (ii) A HAP cannot be used to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements of this section unless the corresponding action level is at least five times the method detection limit for the HAP. (iii) The first analyte is the Table 1 HAP with the most allowable emissions from OLD operations at the facility on an annual basis. If this HAP is emitted from all equipment that would have E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56335 been subject to the requirements at §§ 63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement fenceline monitoring according to this section, then no other analytes are required to be monitored. If this HAP is not emitted from all equipment that would have been subject to the requirements at §§ 63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement fenceline monitoring according to this section, then you must monitor additional analytes as outlined in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. (iv) You must select additional analytes from Table 1 that best represent emissions of HAP from all OLD operations that do not emit the HAP selected in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and that would have been subject to the storage tank and connector monitoring requirements at §§ 63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement fenceline monitoring according to this section. Select the Table 1 HAP having the most allowable emissions from this set of equipment. If the HAP selected in this step is not emitted from all the OLD equipment in this step, then repeat this step until at least one selected HAP is emitted from this set of equipment. (3) The action level for each analyte selected in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is set as the highest modeled concentration of all fenceline userdefined receptors in the model results, expressed in micrograms per cubic meter, and rounded to two significant figures. (4) You must submit the modeling results and proposed analytes and action levels to the Administrator no later than the date specified in § 63.2342(f)(1). (5) You must determine revised analytes or action levels when your title V permit is renewed; when other permit amendments decrease allowable emissions of any target analyte by more than 10 percent below emissions described in the modeling effort used to establish the current analytes and action levels; or upon issuance of a permit modification that results in the conditions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section no longer being met. You may choose to revise analytes or action levels at other times when changes at the source occur that would result in different modeling results. You must submit your revised modeling results and new proposed analytes and action levels to the Administrator no later than 3 months after any permit renewal or amendment triggering model revisions has been issued. (i) If a revised action level is determined for a currently monitored analyte, for the first year, the action level shall be calculated for each sample period as a weighted average of the previous action level and the new action level. After 26 sampling periods, the new action level takes effect. Beginning with the first biweekly sampling period following approval by the Administrator of the revised modeling, determine your weighted action level according to the following equation: Where: N1 = number of samples during the rolling annual period prior to change of action level N2 = number of samples during the rolling annual period since the change in action level AL1 = prior action level, mg/m3 AL2 = new action level, mg/m3 26 = number of samples in an annual period in paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether the action level has been exceeded prior to collecting a full year (26 sampling periods) of monitoring data for the new analyte. (c) You must determine passive monitor locations in accordance with Section 8.2 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part. (1) As it pertains to this subpart, known sources of VOCs, as used in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part for siting passive monitors, means any part of the affected source as defined in § 63.2338(b). For this subpart, an additional monitor is not required if the only emission sources within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary are equipment leak sources satisfying all of the conditions in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The equipment leak sources in organic liquids service within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary are limited to valves, pumps, connectors, and sampling connections. If compressors, pressure relief devices, or agitators in organic liquids service are present within 50 meters of the monitoring boundary, the additional passive monitoring location specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part must be used. (ii) All equipment leak sources in in organic liquids service, including valves, pumps, connectors, and sampling connections must be monitored using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 no less frequently than quarterly with no provisions for skip period monitoring, or according to the provisions of § 63.11(c) Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks. For the purpose of this provision, a leak is detected if the instrument reading equals or exceeds the applicable limits in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section: (A) For valves, pumps or connectors at an existing source, an instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv. (B) For valves or connectors at a new source, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv. (C) For pumps at a new source, an instrument reading of 2,000 ppmv. (D) For sampling connections, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv above background. (E) For equipment monitored according to the Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks, the leak definitions contained in § 63.11(c)(6)(i) through (iii). (iii) All equipment leak sources in organic liquids service must be inspected using visual, audible, (ii) If revised modeling results eliminate an analyte that is currently being monitored, then once monitoring of that analyte stops, you are no longer subject to the requirement in paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether the action level has been exceeded. If the action level for the analyte hasn’t been exceeded, you are no longer required to monitor that analyte starting in the biweekly period that begins following approval by the Administrator of the revised modeling. If the action level for the analyte has been exceeded, you must be below the action level for the analyte for one full year (26 sampling periods) before you stop monitoring for that analyte. (iii) If revised modeling results establish a new analyte to be monitored, you must begin monitoring for the new analyte in the first biweekly period that begins following approval by the Administrator of the revised modeling. You are not subject to the requirement VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 EP21OC19.000</GPH> khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56336 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules olfactory, or any other detection method at least monthly. A leak is detected if the inspection identifies a potential leak to the atmosphere or if there are indications of liquids dripping. (iv) All leaks identified by the monitoring or inspections specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be repaired no later than 15 calendar days after it is detected with no provisions for delay of repair. If a repair is not completed within 15 calendar days, the additional passive monitor specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part must be used. (2) You may collect one or more background samples if you believe that an offsite upwind source may influence the sampler measurements. If you elect to collect one or more background samples, you must develop and submit a site-specific monitoring plan for approval according to the requirements in paragraph (i) of this section. Upon approval of the site-specific monitoring plan, the background sampler(s) should be operated co-currently with the routine samplers. (3) If there are 19 or fewer monitoring locations, you must collect at least one co-located duplicate sample per sampling period and at least one field blank per sampling period. If there are 20 or more monitoring locations, you must collect at least two co-located duplicate samples per sampling period and at least one field blank per sampling period. The co-located duplicates may be collected at any of the perimeter sampling locations. (4) You must follow the procedure in Section 9.6 of Method 325B of appendix A to this part to determine the detection limit of the analytes for each sampler used to collect samples, background samples (if you elect to do so), colocated samples and blanks. (d) You must collect and record meteorological data according to the applicable requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section or if an alternative test method is used that provides timeresolved measurements, you must: (i) Use an on-site meteorological station in accordance with Section 8.3 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part. (ii) Collect and record hourly average meteorological data, including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, and wind direction and calculate daily unit vector wind direction and daily sigma theta. (2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 section, you must collect and record sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-site meteorological station in accordance with Section 8.3.1 through 8.3.3 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part or, alternatively, using data from the closest National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station provided the NWS meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the plant site. (3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, you must follow the calibration and standardization procedures for meteorological measurements in EPA– 454/B–08–002 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). (e) You must use a sampling period and sampling frequency as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Sampling period. A 14-day sampling period must be used, unless a shorter sampling period is determined to be necessary under paragraph (g) or (i) of this section. A sampling period is defined as the period during which a sampling tube is deployed at a specific sampling location with the diffusive sampling end cap in-place and does not include the time required to analyze the sample. For the purpose of this subpart, a 14-day sampling period may be no shorter than 13 calendar days and no longer than 15 calendar days, but the routine sampling period must be 14 calendar days. (2) Base sampling frequency. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the frequency of sample collection must be once each contiguous 14-day sampling period, such that the beginning of the next 14-day sampling period begins immediately upon the completion of the previous 14-day sampling period. (3) Alternative sampling frequency for burden reduction. When an individual monitor consistently achieves results at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may elect to use the applicable minimum sampling frequency specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for that monitoring site. When calculating the biweekly concentration difference (Dc) for the monitoring period when using this alternative for burden reduction, substitute zero for the sample result for the monitoring site for any period where a sample is not taken. (i) If every sample at a monitoring site is at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2 years (52 consecutive samples), every other sampling period can be skipped for that PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 monitoring site, i.e., sampling will occur approximately once per month. (ii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section is at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2 years (i.e., 26 consecutive ‘‘monthly’’ samples), five 14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur approximately once per quarter. (iii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2 years (i.e., 8 consecutive quarterly samples), twelve 14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur twice a year. (iv) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section is at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2 years (i.e., 4 consecutive semiannual samples), only one sample per year is required for that monitoring site. For yearly sampling, samples must occur at least 10 months but no more than 14 months apart. (v) If at any time a sample for a monitoring site that is monitored at the frequency specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section returns a result that is above one tenth of the corresponding action level for any analyte, the sampling site must return to the original sampling requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods with no skip periods for one quarter (six 14-day sampling periods). If every sample collected during this quarter is at or below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may revert back to the reduced monitoring schedule applicable for that monitoring site prior to the sample reading exceeding one tenth of the action level. If any sample collected during this quarter is above one tenth of the corresponding action level for any analyte, that monitoring site must return to the original sampling requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods with no skip periods for a minimum of 2 years. The burden reduction requirements can be used again for that monitoring site once the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section are met again, i.e., after 52 contiguous 14-day samples with no results above one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules (f) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, you must determine whether the results are above or below the corresponding action level for each analyte as follows: (1) You must determine the facility impact on the analyte concentration difference (Dc) for each analyte for each 14-day sampling period according to either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable. (i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for each analyte, you must determine the highest and lowest sample results from the sample pool and calculate Dc as the difference in these concentrations. Colocated samples must be averaged together for the purposes of determining the analyte concentration for that sampling location, and, if applicable, for determining Dc. You must adhere to the following procedures when one or more samples for the sampling period are below the method detection limit for an analyte: (A) If the lowest value of an analyte is below detection, you must use zero as the lowest sample result when calculating Dc. (B) If all sample results for a particular analyte are below the method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the highest sample result and zero as the lowest sample result when calculating Dc. (ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, you must determine Dc using the calculation protocols outlined in the approved site-specific monitoring plan and in paragraph (i) of this section. (2) For each analyte, you must calculate the annual average Dc based on the average of the 26 most recent 14day sampling periods. You must update this annual average value after receiving the results of each subsequent 14-day sampling period. (3) If the annual average Dc value for an analyte is less than or equal to the corresponding action level determined in paragraph (b) of this section, the concentration is below the action level. If the annual average Dc value for any analyte is greater than the corresponding action level determined in paragraph (b) of this section, then you must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section. (g) Within 5 days of determining that the action level for any analyte has been exceeded for any annual average Dc and no longer than 50 days after completion of the sampling period in which the action level was first exceeded, you must initiate a root cause analysis to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 determine the cause of such exceedance and to determine appropriate corrective action, such as those described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section. The root cause analysis and initial corrective action analysis must be completed and initial corrective actions taken no later than 45 days after determining there is an exceedance. Root cause analysis and corrective action may include, but is not limited to: (1) Leak inspection using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A–7 of this chapter and repairing any leaks found. (2) Leak inspection using optical gas imaging and repairing any leaks found. (3) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high emissions and implementing repairs to reduce the level of emissions. (4) Employing progressively more frequent sampling, analysis and meteorology (e.g., using shorter sampling periods for Methods 325A and 325B of appendix A of this part, or using active sampling techniques). (h) If, upon completion of the corrective action analysis and corrective actions such as those described in paragraph (g) of this section, the Dc value for the next 14-day sampling period for which the sampling start time begins after the completion of the corrective actions is greater than the action level for the same analyte that previously exceed the action level or if all corrective action measures identified require more than 45 days to implement, you must develop a corrective action plan that describes the corrective action(s) completed to date, additional measures that you propose to employ to reduce fenceline concentrations below the action level, and a schedule for completion of these measures. You must submit the corrective action plan to the Administrator within 60 days after receiving the analytical results indicating that the Dc value for the 14day sampling period following the completion of the initial corrective action is greater than the action level or, if no initial corrective actions were identified, no later than 60 days following the completion of the corrective action analysis required in paragraph (g) of this section. (i) You may request approval from the Administrator for a site-specific monitoring plan to account for offsite upwind sources according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) You must prepare and submit a site-specific monitoring plan and receive approval of the site-specific monitoring plan prior to using the near- PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56337 field source alternative calculation for determining Dc provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. The site-specific monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The procedures in Section 12 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part are not required, but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-field source contributions. (i) Identification of the near-field source or sources. (ii) Location of the additional monitoring stations that must be used to determine the uniform background concentration and the near-field source concentration contribution. (iii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted by the near-field source. If more than one nearfield source is present, identify the nearfield source or sources that are expected to contribute to the concentration at that monitoring location. (iv) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating) the planned data reduction and calculations to determine the near-field source concentration contribution for each monitoring location. (v) If more frequent monitoring or a monitoring station other than a passive diffusive tube monitoring station is proposed, provide a detailed description of the measurement methods, measurement frequency, and recording frequency for determining the uniform background or near-field source concentration contribution. Uniform background and near-field source concentration contributions must be determined by a real-time or semicontinuous measurement technique that can be reconciled with the measurements taken using the passive diffusive tubes. (2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, for each analyte covered by the site-specific monitoring plan, you must determine Dc for comparison with the corresponding action level using the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) For each monitoring location, calculate Dci using the following equation. Dci = MFCi ¥ NFSi ¥ UB Where: Dci = The fenceline concentration, corrected for background, at measurement location i, micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). MFCi = The measured fenceline concentration at measurement location i, mg/m3. NFSi = The near-field source contributing concentration at measurement location i determined using the additional E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56338 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 measurements and calculation procedures included in the site-specific monitoring plan, mg/m3. For monitoring locations that are not included in the site-specific monitoring plan as impacted by a near-field source, use NFSi = 0 mg/ m3. UB = The uniform background concentration determined using the additional measurements included in the sitespecific monitoring plan, mg/m3. If no additional measurements are specified in the site-specific monitoring plan for determining the uniform background concentration, use UB = 0 mg/m3. (ii) When one or more samples for the sampling period are below the method detection limit for an analyte, adhere to the following procedures: (A) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location used for the uniform background concentration is below the method detection limit, you must use zero for UB for that monitoring period. (B) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location(s) used to determine the near-field source contributing concentration is below the method detection limit, you must use zero for the monitoring location concentration when calculating NFSi for that monitoring period. (C) If a fenceline monitoring location sample result is below the method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the sample result. (iii) Determine Dc for the monitoring period as the maximum value of Dci from all of the fenceline monitoring locations for that monitoring period. (3) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted and approved as described in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the Administrator for approval. (ii) The site-specific monitoring plan must also be submitted to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143–01), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted to oldrtr@ epa.gov. (iii) The Administrator must approve or disapprove the plan in 90 days. The plan is considered approved if the Administrator either approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in writing. The 90-day period must begin when the Administrator receives the plan. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 (iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, you may revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan following the requirements in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 90-day period starts over with the resubmission of the revised monitoring plan. (4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy and reasonableness of the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those described in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (vii) of this section. (i) The identification of the near-field source or sources. (ii) The monitoring location selected to determine the uniform background concentration or an indication that no uniform background concentration monitor will be used. (iii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to determine the near-field source concentration contribution. (iv) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted by the near-field source or sources. (v) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and calculations to determine the near-field source concentration contribution for each monitoring location. (vi) If more frequent monitoring is proposed, the adequacy of the description of the measurement and recording frequency proposed and the adequacy of the rationale for using the alternative monitoring frequency. (vii) The appropriateness of the measurement technique selected for determining the uniform background and near-field source concentration contributions. (j) You must comply with the applicable recordkeeping requirements in § 63.2390(i) and reporting requirements in § 63.2386(k). (k) As outlined in § 63.7(f), you may submit a request for an alternative test method. At a minimum, the request must follow the requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all or a partial number of passive samplers required in Method 325A of appendix A of this part. (2) The alternative method must be validated for each analyte according to Method 301 in appendix A of this part or contain performance-based PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 procedures and indicators to ensure self-validation. (3) The method detection limit must nominally be no greater than one fifth of the action level for each analyte. The alternate test method must describe the procedures used to provide field verification of the detection limit. (4) The spatial coverage must be equal to or better than the spatial coverage provided in Method 325A of appendix A of this part. (i) For path average concentration open-path instruments, the physical path length of the measurement must be no more than a passive sample footprint (the spacing that would be provided by the sorbent traps when following Method 325A). For example, if Method 325A requires spacing monitors A and B 610 meters (2,000 feet) apart, then the physical path length limit for the measurement at that portion of the fenceline must be no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet). (ii) For range resolved open-path instrument or approach, the instrument or approach must be able to resolve an average concentration over each passive sampler footprint within the path length of the instrument. (iii) The extra samplers required in Sections 8.2.1.3 of Method 325A may be omitted when they fall within the path length of an open-path instrument. (5) At a minimum, non-integrating alternative test methods must provide a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15minute period. (6) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements (less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point for the two week average. The alternative test method approach must have wind speed, direction and stability class of the same time resolution and within the footprint of the instrument. (7) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the Dc for the 14day average high sample result, all results measured under the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For purposes of averaging data points for the 14-day average low sample result, all results measured under the method detection limit must use zero. ■ 8. Section 63.2350 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules § 63.2350 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? § 63.2354 What performance tests, design evaluations, and performance evaluations must I conduct? (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all times when the equipment identified in § 63.2338(b)(1) through (5) is in OLD operation. (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). (c) Except for emission sources not required to be controlled as specified in § 63.2343, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy of the plan must be retained and available on-site for five years after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. (d) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraph (b) of this section no longer applies. Instead, at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. ■ 9. Section 63.2354 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(ii); ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5); ■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(6); ■ e. Revising paragraph (c); and ■ f. Adding paragraph (d). The revisions and additions read as follows: (a) * * * (2) For each design evaluation you conduct, you must use the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (3) For each performance evaluation of a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) you conduct, you must follow the requirements in § 63.8(e) and paragraph (d) of this section. For CEMS installed after the compliance date specified in § 63.2342(e), conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days of installation of the monitoring system. (b)(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, for nonflare control devices, you must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1), and either § 63.988(b), § 63.990(b), or § 63.995(b), using the procedures specified in § 63.997(e). * * * * * (3)(i) In addition to Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, to determine compliance with the TOC emission limit, you may use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 or Method 320 of appendix A to this part to determine compliance with the total organic HAP emission limit. You may not use Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to this part if the control device is a combustion device, and you must not use Method 320 of appendix A to this part if the gas stream contains entrained water droplets. All compounds quantified by Method 320 of appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320 of appendix A to this part. As an alternative to Method 18, for determining compliance with the total organic HAP emission limit, you may use ASTM D6420–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), under the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. (A) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 or Method 320 of appendix A to this part to measure compliance with the percentage efficiency limit, you must first determine which organic HAP are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) using knowledge of the organic liquids or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test, you must analyze samples collected simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the control device. Quantify the emissions for the same organic HAP identified as present in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56339 inlet gas stream for both the inlet and outlet gas streams of the control device. (B) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 or Method 320 of appendix A to this part, to measure compliance with the emission concentration limit, you must first determine which organic HAP are present in the inlet gas stream using knowledge of the organic liquids or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test, analyze samples collected as specified in Method 18 at the outlet of the control device. Quantify the control device outlet emission concentration for the same organic HAP identified as present in the inlet or uncontrolled gas stream. (ii) You may use ASTM D6420–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), to determine compliance with the total organic HAP emission limit if the target concentration for each HAP is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv and either of the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section exists. For target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–18 and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, you may not use ASTM D6420–18. (A) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420– 18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); or (B) For target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, you must demonstrate recovery of the compound and the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in ASTM D6420–18, Section 10.5.3, must be followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered watersoluble. (iii) You may use ASTM D6348–12e1 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart. (4) If a principal component of the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device is formaldehyde, you must use Method 316, Method 320, or Method 323 of appendix A to this part for measuring the formaldehyde, except you must not use Method 320 or Method 323 of appendix A to this part if the gas stream contains entrained water droplets. If you use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, formaldehyde must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320 of appendix A to this part. You must E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56340 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules measure formaldehyde either at the inlet and outlet of the control device to determine control efficiency or at the outlet of a combustion device for determining compliance with the emission concentration limit. You may use ASTM D6348–12e1 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart. (5) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, you may not conduct performance tests during periods of SSM, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). (6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraphs (b)(1) and (5) of this section no longer apply. Instead, you must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) In lieu of the requirements specified in § 63.7(e)(1), you must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (B) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(A) of this section, you must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in either § 63.988(b), § 63.990(b), or § 63.995(b), using the procedures specified in § 63.997(e). You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (c) To determine the HAP content of the organic liquid, you may use Method 311 of appendix A to this part, ASTM D6886–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), or other method approved by the Administrator. If you use ASTM D6886–18 to determine the HAP content, you must use either Method B or Method B in conjunction with Method C, as described in section 4.3 of ASTM D6886–18. In addition, you may use other means, such as voluntary consensus standards, safety data sheets (SDS), or certified product data sheets, to determine the HAP content of the organic liquid. If the method you select to determine the HAP content provides VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 HAP content ranges, you must use the upper end of each HAP content range in determining the total HAP content of the organic liquid. The EPA may require you to test the HAP content of an organic liquid using Method 311 of appendix A to this part or other method approved by the Administrator. For liquids that contain any amount of formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, you may not use Method 311 of appendix A to this part. If the results of the Method 311 of appendix A to this part (or any other approved method) are different from the HAP content determined by another means, the Method 311 of appendix A to this part (or approved method) results will govern. For liquids that contain any amount of formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, if the results of ASTM D6886–18 using method B or C in section 4.3 (or any other approved method) are different from the HAP content determined by another means, ASTM D6886–18 using method B or C in section 4 (or approved method) results will govern. (d) Each VOC CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according to the requirements of one of the following performance specifications located in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B: Performance Specification 8, Performance Specification 8A, Performance Specification 9, or Performance Specification 15. You must also comply with the requirements of procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, for CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A. (1) For CEMS using Performance Specification 9 or 15, determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6. (2) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8A, conduct the relative accuracy test audits required under Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F in accordance with Performance Specification 8, Sections 8 and 11. The relative accuracy must meet the criteria of Performance Speciation 8, Section 13.2. (3) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A, calibrate the instrument on methane and report the results as carbon (C1). Use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests. (4) If you are required to monitor oxygen in order to conduct concentration corrections, you must use Performance Specification 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to certify your oxygen CEMS, and you must comply PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 with procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. Use Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as the reference method when conducting a relative accuracy test audit. ■ 10. Section 63.2358 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: § 63.2358 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? * * * * * (b) * * * (3) For storage tanks and transfer racks at existing affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations listed in Table 2b to this subpart within 180 days of either the initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this section. (i) For storage tanks with an existing internal or external floating roof, complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b to this subpart and item 1.a. in Table 4 to this subpart, you must conduct your initial compliance demonstration the next time the storage tank is emptied and degassed, but not later than [date 10 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. (ii) For storage tanks complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b of this subpart and item 1.b. or 1.c. in Table 4 of this subpart, you must comply within 180 days after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. * * * * * ■ 11. Section 63.2362 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: § 63.2362 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? * * * * * (b)(1) * * * (2) For transport vehicles that you own that do not have vapor collection equipment, you must maintain current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars. ■ 12. Section 63.2366 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2366 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) You must install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring system (CMS) on each control device E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules required in order to comply with this subpart. If you use a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) (as defined in § 63.981), you must comply with § 63.2346(m) and the applicable requirements for CPMS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for the control device being used. If you use a CEMS, you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS according to the requirements in § 63.8 and paragraph (d) of this section, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) For nonflare control devices controlling storage tanks and low throughput transfer racks, you must submit a monitoring plan according to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for monitoring plans. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (c) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must keep the written procedures required by § 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). In addition to the information required in § 63.8(d)(2), your written procedures for CEMS must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section: (1) Description of CEMS installation location. (2) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components and the span of the analyzer. (3) Routine quality control and assurance procedures. (4) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation, which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the Administrator’s request for a performance evaluation under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. (5) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8); (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 the general requirements of § 63.10(c) and (e)(1). (d) For each CEMS, you must locate the sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location such that you obtain representative measurements of emissions from the regulated source and comply with the applicable requirements specified in § 63.2354(d). ■ 13. Section 63.2370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: § 63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you as specified in Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart. * * * * * (c) You must submit the results of the initial compliance determination in the Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in § 63.2382(d). If the initial compliance determination includes a performance test and the results are submitted electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in accordance with § 63.2386(g), the unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the Notification of Compliance Status is submitted. ■ 14. Section 63.2374 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.2374 When do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance and how do I use the collected data? (a) You must monitor and collect data according to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). * * * * * ■ 15. Section 63.2378 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 2 through 4 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and in Tables 8 through 10 to this subpart, as PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56341 applicable. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must follow the requirements in § 63.6(e)(1) and (3) during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, or nonoperation of the affected source or any part thereof. In addition, the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section apply. (1) The emission limitations in this subpart apply at all times except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. The emission limitations of this subpart apply during periods of SSM, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. However, if a SSM, or period of nonoperation of one portion of the affected source does not affect the ability of a particular emission source to comply with the emission limitations to which it is subject, then that emission source is still required to comply with the applicable emission limitations of this subpart during the startup, shutdown, malfunction, or period of nonoperation. (2) The owner or operator must not shut down control devices or monitoring systems that are required or utilized for achieving compliance with this subpart during periods of SSM while emissions are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. This paragraph (b)(2) does not apply if the item of equipment is malfunctioning. This paragraph (b)(2) also does not apply if the owner or operator shuts down the compliance equipment (other than monitoring systems) to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous SSM of the affected source or portion thereof. If the owner or operator has reason to believe that monitoring equipment would be damaged due to a contemporaneous SSM of the affected source of portion thereof, the owner or operator must provide documentation supporting such a claim in the next Compliance report required in Table 11 to this subpart, item 1. Once approved by the Administrator, the provision for ceasing to collect, during a SSM, monitoring data that would otherwise be required by the provisions of this subpart must be incorporated into the SSM plan. (3) During SSM, you must implement, to the extent reasonably available, measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), the term ‘‘excess E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56342 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules emissions’’ means emissions greater than those allowed by the emission limits that apply during normal operational periods. The measures to be taken must be identified in the SSM plan, and may include, but are not limited to, air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies, work practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the manner of operation of the affected source. Back-up control devices are not required, but may be used if available. (c) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device used to control storage tanks or transfer racks, during which the control device does not meet the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year. (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you elect to route emissions from storage tanks or transfer racks to a fuel gas system or to a process, as allowed by § 63.982(d), to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, the total aggregate amount of time during which the emissions bypass the fuel gas system or process during the calendar year without being routed to a control device, for all reasons (except SSM or product changeovers of flexible operation units and periods when a storage tank has been emptied and degassed), must not exceed 240 hours. (e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section no longer apply. Instead, you must be in compliance with each emission limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a) of this section at all times, except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. The use of a bypass line at any time on a closed vent system to divert a vent stream to the atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section is an emissions standards deviation. Equipment subject to the work practice standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 are not subject to this paragraph (e). If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of § 63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS, then you must continue to comply with the requirements in § 63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in § 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and § 63.999(c)(2) of subpart SS, in addition to § 63.2346(m), the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 63.2390(g), VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 and the reporting requirements specified in § 63.2386(c)(12). (f) The CEMS data must be reduced to daily averages computed using valid data consistent with the data availability requirements specified in § 63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through (D), except monitoring data also are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are being performed. In computing daily averages to determine compliance with this subpart, you must exclude monitoring data recorded during CEMS breakdowns, out of control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, calibration checks, or other quality assurance activities. ■ 16. Section 63.2380 is added to read as follows: § 63.2380 What are my requirements for certain flares? (a) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions through a closed vent system to a steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted flare to control emissions from a storage tank, low throughput transfer rack, or high throughput transfer rack, then the flare requirements specified in § 63.11(b); 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; the provisions specified in items 7.a through 7.d of Table 3; Table 8 to this subpart; and the provisions specified in items 1.a.iii and 2.a.iii, and items 7.a through 7.d.2 of Table 9 to this subpart no longer apply. Instead, you must meet the applicable requirements for flares as specified in §§ 63.670 and 63.671 of subpart CC, including the provisions in Tables 12 and 13 to subpart CC of this part, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section. For purposes of compliance with this paragraph, the following terms are defined in § 63.641 of subpart CC: Assist air, assist steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion zone gas, flare, flare purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep gas, flare vent gas, lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist air, pilot gas, premix assist air, total steam, and upper steam. (b) The following phrases in § 63.670(c) of subpart CC do not apply: (1) ‘‘[S]pecify the smokeless design capacity of each flare and’’; and (2) ‘‘[A]nd the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless design capacity of the flare’’. (c) The phrase ‘‘and the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless design capacity of the flare’’ in PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 63.670(d) of subpart CC does not apply. (d) § 63.670(o) does not apply. (e) Substitute ‘‘affected source’’ for each occurrence of ‘‘petroleum refinery.’’ (f) Each occurrence of ‘‘refinery’’ does not apply. (g) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions limitation requirements specified in § 63.670(r) of subpart CC in lieu of the requirements in § 63.670(d) through (f) of subpart CC, as applicable. However, instead of complying with § 63.670(r)(3)(iii) of subpart CC, you must also submit the alternative means of emissions limitation request to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143–01), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted to oldrtr@epa.gov. (h) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net heating value with a continuous process mass spectrometer, then you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must meet the requirements in § 63.671(e)(2) of subpart CC. You may augment the minimum list of calibration gas components found in § 63.671(e)(2) of subpart CC with compounds found during a pre-survey or known to be in the gas through process knowledge. (2) Calibration gas cylinders must be certified to an accuracy of 2 percent and traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. (3) For unknown gas components that have similar analytical mass fragments to calibration compounds, you may report the unknowns as an increase in the overlapped calibration gas compound. For unknown compounds that produce mass fragments that do not overlap calibration compounds, you may use the response factor for the nearest molecular weight hydrocarbon in the calibration mix to quantify the unknown component’s NHVvg. (4) You may use the response factor for n-pentane to quantify any unknown components detected with a higher molecular weight than n-pentane. (5) You must perform an initial calibration to identify mass fragment overlap and response factors for the target compounds. (6) You must meet applicable requirements in Performance E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Specification 9 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 for continuous monitoring system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing an initial multipoint calibration check at three concentrations following the procedure in Section 10.1 and performing the periodic calibration requirements listed for gas chromatographs in Table 13 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the process mass spectrometer. You may use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table 13 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. (7) The average instrument calibration error (CE) for each calibration compound at any calibration concentration must not differ by more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE for each component in the calibration blend must be calculated using the following equation: Where: Cm = Average instrument response (ppm) Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm) analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to use the CE of NHV measured versus the cylinder tag value NHV as the measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits in lieu of determining the compound- specific CE. The CE for NHV at any calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE for must be calculated using the following equation: (2) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the information required in § 63.999(b) and in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section. * * * * * (ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests, engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial compliance according to Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart. For performance tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and quality assurance procedures. If performance test results are submitted electronically via CEDRI in accordance with § 63.2386(g), the unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the Notification of Compliance Status is submitted. * * * * * (vi) The applicable information specified in § 63.1039(a)(1) through (3) for all pumps and valves subject to the work practice standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4, and all connectors subject to the work practice standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 7. (vii) If you are complying with the vapor balancing work practice standard for transfer racks according to Table 4 to this subpart, item 3.a, include a statement to that effect and a statement that the pressure vent settings on the affected storage tanks are greater than or equal to 2.5 psig. * * * * * (ix) For flares subject to the requirements of § 63.2380, you must also submit the information in this paragraph in a supplement to the Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for flare monitoring. In lieu of the information required in § 63.987(b) of subpart SS, the Notification of Compliance Status must include flare design (e.g., steamassisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted); all visible emission readings, heat content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration required by § 63.670(h) of subpart CC, as applicable; and all periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is absent. (3) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), then submit a complete report, including information (i) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for compositional Where: NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf) NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf) (j) Instead of complying with § 63.670(p) of subpart CC, you must keep the flare monitoring records specified in § 63.2390(h). (k) Instead of complying with § 63.670(q) of subpart CC, you must comply with the reporting requirements specified in § 63.2382(d)(2)(ix) and § 63.2386(d)(5). ■ 17. Section 63.2382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), and adding (d)(2)(ix) and (d)(3) to read as follows: § 63.2382 What notifications must I submit and when and what information should be submitted? khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56343 (a) You must submit each notification in subpart SS of this part, Table 12 to this subpart, and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section that applies to you. You must submit these notifications according to the schedule in Table 12 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). * * * * * (d)(1) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 5, 6, or 7 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 EP21OC19.001</GPH> EP21OC19.002</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56344 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404–02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided you meet the requirements outlined in § 63.2386(i) or (j), as applicable. ■ 18. Section 63.2386 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraph (c) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), paragraph (c)(8) introductory text and paragraph (c)(9); ■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(11) and (c)(12); ■ c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(vii), (d)(1)(ix), and (d)(1)(x); ■ d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(xiii) through (d)(1)(xv); ■ e. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii); ■ f. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(5); ■ g. Revising paragraph (e); and ■ h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k). The revisions and additions read as follows: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2386 What reports must I submit and when and what information is to be submitted in each? (a) You must submit each report in subpart SS of this part, Table 11 to this subpart, Table 12 to this subpart, and in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section that applies to you. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10(a), you must submit each report according to Table 11 to this subpart and by the dates shown in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, by the dates shown in subpart SS of this part, and by the dates shown in Table 12 to this subpart, whichever are applicable. * * * * * (c) First Compliance report. The first Compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) of this section, as VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 well as the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section. * * * * * (2) Statement by a responsible official, including the official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. If your report is submitted via CEDRI, the certifier’s electronic signature during the submission process replaces this requirement. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when the report is submitted via CEDRI. * * * * * (5) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, if you had a SSM during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSM plan, the Compliance report must include the information described in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). * * * * * (8) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(12) of this section, for closed vent systems and control devices used to control emissions, the information specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section for those planned routine maintenance activities that would require the control device to not meet the applicable emission limit. * * * * * (9) A listing of all transport vehicles into which organic liquids were loaded at transfer racks that are subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, during the previous 6 months for which vapor tightness documentation as required in § 63.2390(c) was not on file at the facility. * * * * * (11) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(5) of this section no longer applies. (12) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(8) of this section no longer applies. Instead, for bypass lines subject to the requirements § 63.2378(e), the compliance report must include the start date, start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard cubic feet (scf), the concentration of organic HAP in the gas in ppmv and the resulting mass emissions of organic HAP in pounds that bypass a control device. For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, report the start date, start time, and duration in hours. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (d) Subsequent Compliance reports. Subsequent Compliance reports must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and paragraph (c)(12) of this section and, where applicable, the information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with an emission limitation in this subpart, or for each CMS that was inoperative or out of control during the reporting period, you must include in the Compliance report the applicable information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xv) of this section. This includes periods of SSM. (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped, and the nature and cause of the malfunction (if known). (ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each period that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. (iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each period that the CMS that was out of control. (iv) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section, the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of SSM, or during another period. (v) The total duration in hours of all deviations for each CMS during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percentage of the total emission source operating time during that reporting period. (vi) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section, a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (vii) The total duration in hours of CMS downtime for each CMS during the reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percentage of the total emission source operating time during that reporting period. * * * * * (ix) A brief description of the emission source(s) at which the CMS deviation(s) occurred or at which the CMS was inoperative or out of control. (x) The equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s) of the CMS and the pollutant or parameter monitored. * * * * * (xiii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (vi) of this section no longer apply. For E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules each instance, report the start date, start time, and duration in hours of each failure. For each failure, the report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (xiv) Corrective actions taken for a CMS that was inoperative or out of control. (xv) Total process operating time during the reporting period. (2) * * * (i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section, for each storage tank and transfer rack subject to control requirements, include periods of planned routine maintenance during which the control device did not comply with the applicable emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. * * * * * (iv) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section no longer applies. (3) (i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, a listing of any storage tank that became subject to controls based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6, since the filing of the last Compliance report. (ii) A listing of any transfer rack that became subject to controls based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, since the filing of the last Compliance report. (iii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected source no longer apply as specified in § 63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must include a listing of any storage tanks at an existing affected source that became subject to controls based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, since the filing of the last Compliance report. If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with this paragraph. * * * * * (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in § 63.2380, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 compliance report must include the items specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section in lieu of the information required in § 63.999(c)(3) of subpart SS. (i) Records as specified in § 63.2390(h)(1) for each 15-minute block during which there was at least one minute when regulated material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame is present. Include the start and stop time and date of each 15-minute block. (ii) Visible emission records as specified in § 63.2390(h)(2)(iv) for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes. (iii) The periods specified in § 63.2390(h)(6). Indicate the date and start and end time for the period, and the net heating value operating parameter(s) determined following the methods in § 63.670(k) through (n) of subpart CC as applicable. (e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 11 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the Compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation in this subpart, we will consider submission of the Compliance report as satisfying any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a Compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the applicable title V permitting authority. (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must submit all Compliance reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56345 information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404–02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided you meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (i) or (j) of this section, as applicable. (g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance test reports in accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56346 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA’s CDX as described in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. (h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance evaluation reports in accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of completing each CMS performance evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (j) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this paragraph, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. (k) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in § 63.2348, you must submit the following information: (1) A notification to the Administrator that you are exercising the option to implement fenceline monitoring according to the requirements in § 63.2348. (2) A report to the Administrator containing the information required at § 63.2348(b), including the model input file, the model results, the selected analytes, and the action level for each analyte. The report must be submitted no later than the date specified in § 63.2342(f)(1). E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules (3) Monitoring data must be submitted quarterly to EPA’s CEDRI (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart according to paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section: (i) The first quarterly report must be submitted once you have obtained 12 months of data. The first quarterly report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified in § 63.2342(f)(2) and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after you have obtained 12 months of data (i.e., the first quarterly report will contain between 12 and 15 months of data). Each subsequent quarterly report must cover one of the following reporting periods: Quarter 1 from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from April 1 through June 30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30; and Quarter 4 from October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report must be electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days following the end of the reporting period. (ii) Report contents. Each report must contain the following information: (A) Facility name and address. (B) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 3, or Quarter 4). (C) For the first reporting period and for any reporting period in which a passive monitor is added or moved, for each passive monitor: The latitude and longitude location coordinates; the sampler name; and identification of the type of sampler (i.e., regular monitor, extra monitor, duplicate, field blank, inactive). You must determine the coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places. (D) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period. (E) Individual sample results for each analyte reported in units of mg/m3 for each monitor for each sampling period that ends during the reporting period. Results must be reported with at least two significant figures. Results below the method detection limit must be flagged as below the detection limit and reported at the method detection limit. (F) Data flags that indicate each monitor that was skipped for the sampling period, if you use an alternative sampling frequency under § 63.2348(e)(3). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 (G) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part. For each outlier, you must submit the individual sample result of the outlier, as well as the evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier. (H) The biweekly concentration difference (Dc) for each analyte for each sampling period and the annual average Dc for each analyte for each sampling period. ■ 19. Section 63.2390 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2); ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(3); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3) and (d); and ■ d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2390 What records must I keep? * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for flares, you must keep all records identified in subpart SS of this part and in Table 12 to this subpart that are applicable, including records related to notifications and reports, SSM, performance tests, CMS, and performance evaluation plans. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (2) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for flares, you must keep the records required to show continuous compliance, as required in subpart SS of this part and in Tables 8 through 10 to this subpart, with each emission limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard that applies to you. You must also comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(m). (3) In addition to the information required in § 63.998(c), the manufacturer’s specifications or your written procedures must include a schedule for calibrations, preventative maintenance procedures, a schedule for preventative maintenance, and corrective actions to be taken if a calibration fails. (c) For each transport vehicle into which organic liquids are loaded at a transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, you must keep the applicable records in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section or alternatively the verification records in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. * * * * * (2) For transport vehicles without vapor collection equipment, current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56347 requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars. (3) In lieu of keeping the records specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, the owner or operator shall record that the verification of U.S. DOT tank certification or Method 27 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing, required in Table 5 to this subpart, item 2, has been performed. Various methods for the record of verification can be used, such as: A check-off on a log sheet, a list of U.S. DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data, or a position description for gate security showing that the security guard will not allow any trucks on site that do not have the appropriate documentation. (d) You must keep records of the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume as defined in § 63.2406 through transfer racks to document the applicability, or lack thereof, of the emission limitations in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10. * * * * * (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each deviation from an emission limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must keep a record of the information specified in paragraph (f)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure. (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.2350(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each flow event from a bypass line subject to the requirements in § 63.2378(e), you must maintain records sufficient to determine whether or not the detected flow included flow requiring control. For each flow event from a bypass line requiring control that is released either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements specified in § 63.2378(a), you must include an E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 56348 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of organic HAP in the gas and the resulting emissions of organic HAP that bypassed the control device using process knowledge and engineering estimates. (h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in § 63.2380, you must keep records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (10) of this section in lieu of the information required in § 63.998(a)(1) of subpart SS. (1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to detect the presence of a pilot flame as required in § 63.670(b) of subpart CC for a minimum of 2 years. Retain records of each 15minute block during which there was at least one minute that no pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to a flare for a minimum of 5 years. (2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations or video surveillance images required in § 63.670(h) of subpart CC as specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable, for a minimum of 3 years. (i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required, the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented to the flare. (ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, then the record must identify whether the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of each observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and whether it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and start and end time of each visible emissions observation. (iii) If a video surveillance camera is used, then the record must include all video surveillance images recorded, with time and date stamps. (iv) For each 2-hour period for which visible emissions are observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the record must include the date and start and end time of the 2-hour period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2hour period for which emissions were visible. (3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix assist air specified to be monitored under § 63.670(i) of subpart CC, along with the date and time interval for the 15-minute block. If multiple monitoring locations are used to determine cumulative vent gas flow, total steam, perimeter assist air, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 premix assist air, then retain records of the 15-minute block average flows for each monitoring location for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations for a minimum of 5 years. If pressure and temperature monitoring is used, then retain records of the 15-minute block average temperature, pressure, and molecular weight of the flare vent gas or assist gas stream for each measurement location used to determine the 15minute block average cumulative flows for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations for a minimum of 5 years. (4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under § 63.670(j) of subpart CC. Retain records of individual component concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2 years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute block average values for a minimum of 5 years. (5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated following the methods specified in § 63.670(k) through (n) of subpart CC, as applicable. (6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the applicable operating limits specified in § 63.670(d) through (f) of subpart CC when regulated material is being routed to the flare. (7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring according to the procedures in § 63.670(g) through (j) of subpart CC. (8) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the flare, but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare, including the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated material flow. (9) The monitoring plan required in § 63.2366(c). (10) Records described in § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (xi). (i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 63.2342(f), for each OLD operation complying with the requirements in § 63.2348, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (10) of this section on an ongoing basis. (1) Coordinates of all passive monitors, including replicate samplers and field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological station. You must determine the coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as the tube identifying information. (3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure measurements. (4) For each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part, the sampler location of and the concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier. (5) For samples that will be adjusted for a background, the location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the background sampler, and the perimeter samplers to which it applies. (6) Individual sample results, the calculated Dc for each analyte for each sampling period and the two samples used to determine it, whether background correction was used, and the annual average Dc calculated after each sampling period. (7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located samples and blanks. (8) Documentation of corrective action taken each time the action level was exceeded. (9) Other records as required by Methods 325A and 325B of appendix A of this part. (10) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in § 63.2348(i), records of hourly meteorological data, including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind direction, calculated daily unit vector wind direction and daily sigma theta, and other records specified in the site-specific monitoring plan. ■ 20. Section 63.2396 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (e)(2). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.2396 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is subject to both this subpart and another subpart? (a) * * * (3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, as an alternative to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, if a storage tank assigned to the OLD affected source is subject to control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to comply only with the requirements of this subpart for storage tanks meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart. (4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the applicability criteria E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected source no longer apply as specified in § 63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), as an alternative to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, if a storage tank assigned to an existing OLD affected source is subject to control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to comply only with the requirements of this subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected source meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2b to this subpart. If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with this paragraph. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342, if you have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections that are subject to a 40 CFR part 60 subpart, and those connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic liquids service, as defined in this subpart, you must comply with the provisions of each subpart for those equipment leak components. (2) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342, if you have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and those connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic liquids service, as defined in this subpart, you may elect to comply with the provisions of this subpart for all such equipment leak components. You must identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.2382(b) the provisions with which you will comply. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) Equipment leak components. After the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342, if you are applying the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of another 40 CFR part 63 subpart to the connectors, valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems associated with a transfer rack subject to this subpart that only unloads organic liquids directly to or via pipeline to a non-tank process unit component or to a storage tank subject to the other 40 CFR part 63 subpart, the owner or operator must be in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart EEEE. If complying with the recordkeeping and reporting VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 requirements of the other subpart satisfies the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator may elect to continue to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the other subpart. In such instances, the owner or operator will be deemed to be in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must identify the other subpart being complied with in the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.2382(b). ■ 21. Section 63.2402 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows: § 63.2402 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority for this subpart to a State, local, or eligible tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not delegated to the State, local, or eligible tribal agency. * * * * * (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a site-specific monitoring plan for fenceline monitoring at § 63.2348(i). ■ 22. Section 63.2406 is amended, in alphabetical order, by: ■ a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Annual average true vapor pressure’’; ■ b. Adding the definition of ‘‘Condensate’’; ■ c. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘Equipment Leak component’’; ■ d. Adding the definition of ‘‘Force majeure event’’; ■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Organic liquid’’; ■ f. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Pressure relief device’’ and ‘‘Relief valve’’; and ■ g. Revising the definition of ‘‘Vaportight transport vehicle’’. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.2406 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Annual average true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure exerted by the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored or transferred organic liquid. For the purpose of determining if a liquid meets the definition of an organic liquid, the vapor pressure is PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56349 determined using conditions of 77 degrees Fahrenheit and 29.92 inches of mercury. For the purpose of determining whether an organic liquid meets the applicability criteria in Table 2, items 1 through 6, to this subpart or Table 2b, items 1 through 3, use the actual annual average temperature as defined in this subpart. The vapor pressure value in either of these cases is determined: (1) Using standard reference texts; (2) By ASTM D6378–18a (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) using a vapor to liquid ratio of 4:1; or (3) Using any other method that the EPA approves. * * * * * Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that condenses due to changes in the temperature or pressure, or both, and remains liquid at standard conditions as specified in § 63.2. Only those condensates downstream of the first point of custody transfer after the production field are considered condensates in this subpart. * * * * * Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or portion thereof, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during SSM. On and after [date 180 days after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies. * * * * * Equipment leak component means each pump, valve, and sampling connection system used in organic liquids service at an OLD operation. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), connectors are also considered an equipment leak component. Valve types include control, globe, gate, plug, and ball. Relief and check valves are excluded. Force majeure event means a release of HAP, either directly to the E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56350 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules atmosphere from a safety device or discharged via a flare, that is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an event beyond the owner or operator’s control, such as natural disasters; acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the OLD operation (e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power curtailment due to an interruptible service agreement; and fire or explosion originating at a near or adjoining facility outside of the OLD operation that impacts the OLD operation’s ability to operate. * * * * * Organic liquid means: (1) Any non-crude oil liquid, noncondensate liquid, or liquid mixture that contains 5 percent by weight or greater of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, as determined using the procedures specified in § 63.2354(c). (2) Any crude oils or condensates downstream of the first point of custody transfer. (3) Organic liquids for purposes of this subpart do not include the following liquids: (i) Gasoline (including aviation gasoline), kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oils and fuel oils; (ii) Any fuel consumed or dispensed on the plant site directly to users (such as fuels for fleet refueling or for refueling marine vessels that support the operation of the plant); (iii) Hazardous waste; (iv) Wastewater; (v) Ballast water; or (vi) Any non-crude oil or noncondensate liquid with an annual average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia). * * * * * Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. A pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or other unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin devices. * * * * * Relief valve means a type of pressure relief device that is designed to re-close after the pressure relief. * * * * * Vapor-tight transport vehicle means a transport vehicle that has been demonstrated to be vapor-tight. To be considered vapor-tight, a transport vehicle equipped with vapor collection equipment must undergo a pressure change of no more than 250 pascals (1 inch of water) within 5 minutes after it is pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 inches of water). This capability must be demonstrated annually using the procedures specified in Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For all other transport vehicles, vapor tightness is demonstrated by performing the U.S. DOT pressure test procedures for tank cars and cargo tanks. * * * * * ■ 23. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 1 1. A storage tank at an existing affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons) 2. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) by at least 95 weight-percent or, as an option, to an exhaust concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and § 63.2346(m); OR ii. Comply with the work practice standards specified in Table 4 to this subpart, items 1.a, 1.b, or 1.c for tanks storing liquids described in that table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. 2. A storage tank at an existing affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). 4. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). 5. A storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).. b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56351 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 1 6. A storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting the capacity criteria specified in Table 2 of this subpart, items 1 through 5. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). 7. A transfer rack at an existing facility where the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume through transfer racks is equal to or greater than 800,000 gallons and less than 10 million gallons. a. The total Table 1 organic HAP content of the organic liquid being loaded through one or more of the transfer rack’s arms is at least 98 percent by weight and is being loaded into a transport vehicle. 8. A transfer rack at an existing facility where the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume through transfer racks is ≥10 million gallons. 9. A transfer rack at a new facility where the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume through transfer racks is less than 800,000 gallons. a. One or more of the transfer rack’s arms is loading an organic liquid into a transport vehicle. i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) by at least 95 weight-percent or, as an option, to an exhaust concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and § 63.2346(m); OR ii. Comply with the work practice standards specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 2.a, for tanks storing the liquids described in that table. i. For all such loading arms at the rack, reduce emissions of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) from the loading of organic liquids either by venting the emissions that occur during loading through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and § 63.2346(m), achieving at least 98 weight-percent HAP reduction, OR, as an option, to an exhaust concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air; OR ii. During the loading of organic liquids, comply with the work practice standards specified in item 3 of Table 4 to this subpart. i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i and 7.a.ii of this table. 10. A transfer rack at a new facility where the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume through transfer racks is equal to or greater than 800,000 gallons. a. The total Table 1 organic HAP content of the organic liquid being loaded through one or more of the transfer rack’s arms is at least 25 percent by weight and is being loaded into a transport vehicle. b. One or more of the transfer rack’s arms is filling a container with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons. a. One or more of the transfer rack’s arms is loading an organic liquid into a transport vehicle. b. One or more of the transfer rack’s arms is filling a container with a capacity equal to or greater than 55 gallons. i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i and 7.a.ii of this table. i. For all such loading arms at the rack during the loading of organic liquids, comply with the provisions of §§ 63.924 through 63.927 of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart PP—National Emission Standards for Containers, Container Level 3 controls; OR ii. During the loading of organic liquids, comply with the work practice standards specified in item 3.a of Table 4 to this subpart. i. See the requirements in items 7.a.i and 7.a.ii of this table. i. For all such loading arms at the rack during the loading of organic liquids, comply with the provisions of §§ 63.924 through 63.927 of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart PP—National Emission Standards for Containers, Container Level 3 controls; OR ii. During the loading of organic liquids, comply with the work practice standards specified in item 3.a of Table 4 to this subpart. 1 Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, if you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare then you must comply with the requirements specified in § 63.2346(k). 2 Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure criteria, and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 no longer apply. Instead, you must comply with the requirements as specified in § 63.2346(a)(5) and Table 2b of this subpart. If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with Table 2b of this subpart as specified in § 63.2346(a)(6). Instead, you may continue to comply with the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria and the emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ 24. Subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by adding Table 2b to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56352 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2B TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS FOR STORAGE TANKS AT CERTAIN EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES As stated in § 63.2346(a)(5), beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the requirements in this Table 2b of this subpart apply to storage tanks at an existing affected source in lieu of the requirements in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 for storage tanks at an existing affected source. As stated in § 63.2346(a)(6), if you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you may continue to comply with the requirements in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 for storage tanks at an existing affected source instead of the requirements in this Table 2b of this subpart. If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . . 1. A storage tank at an existing affected source with a capacity ≥18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) and <75.7 cubic meters (20,000 gallons). a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia). i. Reduce emissions of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) by at least 95 weight-percent or, as an option, to an exhaust concentration less than or equal to 20 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen for combustion devices using supplemental combustion air, by venting emissions through a closed vent system to a flare meeting the requirements of § 63.983 and § 63.2380, or by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of nonflare control devices meeting the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and § 63.2346(m); OR ii. Comply with the work practice standards specified in Table 4 to this subpart, items 1.a, 1.b, or 1.c for tanks storing liquids described in that table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. 2. A storage tank at an existing affected source with a capacity ≥75.7 cubic meters (20,000 gallons) and <151.4 cubic meters (40,000 gallons). 3. A storage tank at an existing affected source with a capacity ≥151.4 cubic meters (40,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥13.1 kilopascals (1.9 psia). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. a. The stored organic liquid is not crude oil or condensate and if the annual average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored organic liquid is ≥5.2 kilopascals (0.75 psia). b. The stored organic liquid is crude oil or condensate. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of this table. 25. Table 3 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 3 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS As stated in § 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows: For each existing, each reconstructed, and each new affected source using . . . 1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 You must . . . Maintain the daily average fire box or combustion zone temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. a. Replace the existing catalyst bed before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND b. Maintain the daily average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND c. Maintain the daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the absorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing liquid temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND Maintain the difference between the specific gravities of the saturated and fresh scrubbing fluids greater than or equal to the difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56353 TABLE 3 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS—Continued As stated in § 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows: For each existing, each reconstructed, and each new affected source using . . . 4. A condenser to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 5. An adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 6. An adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 7. A flare to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 8. Another type of control device to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. You must . . . a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds at the condenser exit less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR b. Maintain the daily average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR b. Maintain the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the reference stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND Before the adsorption cycle commences, achieve and maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND Achieve a pressure reduction during each adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the pressure reduction established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. a. Except as specified in item 7.d of this table, comply with the equipment and operating requirements in § 63.987(a); AND b. Except as specified in item 7.d of this table, conduct an initial flare compliance assessment in accordance with § 63.987(b); AND c. Except as specified in item 7.d of this table, install and operate monitoring equipment as specified in § 63.987(c). d. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), comply with the requirements in § 63.2380 instead of the requirements in § 63.987 and the provisions regarding flare compliance assessments at § 63.997(a), (b), and (c). Submit a monitoring plan as specified in §§ 63.995(c) and 63.2366(b), and monitor the control device in accordance with that plan. 26. Table 4 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS As stated in § 63.2346, you may elect to comply with one of the work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources in the following table. If you elect to do so, . . . For each . . . You must . . . 1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5 or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2), if you elect to meet 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2) requirements as an alternative to the emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5 or the emission limit in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3; OR b. Comply with the requirements in §§ 63.2346(m) and 63.984 for routing emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process; OR c. Comply with the requirements of § 63.2346(a)(4) for vapor balancing emissions to the transport vehicle from which the storage tank is filled. a. Comply with the requirements in §§ 63.2346(m) and 63.984 for routing emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process; OR b. Comply with the requirements of § 63.2346(a)(4) for vapor balancing emissions to the transport vehicle from which the storage tank is filled. 2. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, item 6. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56354 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued As stated in § 63.2346, you may elect to comply with one of the work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources in the following table. If you elect to do so, . . . For each . . . You must . . . 3. Transfer rack subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. a. If the option of a vapor balancing system is selected, install and, during the loading of organic liquids, operate a system that meets the requirements in Table 7 to this subpart, item 3.b.i and item 3.b.ii, as applicable; OR b. Comply with the requirements in §§ 63.2346(m) and 63.984 during the loading of organic liquids, for routing emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process. Comply with § 63.2346(m) and the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. 4. Pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service at least 300 hours per year at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. 5. Transport vehicles equipped with vapor collection equipment that are loaded at transfer racks that are subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10. 6. Transport vehicles equipped without vapor collection equipment that are loaded at transfer racks that are subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10. 7. Connector that operates in organic liquids service at least 300 hours per year at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. Follow the steps in 40 CFR 60.502(e) to ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into vapor-tight transport vehicles, and comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 60.502(f), (g), (h), and (i), except substitute the term transport vehicle at each occurrence of tank truck or gasoline tank truck in those paragraphs. Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), comply with § 63.2346(m) and the requirements for connectors in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H.1 1 If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you are not required to comply with item 7 of this table. 27. Table 5 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS AND DESIGN EVALUATIONS As stated in §§ 63.2354(a) and 63.2362, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests and design evaluations for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows: For . . . You must conduct . . . 1. Each existing, each reconstructed, and each new affected source using a nonflare control device to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 10, and each existing affected source using a nonflare control device to comply with an emission limit in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. A performance test to i. § 63.985(b)(1)(ii), determine the organic § 63.988(b), HAP (or, upon ap§ 63.990(b), or proval, TOC) control § 63.995(b). efficiency of each nonflare control device, OR the exhaust concentration of each combustion device; OR. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 According to . . . Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Using . . . To determine . . . According to the following requirements . . . (1) Method 1 or 1A in appendix A–1 of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate. (A) Sampling port locations and the required number of traverse points. (2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix A–1 of 40 CFR part 60, or Method 2G in appendix A–2 of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate. (3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A–2 of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate 1. (4) Method 4 in appendix A–3 of 40 CFR part 60. (5) Method 25 or 25A in appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate. Method 316, Method 320,4 or Method 323 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 if you must measure formaldehyde. You may not use Methods 320 2 4 or 323 for formaldehyde if the gas stream contains entrained water droplets.. (A) Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. (i) Sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of each control device if complying with the control efficiency requirement or at the outlet of the control device if complying with the exhaust concentration requirement; AND (ii) the outlet sampling site must be located at each control device prior to any releases to the atmosphere. See the requirements in items 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of this table. Sfmt 4702 (A) Concentration of CO2 and O2 and dry molecular weight of the stack gas. (A) Moisture content of the stack gas. (A) TOC and formaldehyde emissions, from any control device. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 See the requirements in items 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of this table. See the requirements in items 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of this table. (i) The organic HAP used for the calibration gas for Method 25A in appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60 must be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of emissions; AND (ii) During the performance test, you must establish the operating parameter limits within which TOC emissions are reduced by the required weight-percent or, as an option for nonflare combustion devices, to 20 ppmv exhaust concentration. Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56355 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS AND DESIGN EVALUATIONS— Continued As stated in §§ 63.2354(a) and 63.2362, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests and design evaluations for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows: For . . . You must conduct . . . 2. Each transport vehicle that you own that is equipped with vapor collection equipment and is loaded with organic liquids at a transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. b. A design evaluation (for nonflare control devices) to determine the organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) control efficiency of each nonflare control device, or the exhaust concentration of each combustion control device. A performance test to determine the vapor tightness of the tank and then repair as needed until it passes the test.. According to . . . Using . . . To determine . . . According to the following requirements . . . (A) Total organic HAP and formaldehyde emissions, from noncombustion control devices. (i) During the performance test, you must establish the operating parameter limits within which total organic HAP emissions are reduced by the required weight-percent. § 63.985(b)(1)(i) .............. (6) Method 18 3 in appendix A–6 of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 320 2 4 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, as appropriate. Method 316, Method 320,2 4 or Method 323 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 for measuring formaldehyde. You may not use Methods 320 or 323 if the gas stream contains entrained water droplets. ......................................... ......................................... During a design evaluation, you must establish the operating parameter limits within which total organic HAP, (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions are reduced by at least 95 weight-percent for storage tanks or 98 weight-percent for transfer racks, or, as an option for nonflare combustion devices, to 20 ppmv exhaust concentration. Method 27 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. Vapor tightness ............... The pressure change in the tank must be no more than 250 pascals (1 inch of water) in 5 minutes after it is pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 inches of water). ......................................... 1 The manual method in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (Part 10) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used instead of Method 3B in appendix A–2 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine oxygen concentration. 2 All compounds quantified by Method 320 in appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320. 3 ASTM D6420–18 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used instead of Method 18 in appendix A–6 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine total HAP emissions, but if you use ASTM D6420–18, you must use it under the conditions specified in § 63.2354(b)(3)(ii). 4 ASTM D6348–12e1, (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the following conditions: The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5); %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%; if the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, then the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest); and the %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) × 100 28. Table 6 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows for items 1 and 2 to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS As stated in §§ 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(b), you must show initial compliance with the emission limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows: For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions by at least 95 weight-percent, or as an option for nonflare combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of ≤20 ppmv. 2. Transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions from the loading of organic liquids by at least 98 weight-percent, or as an option for nonflare combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of ≤20 ppmv. Total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions, based on the results of the performance testing or design evaluation specified in Table 5 to this subpart, item 1.a or 1.b, respectively, are reduced by at least 95 weight-percent or as an option for nonflare combustion devices to an exhaust concentration ≤20 ppmv. Total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions from the loading of organic liquids, based on the results of the performance testing or design evaluation specified in Table 5 to this subpart, item 1.a or 1.b, respectively, are reduced by at least 98 weight-percent or as an option for nonflare combustion devices to an exhaust concentration of ≤20 ppmv. 29. Table 7 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows for items 1, 3, and 4 to read as follows: ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56356 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For each . . . If you . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. Storage tank at an existing affected source meeting either set of tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 or 2, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Install a floating roof or equivalent control that meets the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, item 1.a. i. After emptying and degassing, you visually inspect each internal floating roof before the refilling of the storage tank and perform seal gap inspections of the primary and secondary rim seals of each external floating roof within 90 days after the refilling of the storage tank. i. You meet the requirements in § 63.984(b) and submit the statement of connection required by § 63.984(c). i. You meet the requirements in § 63.2346(a)(4). b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process. 2. Storage tank at a reconstructed or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 3 through 5. 3. Transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. 4. Equipment leak component, as defined in § 63.2406, that operates in organic liquids service ≥300 hours per year at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. c. Install and, during the filling of the storage tank with organic liquids, operate a vapor balancing system. a. Install a floating roof or equivalent control that meets the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, item 1.a. b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process. c. Install and, during the filling of the storage tank with organic liquids, operate a vapor balancing system. a. Load organic liquids only into transport vehicles having current vapor tightness certification as described in Table 4 to this subpart, item 5 and item 6. b. Install and, during the loading of organic liquids, operate a vapor balancing system. c. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process. a. Carry out a leak detection and repair program or equivalent control according to one of the subparts listed in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 and item 7. i. You visually inspect each internal floating roof before the initial filling of the storage tank, and perform seal gap inspections of the primary and secondary rim seals of each external floating roof within 90 days after the initial filling of the storage tank. i. See item 1.b.i of this table. i. See item 1.c.i of this table. i. You comply with the provisions specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 5 or item 6, as applicable. i. You design and operate the vapor balancing system to route organic HAP vapors displaced from loading of organic liquids into transport vehicles to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded originated or to another storage tank connected to a common header. ii. You design and operate the vapor balancing system to route organic HAP vapors displaced from loading of organic liquids into containers directly (e.g., no intervening tank or containment area such as a room) to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded originated or to another storage tank connected to a common header. i. See item 1.b.i of this table. i. You specify which one of the control programs listed in Table 4 to this subpart you have selected, OR ii. Provide written specifications for your equivalent control approach. 30. Table 8 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the emission limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6 or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions from the closed vent system and control device by 95 weight-percent or greater, or as an option to 20 ppmv or less of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) in the exhaust of combustion devices. i. Performing CMS monitoring and collecting data according to §§ 63.2366, 63.2374, and 63.2378, except as specified in item 1.a.iii of this table; AND ii. Maintaining the operating limits established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. iii. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), if you use a flare, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by performing CMS monitoring and collecting data according to requirements in § 63.2380. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56357 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the emission limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 2. Transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. a. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) emissions during the loading of organic liquids from the closed vent system and control device by 98 weight-percent or greater, or as an option to 20 ppmv or less of total organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) in the exhaust of combustion devices. i. Performing CMS monitoring and collecting data according to §§ 63.2366, 63.2374, and 63.2378 during the loading of organic liquids, except as specified in item 2.a.iii of this table; AND ii. Maintaining the operating limits established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit during the loading of organic liquids. iii. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), if you use a flare, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by performing CMS monitoring and collecting data according to requirements in § 63.2380. 31. Table 9 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each existing, reconstructed, and each new affected source using . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. a. Maintain the daily average fire box or combustion zone, as applicable, temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit.. 2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. a. Replace the existing catalyst bed before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND. i. Continuously monitoring and recording fire box or combustion zone, as applicable, temperature every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily average fire box temperature greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Replacing the existing catalyst bed before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998. 1 i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at least every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the outlet of the catalyst bed every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring the organic concentration in the absorber exhaust and maintaining the daily average concentration less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 b. Maintain the daily average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. Maintain the daily average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the absorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR. PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56358 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each existing, reconstructed, and each new affected source using . . . 4. A condenser to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing liquid temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND. Maintain the difference between the specific gravities of the saturated and fresh scrubbing fluids greater than or equal to the difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. i. Continuously monitoring the scrubbing liquid temperature and maintaining the daily average temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Maintaining the difference between the specific gravities greater than or equal to the difference established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND iii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring the organic concentration at the condenser exit and maintaining the daily average concentration less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the exit of the condenser at least every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily average temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring the daily average organic concentration in the adsorber exhaust and maintaining the concentration less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Maintaining the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the reference stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND iii. Achieving greater than or equal to the pressure reduction during the regeneration cycle established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND iv. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously monitoring the organic concentration in the adsorber exhaust and maintaining the concentration less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds at the exit of the condenser less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR. b. Maintain the daily average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. 5. An adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR. b. Maintain the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the reference stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND. Before the adsorption cycle commences, achieve and maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; AND. Achieve greater than or equal to the pressure reduction during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 6. An adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 a. Maintain the daily average concentration level of organic compounds in the adsorber exhaust less than or equal to the reference concentration established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; OR. PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56359 TABLE 9 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—HIGH THROUGHPUT TRANSFER RACKS—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each existing, reconstructed, and each new affected source using . . . 7. A flare to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND. Maintain the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. i. Replacing the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND ii. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the reference temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit; AND iii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Continuously operating a device that detects the presence of the pilot flame; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998. 1 i. Maintaining a flare flame at all times that vapors are being vented to the flare; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998. 1 i. Operating the flare with no visible emissions exceeding the amount allowed; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998. 1 i. Operating the flare within the applicable exit velocity limits; AND ii. Operating the flare with the gas heating value greater than the applicable minimum value; AND iii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Operating the flare within the applicable limits in 63.11(b)(6)(i); AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.998.1 i. Operating the flare with the applicable limits in § 63.2380; AND ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.2390(h). Submitting a monitoring plan and monitoring the control device according to that plan. a. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, maintain a pilot flame in the flare at all times that vapors may be vented to the flare (§ 63.11(b)(5)); AND. b. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, maintain a flare flame at all times that vapors are being vented to the flare (§ 63.11(b)(5)); AND. c. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, operate the flare with no visible emissions, except for up to 5 minutes in any 2 consecutive hours (§ 63.11(b)(4)); AND EITHER. d.1. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, operate the flare with an exit velocity that is within the applicable limits in § 63.11(b)(7) and (8) and with a net heating value of the gas being combusted greater than the applicable minimum value in § 63.11(b)(6)(ii); OR. d.2. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, adhere to the requirements in § 63.11(b)(6)(i). 8. Another type of control device to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 1 e. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), comply with the requirements in § 63.2380 instead of the requirements in § 63.11(b).. Submit a monitoring plan as specified in §§ 63.995(c) and 63.2366(b), and monitor the control device in accordance with that plan.. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the referenced provisions specified in § 63.2346(m) do not apply. 32. Table 10 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2386(c)(6), you must show continuous compliance with the work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each . . . For the following standard . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Internal floating roof (IFR) storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity, and vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Install a floating roof designed and operated according to the applicable specifications in § 63.1063(a) and (b). i. Visually inspecting the floating roof deck, deck fittings, and rim seals of each IFR once per year (§ 63.1063(d)(2)); AND ii. Visually inspecting the floating roof deck, deck fittings, and rim seals of each IFR either each time the storage tank is completely emptied and degassed or every 10 years, whichever occurs first (§ 63.1063(c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)); AND iii. Keeping the tank records required in § 63.1065. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56360 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2386(c)(6), you must show continuous compliance with the work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following table: For each . . . For the following standard . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 2. External floating roof (EFR) storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Install a floating roof designed and operated according to the applicable specifications in § 63.1063(a) and (b). 3. IFR or EFR tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any set of tank capacity and vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. 4. Transfer rack that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source. a. Repair the conditions causing storage tank inspection failures (§ 63.1063(e)). i. Visually inspecting the floating roof deck, deck fittings, and rim seals of each EFR either each time the storage tank is completely emptied and degassed or every 10 years, whichever occurs first (§ 63.1063(c)(2), (d), and (e)); AND ii. Performing seal gap measurements on the secondary seal of each EFR at least once every year, and on the primary seal of each EFR at least every 5 years (§ 63.1063(c)(2), (d), and (e)); AND iii. Keeping the tank records required in § 63.1065. i. Repairing conditions causing inspection failures: before refilling the storage tank with organic liquid, or within 45 days (or up to 105 days with extensions) for a tank containing organic liquid; AND ii. Keeping the tank records required in § 63.1065(b). i. Ensuring that organic liquids are loaded into transport vehicles in accordance with the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, items 5 or 6, as applicable. i. Monitoring each potential source of vapor leakage in the system quarterly during the loading of a transport vehicle or the filling of a container using the methods and procedures described in the rule requirements selected for the work practice standard for equipment leak components as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 and item 7. An instrument reading of 500 ppmv defines a leak. Repair of leaks is performed according to the repair requirements specified in your selected equipment leak standards. i. Continuing to meet the requirements specified in § 63.984(b). i. Carrying out a leak detection and repair program in accordance with the subpart selected from the list in item 5.a of this table. i. Carrying out a leak detection and repair program in accordance with the subpart selected from the list in item 5.b of this table. 5. Equipment leak component, as defined in § 63.2406, that operates in organic liquids service at least 300 hours per year. 6. Storage tank at an existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any of the tank capacity and vapor pressure criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 6, or Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3. a. Ensure that organic liquids are loaded into transport vehicles in accordance with the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, items 5 or 6, as applicable. b. Install and, during the loading of organic liquids, operate a vapor balancing system. c. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process. a. For equipment leak components other than connectors, comply with § 63.2346(m) and the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, UU, or H. b. In addition to item 5.a of this table, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), comply with § 63.2346(m) and the requirements for connectors in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or H 1. a. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or back to the process. b. Install and, during the filling of the storage tank with organic liquids, operate a vapor balancing system. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 1 If i. Continuing to meet the requirements specified in § 63.984(b). i. Except for pressure relief devices, monitoring each potential source of vapor leakage in the system, including, but not limited to connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connections, quarterly during the loading of a storage tank using the methods and procedures described in the rule requirements selected for the work practice standard for equipment leak components as specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 and item 7. An instrument reading of 500 ppmv defines a leak. Repair of leaks is performed according to the repair requirements specified in your selected equipment leak standards. For pressure relief devices, comply with § 63.2346(a)(4)(v). If no loading of a storage tank occurs during a quarter, then monitoring of the vapor balancing system is not required. you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements specified in § 63.2348, then you do not need to comply with item 5.b of this table. ■ 33. Table 11 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56361 TABLE 11 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS As stated in § 63.2386(a), (b), and (f), you must submit compliance reports and startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports according to the following table: You must submit a(n) . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report or Periodic Report ..................... a. The information specified in § 63.2386(c), (d), (e). If you had a SSM during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSM plan, the report must also include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) except as specified in item 1.e of this table; AND. b. The information required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, UU, or H, as applicable, for connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connections; AND. c. The information required by § 63.999(c); AND ........ Semiannually, and it must be postmarked or electronically submitted by January 31 or July 31, in accordance with § 63.2386(b). 2. Immediate SSM report if you had a SSM that resulted in an applicable emission standard in the relevant standard being exceeded, and you took an action that was not consistent with your SSM plan. d. The information specified in § 63.1066(b) including: Notification of inspection, inspection results, requests for alternate devices, and requests for extensions, as applicable. e. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), the requirement to include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) no longer applies. a. The information required in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............ See the submission requirement in item 1.a of this table. See the submission requirement in item 1.a of this table. See the submission requirement in item 1.a of this table. i. Except as specified in item 2.a.ii of this table, by letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority (§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii)). ii. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in § 63.2342(e), item 2.a.i of this table no longer applies. 34. Table 12 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows: Citation Subject Brief description § 63.1 ............................... Applicability ............................. § 63.2 ............................... § 63.3 ............................... § 63.4 ............................... Definitions ............................... Units and Abbreviations .......... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention. Construction/Reconstruction ... Compliance with Standards/ O&M Applicability. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Initial applicability determination; Applicability after standard established; Permit requirements; Extensions, Notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards ............................. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ........ Prohibited activities; Circumvention, Severability .... § 63.5 ............................... § 63.6(a) ........................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................ § 63.6(b)(5) ...................... Notification .............................. § 63.6(b)(6) ...................... § 63.6(b)(7) ...................... [Reserved] .............................. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................ § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................ § 63.6(c)(5) ...................... [Reserved] .............................. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. § 63.6(d) ........................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................... [Reserved] .............................. Operation & Maintenance ....... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Applies to subpart EEEE Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Applicability; Applications; Approvals ...................... GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for CAA section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes. Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were an area source. Comply according to date in this subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for CAA section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in this subpart or by equivalent time period (e.g., 3 years). Yes. Operate to minimize emissions at all times ............ Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2350(d) for general duty requirement. Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56362 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows: Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .................. Operation & Maintenance ....... Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable .......... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................. Operation & Maintenance ....... Operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.6(e)(2) ...................... § 63.6(e)(3) ...................... [Reserved] .............................. SSM Plan ................................ § 63.6(f)(1) ....................... Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................. Methods for Determining Compliance. Alternative Standard ............... Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Procedures for getting an alternative standard ....... You must comply with opacity and visible emission standards at all times except during SSM. § 63.6(h)(2)–(9) ................ Opacity/Visible Emission Standards. Requirements for compliance with opacity and visible emission standards. § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ............... Compliance Extension ............ § 63.6(j) ............................ § 63.7(a)(2) ...................... Presidential Compliance Exemption. Performance Test Dates ......... § 63.7(a)(3) ...................... Section 114 Authority ............. § 63.7(b)(1) ...................... Notification of Performance Test. Notification of Rescheduling ... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. President may exempt any source from requirement to comply with this subpart. Dates for conducting initial performance testing; must conduct 180 days after compliance date. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test .. § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ................ § 63.6(h)(1) ...................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.7(b)(2) ...................... § 63.7(c) ........................... Quality Assurance (QA)/Test Plan. § 63.7(d) ........................... § 63.7(e)(1) ...................... Testing Facilities ..................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. § 63.7(e)(2) ...................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. § 63.7(e)(3) ...................... Test Run Duration .................. § 63.7(e)(4) ...................... Authority to Require Testing ... § 63.7(f) ............................ Alternative Test Method .......... § 63.7(g) ........................... Performance Test Data Analysis. § 63.7(h) ........................... Waiver of Tests ....................... § 63.8(a)(1) ...................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Requirement for SSM plan; content of SSM plan; actions during SSM. If you have to reschedule performance test, must notify Administrator of rescheduled date as soon as practicable and without delay. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Requirements for testing facilities ........................... Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions; cannot conduct performance tests during SSM. Must conduct according to this subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Administrator has authority to require testing under CAA section 114 regardless of § 63.7 (e)(1)–(3). Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an intermediate or major change, or alternative to a test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status; keep data for 5 years. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]; however, (1) the 2-day reporting requirement in paragraph § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) does not apply and (2) § 63.6(e)(3) does not apply to emissions sources not requiring control. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No; except as it applies to flares for which Method 22 observations are required as part of a flare compliance assessment. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2354(b)(6). Yes. Yes; however, for transfer racks per §§ 63.987(b)(3)(i)(A)–(B) and 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A)– (B) provide exceptions to the requirement for test runs to be at least 1 hour each. Yes. Yes. Yes, except this subpart specifies how and when the performance test and performance evaluation results are reported. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56363 TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows: Citation Subject Brief description § 63.8(a)(2) ...................... Performance Specifications .... Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes. § 63.8(a)(3) ...................... § 63.8(a)(4) ...................... [Reserved] .............................. Monitoring of Flares ................ Monitoring requirements for flares in § 63.11 .......... § 63.8(b)(1) ...................... Monitoring ............................... Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]; however, flare monitoring requirements in § 63.987(c) also apply before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2380. Yes. § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................ Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. § 63.8(c)(1) ...................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Routine and Predictable SSM § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .................. Applies to subpart EEEE Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems; must install on each affected source or after combined with another affected source before it is released to the atmosphere provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standard; if more than one monitoring system on an emission point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. Keep parts for routine repairs readily available; reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSM plan.. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .................. CMS malfunction not in SSM plan. Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Keep the necessary parts for routine repairs if CMS malfunctions. Develop a written SSM plan for CMS ..................... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................ Monitoring System Installation § 63.8(c)(4) ...................... CMS Requirements ................ § 63.8(c)(5) ...................... § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ................ COMS Minimum Procedures .. CMS Requirements ................ § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ................ CMS Quality Control ............... Must install to get representative emission or parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test. CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and highlevel calibration drifts; COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6minute period; CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15minute period. COMS minimum procedures ................................... Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Out-of-control periods. Requirements for CMS quality control .................... § 63.8(d)(3) ...................... CMS Quality Control ............... Must keep quality control plan on record for 5 years; keep old versions. § 63.8(e) ........................... CMS Performance Evaluation Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ................. Alternative Monitoring Method § 63.8(f)(6) ....................... § 63.8(g) ........................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction ....................... § 63.9(a) ........................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2), (4)–(5) ... Notification Requirements ....... Initial Notifications ................... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 hour averages computed over at least 4 equally spaced data points; data that cannot be used in average. Applicability and State delegation ........................... Submit notification within 120 days after effective date; notification of intent to construct/reconstruct, notification of commencement of construction/reconstruction, notification of startup; contents of each. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. Yes; however, COMS are not applicable. No. Yes, but only applies for CEMS. 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS provides requirements for CPMS. Yes, but only applies for CEMS. 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS provides requirements for CPMS. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], but only applies for CEMS. 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS provides requirements for CPMS. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2366(c). Yes, but only applies for CEMS, except this subpart specifies how and when the performance evaluation results are reported. Yes, but 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS also provides procedures for approval of CPMS. Yes. Yes; however, COMS are not applicable. Yes. Yes. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 56364 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows: Citation Subject § 63.9(c) ........................... Request for Compliance Extension. § 63.9(d) ........................... Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Sources. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of VE/Opacity Test Additional Notifications When Using CMS. § 63.9(e) ........................... § 63.9(f) ............................ § 63.9(g) ........................... Applies to subpart EEEE Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate (BACT/LAER). For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ........................... Yes. Notify Administrator 30 days prior ........................... Notification of performance evaluation; notification about use of COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy alternative. Contents due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/visible emissions, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. No. Yes; however, there are no opacity standards. § 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ................ Notification of Compliance Status. § 63.9(i) ............................ § 63.10(a) ......................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information. Recordkeeping/Reporting ....... § 63.10(b)(1) .................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ....... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................. Records Related to Startup and Shutdown. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................ Recordkeeping Relevant to Malfunction Periods and CMS. Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution equipment. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............... Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring Equipment. Recordkeeping Relevant to SSM Periods and CMS. Maintenance on air pollution control equipment ..... Actions during SSM ................................................. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi) ........ § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .............. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .............. Recordkeeping Relevant to SSM Periods and CMS. CMS Records ......................... Records .................................. Records .................................. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............. Records .................................. § 63.10(b)(3) .................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(14) ............ § 63.10(c)(15) .................. Records .................................. Records .................................. Records .................................. § 63.10(d)(1) .................... § 63.10(d)(4) .................... General Reporting Requirements. Report of Performance Test Results. Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Progress Reports .................... § 63.10(d)(5) .................... SSM Reports .......................... § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) .............. Additional CMS Reports ......... § 63.9(j) ............................ § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) ............... § 63.10(b)(2)(v) ................ § 63.10(d)(2) .................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Brief description § 63.10(d)(3) .................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change ......... Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures for owners of more than one source. General requirements; keep all records readily available; keep for 5 years. Occurrence of each for operations (process equipment). Actions during SSM ................................................. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control periods .... Records when under waiver .................................... Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. All documentation supporting initial notification and notification of compliance status. Applicability determinations ..................................... Additional records for CMS ..................................... Additional records for CMS ..................................... Requirement to report ............................................. When to submit to Federal or State authority ......... What to report and when ......................................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission ........................................ Must report results for each CEMS on a unit; written copy of CMS performance evaluation; 2–3 copies of COMS performance evaluation. Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Yes. Yes. Yes; however, (1) there are no opacity standards and (2) all initial Notification of Compliance Status, including all performance test data, are to be submitted at the same time, either within 240 days after the compliance date or within 60 days after the last performance test demonstrating compliance has been completed, whichever occurs first. Yes. No. These changes will be reported in the first and subsequent compliance reports. Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2390(f). Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Yes. No. This subpart specifies how and when the performance test results are reported. Yes. Yes. Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii). Yes, except this subpart specifies how and when the performance evaluation results are reported; however, COMS are not applicable. E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / Proposed Rules 56365 TABLE 12 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART EEEE—Continued As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows: Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE § 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii) .......... Reports ................................... § 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) ......... Excess Emissions Reports ..... Yes; however, note that the title of the report is the compliance report; deviations include excess emissions and parameter exceedances. Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(vi)–(viii) ....... Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report. § 63.10(e)(4) .................... Reporting COMS Data ............ § 63.10(f) .......................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting. Flares ...................................... Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations). Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there is an excess emissions or parameter monitoring exceedance (now defined as deviations); provision to request semiannual reporting after compliance for 1 year; submit report by 30th day following end of quarter or calendar half; if there has not been an exceedance or excess emissions (now defined as deviations), report contents in a statement that there have been no deviations; must submit report containing all of the information in §§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) and 63.10(c)(5)– (13). Requirements for reporting excess emissions for CMS (now called deviations); requires all of the information in §§ 63.10(c)(5)–(13) and 63.8(c)(7)–(8). Must submit COMS data with performance test data. Procedures for Administrator to waive .................... Requirements for flares ........................................... Yes, before [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]; § 63.987 requirements apply, and the section references § 63.11(b). No, beginning on and after [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. See § 63.2380. Yes. § 63.11(b) ......................... § 63.11(c), (d), and (e) .... § 63.12 ............................. § 63.13 ............................. Control and work practice requirements. Delegation ............................... Addresses ............................... § 63.14 ............................. § 63.15 ............................. Incorporation by Reference .... Availability of Information ........ Alternative work practice for equipment leaks ........ State authority to enforce standards ....................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Test methods incorporated by reference ................ Public and confidential information ......................... No. This subpart specifies the reported information for deviations within the compliance reports. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. [FR Doc. 2019–21690 Filed 10–18–19; 8:45 am] khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Oct 18, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21OCP2.SGM 21OCP2

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56288-56365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21690]



[[Page 56287]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 203

October 21, 2019

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology 
Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 203 / Monday, October 21, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 56288]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074; FRL-10000-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT86


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) 
(OLD) source category. The EPA is proposing amendments to the storage 
tank and equipment leak requirements as a result of the residual risk 
and technology review (RTR). The EPA is also proposing amendments to 
allow terminals the option to implement a fenceline monitoring program 
in lieu of the enhancements to the storage tank and equipment leak 
requirements; correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to 
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); 
add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results 
and reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and 
Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; add operational 
requirements for flares; and make other minor technical improvements. 
We estimate that these proposed amendments would reduce emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from this source category by 386 tons 
per year (tpy), which represents an approximate 16-percent reduction of 
HAP emissions from the source category.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2019. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before November 20, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before October 28, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0074, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0074 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0074.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. Comments received may be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding 
the risk assessment, contact Mr. Ted Palma, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; fax 
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Ms. Gerri 
Garwood, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-2406; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the 
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to 
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a 
public hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0074. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This

[[Page 56289]]

type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Btu/scf British thermal units per standard cubic foot
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring system
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, also 
known as the hazardous organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IFR internal floating roof
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHVcz net heating value in the combustion zone gas
NHVvg net heating value of the flare vent gas
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
REL reference exposure level
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UV-DOAS ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

[[Page 56290]]

    A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and 112(d)(3)?
    B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    E. What other actions are we proposing?
    F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992), the OLD 
source category includes, but is not limited to, those activities 
associated with the storage and distribution of organic liquids other 
than gasoline, at sites which serve as distribution points from which 
organic liquids may be obtained for further use and processing.
    The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic 
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities 
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to 
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks 
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. The OLD NESHAP is 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. Organic liquids are any crude 
oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and any non-
crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of any 
combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do not 
include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 
distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and fuel oil, fuel 
that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste, 
wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual 
average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pound per 
square inch absolute (psia)). Emission sources controlled by the OLD 
NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while 
being loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and 
sampling connections) that have the potential to leak.
    The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the 
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are 
already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids 
distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, 
then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in 
the OLD NESHAP.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              North American Industry
        Source category and NESHAP         Classification System (NAICS)
                                                        Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-         3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259,
 Gasoline).                                 3261, 3361, 3362, 3399,
                                            4247, 4861, 4869, 4931,
                                            5622.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 
process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary 
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those 
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address 
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is 
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to 
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review 
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there 
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control

[[Page 56291]]

technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into the 
standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this action.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tpy or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 
HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must 
reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable 
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT) standards in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)\1\ 
of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. 
If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being 
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After 
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a 
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 
31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial 
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992), 
the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to, those 
activities associated with the storage and distribution of organic 
liquids other than gasoline, at sites that serve as distribution points 
from which organic liquids may be obtained for further use and 
processing.
    The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic 
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities 
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to 
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks 
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. Organic liquids are 
any crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer and 
any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of 
any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do 
not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 
distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oil and

[[Page 56292]]

fuel oil, fuel that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, 
hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid 
with an annual average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals 
(0.1 psia). The OLD NESHAP applies only to major sources of HAP (i.e., 
sources that have the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 
tpy of combined HAP). Facilities subject to this NESHAP fall into two 
types, either (1) petrochemical terminals primarily in the business of 
storing and distributing organic liquids or (2) chemical production 
facilities or other manufacturing facilities that have either a 
distribution terminal not subject to another major source NESHAP or 
have a few miscellaneous storage tanks or transfer racks that are not 
otherwise subject to another major source NESHAP.
    Equipment controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer 
operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and equipment leak 
components (valves, pumps, and sampling connections) that have the 
potential to leak. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 contains the 
criteria for control of storage tanks and transfer racks. If a storage 
tank of a certain threshold capacity stores crude oil or a non-crude 
organic liquid having a threshold sum of partial pressures of HAP, then 
compliance options are either to (1) route emissions through a closed 
vent system to a control device that achieves a 95-percent control 
efficiency or (2) comply with work practice standards of 40 CFR part 63 
subpart WW (i.e., operate the tank with a compliant internal floating 
roof (IFR) or a compliant external floating roof), route emissions 
through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system of a process, or 
route emissions through a vapor balancing system that meets 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4). Storage tanks storing 
non-crude organic liquids having a sum of partial pressures of HAP of 
at least 11.1 psia do not have the option to comply using an internal 
or external floating roof tank. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 
contains the criteria for control of transfer racks, which are based on 
the facility-wide organic liquid loading volume for organic liquids 
having threshold HAP content expressed in percent HAP by weight of the 
organic liquid. For transfer racks required to control HAP emissions, 
the standards are either to (1) route emissions through a closed vent 
system to a control device that achieves 98-percent control efficiency 
or (2) operate a compliant vapor balancing system. Transfer rack 
systems that fill containers of 55 gallons or greater are required to 
comply with specific provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP or 
operate a vapor balancing system.
    The NESHAP requires leak detection and repair for certain equipment 
components associated with storage tanks and transfer racks subject to 
this subpart and for certain equipment components associated with 
pipelines between such storage tanks and transfer racks. The components 
are specified in the definition of ``equipment leak components'' at 40 
CFR 63.2406 and include pumps, valves, and sampling connection systems 
in organic liquid service. The owner or operator is required to comply 
with the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 
2), or subpart H. This requires the use of Method 21 of appendix A-7 to 
40 CFR part 60 (``Method 21'') to determine the concentration of any 
detected leaks and to repair the component if the measured 
concentration exceeds the definition of a leak within the applicable 
subpart.
    Pressure relief devices on vapor balancing systems are required to 
be monitored quarterly for leaks. An instrument reading of 500 parts 
per million (ppm) or greater defines a leak. Leaks must be repaired 
within 5 days.
    The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the 
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are 
already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in organic liquids 
distribution service and is subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, 
then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding requirements in 
the OLD NESHAP.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    The EPA used several sources to develop the list of existing 
facilities subject to the OLD NESHAP. All facilities in the 2014 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and the Toxics Release Inventory 
having a facility source type as petroleum storage facility or with a 
primary facility NAICS code beginning with 325, representing the 
chemical manufacturing sector, were queried to create a comprehensive 
base facility list. We supplemented this list with facility lists from 
the original OLD NESHAP rule, the Marine Vessel Loading NESHAP, a list 
of petrochemical storage facilities from the Internal Revenue Service, 
and from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's 
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) tool (https://echo.epa.gov). The EPA reviewed title V air permits to determine which 
facilities on the comprehensive list were subject to the OLD NESHAP. 
The current facility list consists of 177 facilities subject to the OLD 
NESHAP.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    We are relying on technical reports and memoranda that the EPA 
developed for flares used as air pollution control devices (APCDs) in 
the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR and New Source Performance Standards 
rulemaking (80 FR 75178, December 1, 2015). These technical reports and 
memoranda can be found in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket for that 
action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. The Petroleum Refinery 
Sector Docket contains a number of flare-related technical reports and 
memoranda documenting numerous analyses the EPA conducted to develop 
the final suite of operational and monitoring requirements for refinery 
flares. We are incorporating this docket by reference in this rule. 
Even though we are incorporating the Petroleum Refinery Sector Docket 
by reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action 
and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including a 
list of specific technical support documents in Table 1 of the 
memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, in this docket for 
this action.
    Also related to the enhancements we are proposing for flares, we 
are citing the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak Terminal 
Deer Park consent decree, available at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-north-america-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-agreement and included 
in the docket for this action.
    We are also relying on background information about the fenceline 
monitoring program established for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. We are incorporating this docket by 
reference in this rule. Even though we are incorporating the docket by 
reference, for completeness of the rulemaking record for this action 
and for ease of reference in finding these items, we are including the 
following document in the docket for this action memorandum, Fenceline 
Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final Rule.
    Lastly, we are incorporating by reference into this action all the 
information associated with the

[[Page 56293]]

development of the current OLD NESHAP standards at Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0138. This docket includes the materials from the legacy 
Docket ID No. A-98-13 associated with the development of the original 
OLD NESHAP.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor and, thus, the Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information. 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, the Agency again considers all of the health risk 
and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that 
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of 
control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of 
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors. Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that the policy 
chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures 
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also 
incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the 
most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the 
general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual 
case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the 
Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by 
employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with 
the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use 
of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby 
implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk 
which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to 
determining what will protect the public health. See 54 FR 38057, 
September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be 
weighed in determining acceptability of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Benzene NESHAP explained that an MIR of approximately one-in-10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors. Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and 
risk with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, 
depending on all of the available health information. Similarly, with 
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 
Benzene NESHAP that: EPA believes the relative weight of the many 
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety 
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs 
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the 
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category. 
Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the 
various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability, and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source category under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review 
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: 
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission

[[Page 56294]]

points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) 
combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that 
could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and 
bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. 
In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk 
from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all 
noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than 
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or 
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the 
assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emission standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in 
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information 
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the 
technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.B of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the 
following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to 
assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are 
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by 
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009,\4\ and described in the SAB review 
report issued in 2010.\5\ They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    \5\ U.S. EPA SAB. Review of EPA's draft, Risk and Technology 
Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's 
Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining 
Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing'' May 2010. https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    The OLD facility list was developed as described in section II.C of 
this preamble and currently consists of 177 facilities identified as 
being subject to the OLD NESHAP. The emissions modeling input files 
were developed using the EPA's 2014 NEI. The complete OLD facility list 
is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA used the 2014 NEI data for these facilities to create the 
risk assessment model input files using all available HAP emissions 
records and other emission release parameters. From the whole facility 
risk assessment model input file, the EPA identified emission sources 
within the OLD source category from the 2014 NEI data such as source 
classification codes (SCCs) and SCC descriptions, emission unit 
descriptions, and process descriptions to identify emissions that are 
subject to OLD and those that are not. For example, emission units that 
were described as chemical production process vents were marked as 
being out of the source category. For many facilities in the source 
category, the EPA used information in the title V permit to relate 
emissions in the 2014 NEI and to assign whether the emissions are 
within the OLD source category. In several cases, in the absence of 
definitive information that would place the emissions out of the OLD 
source category, if the 2014 NEI data indicated

[[Page 56295]]

the emissions were associated with a storage tank, a transfer rack or 
equipment leaks, the emissions are presumed to be in the OLD source 
category. For 21 sources, there were no HAP emissions in the 2014 NEI 
that were able to be attributed to OLD equipment.
    The EPA reviewed emissions release point information such as 
release point location; emission release point type (stack verses 
fugitive); temperature; and the correlation between stack diameter, 
velocity, and volumetric flow. In some cases, we corrected release 
point locations where the original location was outside of the apparent 
facility boundary. During the process of quality assuring the modeling 
file input data, for some cases, we obtained specific information from 
facility contacts. On November 6, 2018, we also posted a draft of the 
model input file on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. We received feedback from two companies 
and included those comments in the docket for this action. Except for 
removing facilities having no OLD applicability, the EPA did not make 
any of the changes to the modeling file in response to these comments 
after posting the draft model input file on the EPA's website because 
none of the changes would impact the conclusions of the source category 
risk results.
    A record of all changes made to the risk assessment model input 
file throughout the quality assurance process is provided in Appendix 1 
of the memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids 
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    For the risk assessment modeling purposes, we modeled 2014 NEI 
reported actual emissions for the OLD source category. In preparation 
of this RTR, we did not conduct an information collection of the 
equipment in this source category. Instead, we relied primarily upon 
the 2014 NEI emissions data and readily available title V permit 
information to characterize the actual emissions from the source 
category. We consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best 
available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk 
assessment model.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\6\ The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\7\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \8\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These values are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \8\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at 
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility 
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for 
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound 
estimate of an individual's incremental risk of contracting cancer over 
a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the 
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we 
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, 
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a 
manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer

[[Page 56296]]

review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-
response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to 
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \9\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the environment,\10\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological 
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our 
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion 
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the 
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source 
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for 
Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We have been applying this revision in 
RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support 
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft 
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point, reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th 
percentile),\11\ and the point of highest off-site exposure. 
Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category 
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a 
person is present at the point of maximum exposure. These assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario and, although less 
conservative than our previous approach, is still sufficiently 
conservative given that it is unlikely that a person would be located 
at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions 
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur 
simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in 
Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk 
Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response 
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, 
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated

[[Page 56297]]

for a specified exposure duration.'' \12\ Acute RELs are based on the 
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-
reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to 
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the 
inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL 
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs 
represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are 
applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 
hours.\13\ They are guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-
term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-
priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as 
``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 
mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \13\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \14\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour 
without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 
effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take 
protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, we used the default acute emissions 
multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 
1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases for 
which an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess 
the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site 
location. For this source category, the data refinements employed 
consisted of determining the maximum off-site acute HQ for each 
facility that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are 
discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the 
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the OLD source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of 
arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). 
Therefore, we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for 
lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of 
three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine 
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP 
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through 
ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions 
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for 
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening 
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total 
Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure 
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates 
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins 
and furans, mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of 
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a 
conservative list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for 
RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this 
assessment, we compare the facility-specific emission rates of these 
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to 
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the 
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission 
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening 
value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to

[[Page 56298]]

correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million 
(i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans 
and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium 
compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission 
rate of any one PB-HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the 
Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold 
emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater 
than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the 
Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates 
the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, 
farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher scenario and 
farmer exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the 
Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near 
the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from 
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between 
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the 
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed 
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each 
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations 
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local 
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures with 
the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under 
the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced 
eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the 
farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake 
assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female 
angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \15\) and locally grown or 
raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised 
foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \16\). If PB-HAP emission 
rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we 
consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. 
If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 
threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \16\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating 
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\17\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway 
assessment approach, see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety''). 
However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of 
determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene 
NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most 
susceptible group in the human population--children, including 
children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 
FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the 
primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, 
since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
    In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening 
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering 
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control 
options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission 
reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the 
RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and 
incremental risk reductions.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid 
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological

[[Page 56299]]

entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both 
community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid 
gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant 
communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the OLD source category emitted 
any of the environmental HAP. For the OLD source category, we 
identified emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/
furans, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), lead 
compounds, HCl, and HF. Because one or more of the environmental HAP 
evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, 
we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the 
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk 
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model 
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. 
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission 
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that 
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant 
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the 
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to 
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each 
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do 
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility 
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated 
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility 
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 
facility further in Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words,

[[Page 56300]]

we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission 
points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission 
sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source 
category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset 
compiled from the 2014 NEI. We flagged source category records of that 
NEI dataset as described in section II.C of this preamble. We performed 
quality assurance and quality control on the whole facility dataset, 
including the source category records. The facility-wide file was then 
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted 
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each 
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category 
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the 
modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks 
to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be 
attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also 
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest 
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk 
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source 
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed 
Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the 
methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all 
facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution 
to facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full 
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health 
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an 
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly 
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations 
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We 
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block 
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper

[[Page 56301]]

bound estimate of risk.\18\ That is, they represent a ``plausible upper 
limit to the true value of a quantity'' (although this is usually not a 
true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true 
risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk 
could be greater.\19\ Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) 
values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be 
health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are 
intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies 
upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,\20\ which considers 
uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are 
applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect 
against appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \19\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \20\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are 
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot 
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in 
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this 
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for 
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a 
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is 
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, 
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for 
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of 
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those 
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the 
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the 
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in 
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, 
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control 
options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it 
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum 
exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case 
air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels 
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined 
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or 
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening 
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant 
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are 
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important 
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR 
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on 
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from the 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the

[[Page 56302]]

screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 
multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in 
support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We 
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl 
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can 
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air 
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils 
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. 
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful 
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP 
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been 
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, 
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models 
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may 
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may 
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and 
resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 
112(d)(3)?

    In this action, we are proposing the following pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3): \22\ (1) Adding monitoring and operational 
requirements for flares used as an APCD and (2) requesting comment on 
whether the EPA should add requirements and clarifications for pressure 
relief devices (PRD). The results and proposed decisions based on the 
analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are 
presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The EPA has authority under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
to set MACT standards for previously unregulated emission points. 
The EPA also retains the discretion to revise a MACT standard under 
the authority of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) (see Portland Cement 
Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011), such as when it 
identifies an error in the original standard. See also Medical Waste 
Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d at 426 (upholding the EPA action 
establishing MACT floors, based on post-compliance data, when 
originally-established floors were improperly established).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Flares
    The EPA is proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to amend 
the operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs in 
the OLD source category because we have determined that the current 
requirements for flares are not adequate to ensure the level of 
destruction efficiency needed to conform with the MACT standards for 
the OLD source category. A flare is a type of APCD used in the OLD 
source category to control emissions from a single emission source 
(i.e., a storage tank or a transfer rack) or multiple emission sources 
(i.e., a combination of several storage tanks and/or transfer racks). 
We have determined that 27 flares at 16 OLD facilities would be 
affected by these proposed operating and monitoring requirements (see 
the memorandum, Control Option Impacts for Flares Located in the 
Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in the docket for this 
action).
    The requirements applicable to flares in the OLD NESHAP are set 
forth in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are cross-
referenced in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The OLD NESHAP allows storage 
tanks and transfer racks to vent through a closed vent system and flare 
that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. In general, 
flares used as APCDs at OLD facilities are expected to achieve a 
minimum destruction efficiency of at least 98 percent by weight, when 
designed and operated according to the General Provisions. Studies on 
flare performance, however, indicate that these General Provision 
requirements are inadequate to ensure proper performance of flares at 
refineries and other petrochemical facilities (including chemical 
manufacturing facilities), particularly when either assist steam or 
assist air is used, but also when no assist is used.\23\ The data from 
the recent

[[Page 56303]]

studies on flare performance \24\ clearly indicate that combustion 
efficiencies begin to deteriorate at combustion net heating values 
above 200 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) and 
that an operating limit of 200 Btu/scf in the flare vent gas, as 
currently provided in the General Provisions for unassisted flares, 
does not ensure that these flares will achieve an average destruction 
efficiency of 98 percent. Therefore, we believe the proposed amendments 
described in this section are necessary to ensure that OLD facilities 
that use flares as APCD meet the MACT standards at all times when 
controlling HAP emissions. In fact, at least one recent consent decree 
addresses inefficient flare operations at a large bulk terminal in the 
OLD source category.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Based on review of NEI description fields and a sampling of 
air permits, we believe the majority of flares at OLD facilities are 
non-assisted.
    \24\ Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, 
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191.
    \25\ See the Flare Operational Requirements in the Vopak 
Terminal Deer Park consent decree, available at: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/vopak-north-america-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Provisions of 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that flares are 
(1) steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted; (2) operated at all 
times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and 
operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a 
total of 5 minutes during any two consecutive hours); and (4) operated 
with the presence of a pilot flame at all times. These General 
Provisions also specify both the minimum heat content of gas combusted 
in the flare and maximum exit velocity at the flare tip. The General 
Provisions specify monitoring for the presence of the pilot flame and 
the operation of a flare with no visible emissions. For other operating 
limits, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS requires an initial flare compliance 
assessment to demonstrate compliance but specifies no monitoring 
requirements to ensure continuous compliance.
    In 2012, the EPA compiled information and test data collected on 
flares and summarized its preliminary findings on operating parameters 
that affect flare combustion efficiency (see the technical report, 
Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, in Docket ID Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0191, which has been incorporated into the 
docket for this action). The EPA submitted the report, along with a 
charge statement and a set of charge questions, to an external peer 
review panel.\26\ The panel, consisting of individuals representing a 
variety of backgrounds and perspectives (i.e., industry, academia, 
environmental experts, and industrial flare consultants), concurred 
with the EPA's assessment that the following three primary factors 
affect flare performance: (1) The flow of the vent gas to the flare; 
(2) the amount of assist media (e.g., steam or air) added to the flare; 
and (3) the combustibility of the vent gas/assist media mixture in the 
combustion zone (i.e., the net heating value, lower flammability limit, 
and/or combustibles concentration) at the flare tip. However, in 
response to peer review comments, the EPA performed a validation and 
usability analysis on all available test data as well as a failure 
analysis on potential parameters discussed in the technical report as 
indicators of flare performance. The peer review comments are in the 
memorandum, Peer Review of Parameters for Properly Designed and 
Operated Flares, available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0193, which has been incorporated into the docket for this action. 
These analyses resulted in a change to the population of test data the 
EPA used and helped form the basis for the flare operating limits 
promulgated in the 2015 Petroleum Refinery Sector final rule at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart CC (80 FR 75178). We are also relying on the same 
analyses and proposing the same operating limits for flares used as 
APCDs in the OLD source category. The Agency believes, given the 
results from the various data analyses conducted for the Petroleum 
Refinery Sector rule (see section II.D of this preamble, which states 
that the Petroleum Refinery RTR Docket is incorporated by reference 
into the docket for this action),\27\ that the operating limits 
promulgated for flares used in the Petroleum Refinery Sector are also 
appropriate and reasonable and will ensure flares used as APCDs in the 
OLD source category meet the HAP removal efficiency at all times. 
Therefore, to ensure clarity and consistency in terminology with the 
Petroleum Refinery Sector rule (80 FR 75178), we are proposing at 40 
CFR 63.2380 to directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule flare 
definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in 
the OLD source category with certain clarifications and exemptions as 
discussed in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ These documents can also be found at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source.
    \27\ See technical memorandum, Flare Performance Data: Summary 
of Peer Review Comments and Additional Data Analysis for Steam-
Assisted Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0200 for 
a more detailed discussion of the data quality and analysis. See 
technical memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating 
Limits for Flares, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0206 
for a more detailed discussion of the failure analysis. See 
technical memorandum, Flare Control Option Impacts for Final 
Refinery Sector Rule, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0748 for additional analyses on flare performance standards based on 
public comments received on the proposed refinery rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the MACT standards in the OLD NESHAP cross-reference the 
General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b) for the operational requirements 
for flares used as APCD (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS). This proposal specifies all operational and monitoring 
requirements that are intended to apply to flares used as APCDs in the 
OLD source category. All of the flare requirements in this proposed 
rulemaking are intended to ensure compliance with the MACT standards in 
the OLD NESHAP when using a flare as an APCD.
a. Pilot Flames
    This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source 
category operate pilot flame systems continuously when organic HAP 
emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP references the flare 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE), which specify 
that a flare used as an APCD should operate with a pilot flame present 
at all times. Pilot flames are proven to improve flare flame stability, 
and even short durations of an extinguished pilot could cause a 
significant reduction in flare destruction efficiency. In this action, 
we are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the General 
Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to 
include in the OLD NESHAP the existing provisions that flares operate 
with a pilot flame at all times and be continuously monitored for a 
pilot flame using a thermocouple or any other equivalent device.
    We are also proposing to add a continuous compliance measure that 
would consider each 15-minute block when there is at least 1 minute 
where no pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to 
the flare as a deviation from the standard. The proposed requirements 
are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(b) and (g). See 
section IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to 
use a 15-minute block averaging period for determining continuous 
compliance.
    We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare pilot 
flames.

[[Page 56304]]

b. Visible Emissions
    This action proposes that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source 
category operate with no visible emissions (except for periods not to 
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when 
organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare. The OLD NESHAP 
references 40 CFR 63.11(b) (through reference of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify 
that a flare used as an APCD should operate with visible emissions for 
no more than 5 minutes in a 2-hour period. Owners or operators of these 
flares are required to conduct an initial performance demonstration for 
visible emissions using Method 22 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 
(``Method 22''). We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the 
General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CC to include the limitation on visible emissions. We are also 
proposing to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible emissions 
demonstration should be conducted the first-time regulated materials 
are routed to the flare.
    With regard to continuous compliance with the visible emissions 
limitation, we are proposing daily visible emissions monitoring for 
whenever regulated material is routed to the flare and visible 
emissions are observed from the flare. On days the flare receives 
regulated material, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares 
monitor visible emissions at a minimum of once per day using an 
observation period of 5 minutes and Method 22. Additionally, whenever 
regulated material is routed to the flare and there are visible 
emissions from the flare, we are proposing that another 5-minute 
visible emissions observation period be performed using Method 22, even 
if the required daily visible emissions monitoring has already been 
performed. If an employee observes visible emissions, then the owner or 
operator of the flare would perform a 5-minute Method 22 observation to 
check for compliance upon initial observation or notification of such 
event. In addition, in lieu of daily visible emissions observations 
performed using Method 22, we are proposing that owners and operators 
be allowed to use video surveillance cameras. We believe that video 
surveillance cameras would be at least as effective as the proposed 
daily 5-minute visible emissions observations using Method 22. We are 
also proposing to extend the observation period for a flare to 2 hours 
whenever visible emissions are observed for greater than 1 continuous 
minute during any of the required 5-minute observation periods. Refer 
to 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (h) for these proposed 
requirements.
    We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding visible 
emissions.
c. Flare Tip Velocity
    This action consolidates provisions related to flare tip velocity. 
The OLD NESHAP references the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) 
(through reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEEE), which specify maximum flare tip velocities 
based on flare type (non-assisted, steam-assisted, or air-assisted) and 
the net heating value of the flare vent gas. These maximum flare tip 
velocities are required to ensure that the flame does not ``lift off'' 
the flare (i.e., a condition where a flame separates from the tip of 
the flare and there is space between the flare tip and the bottom of 
the flame), which could cause flame instability and/or potentially 
result in a portion of the flare gas being released without proper 
combustion. We are proposing to remove the cross-reference to the 
General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CC to consolidate the specification of maximum flare tip velocity into 
the OLD NESHAP as a single equation, irrespective of flare type (i.e., 
steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted). The proposed flare tip 
velocity specifications are set forth in 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 
63.670(d), (i), and (k). We posit that the owner or operator would 
likely follow the provisions at 40 CFR 63.670(i)(4) and (k)(2)(ii) to 
determine the flare tip velocity on a 15-minute block average basis, 
which allows use of a continuous pressure/temperature monitoring system 
and engineering calculations in lieu of the more intricate monitoring 
options also specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. See section 
IV.A.1.e of this preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-
minute block averaging period for determining continuous compliance.
    Based on analysis conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector final 
rule, the EPA identified air-assisted test runs with high flare tip 
velocities that had high combustion efficiencies (see technical 
memorandum, Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Evaluation of Flare Tip 
Velocity Requirements, in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-
0212). These test runs exceeded the maximum flare tip velocity limits 
for air-assisted flares using the linear equation in 40 CFR 
63.11(b)(8). When these test runs were compared with the test runs for 
non-assisted and steam-assisted flares, the air-assisted flares 
appeared to have the same operating envelope as the non-assisted and 
steam-assisted flares. Therefore, for air-assisted flares used as APCDs 
in the OLD source category, we are proposing to use of the same 
equation that non-assisted and steam-assisted flares currently use to 
establish the flare tip velocity operating limit.
    Finally, we are also proposing not to include the special flare tip 
velocity equation in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i)(A) 
for non-assisted flares with hydrogen content greater than 8 percent. 
This equation, which was developed based on limited data from a 
chemical manufacturer, has very limited applicability for flares used 
as APCDs in the OLD source category because it only provides an 
alternative for non-assisted flares with large quantities of hydrogen. 
We believe few, if any, flares in the OLD source category control vent 
gas with large quantities of hydrogen. Nevertheless, we are proposing 
to allow owners and operators the use of the existing compliance 
alternative for hydrogen (i.e., a corrected heat content) that is 
specified in 40 CFR 63.670 which we believe provides a better way for 
flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with high hydrogen 
content to comply with the rule while ensuring proper destruction 
performance of the flare (refer to the Petroleum Refinery preamble, 80 
FR 75178, for further details about the corrected heat content for 
hydrogen). Therefore, we are proposing to not include this special 
flare tip velocity equation as a compliance alternative for non-
assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category with hydrogen 
content greater than 8 percent.
    We solicit comment on the proposed revisions regarding flare-tip 
velocity.
d. Net Heating Value of the Combustion Zone Gas
    The current requirements for flares in 40 CFR 63.11(b) specify that 
the flare vent gas meets a minimum net heating value of 200 Btu/scf for 
non-assisted flares and 300 Btu/scf for air- and steam-assisted flares. 
The OLD NESHAP references these provisions (through reference of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart SS and Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), but 
neither the General Provisions nor the OLD NESHAP include specific 
requirements for monitoring the net heating value of the vent gas. 
Moreover, recent flare testing results indicate that the minimum net 
heating value alone does not address instances when the flare may be 
over-assisted because it only considers the

[[Page 56305]]

gas being combusted in the flare and nothing else (e.g., no assist 
media). However, many industrial flares use steam or air as an assist 
medium to protect the design of the flare tip, promote turbulence for 
the mixing, induce air into the flame, and operate with no visible 
emissions. Using excessive steam or air results in dilution and cooling 
of flared gases and can lead to operating a flare outside its stable 
flame envelope, thereby reducing the destruction efficiency of the 
flare. In extreme cases, over-steaming or excess aeration can snuff out 
a flame and allow regulated material to be released into the atmosphere 
without complete combustion. As previously noted, we believe the 
majority of flares at OLD facilities are non-assisted. However, for 
flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category that are either steam- 
or air-assisted, it is critical that we ensure the assist media be 
accounted for. Recent flare test data have shown that the best way to 
account for situations of over-assisting is to consider the gas mixture 
properties at the flare tip in the combustion zone when evaluating the 
ability to combust efficiently. As discussed in the introduction to 
this section, the external peer review panel concurred with our 
assessment that the combustion zone properties at the flare tip are 
critical parameters to know in determining whether a flare will achieve 
good combustion. The General Provisions, however, solely rely on the 
net heating value of the flare vent gas.
    In this action, in lieu of requiring compliance with the operating 
limits for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the General 
Provisions, we are proposing to cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CC to include in the OLD NESHAP a single minimum operating limit for 
the net heating value in the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) of 270 Btu/scf 
during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-
assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category. The proposed 
requirements are set forth at 40 CFR 63.2380 and 40 CFR 63.670(e) and 
(m). The Agency believes, given the results from the various data 
analyses conducted for the Petroleum Refinery Sector rule, that this 
NHVcz operating limit promulgated for flares in the Petroleum Refinery 
Sector source category is also appropriate and reasonable and will 
ensure flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category meet the HAP 
destruction efficiencies in the standard at all times when operated in 
concert with the other proposed flare requirements (e.g., pilot flame, 
visible emissions, and flare tip velocity requirements) (see the 
memoranda titled Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule: Operating Limits for 
Flares and Flare Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, 
in Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0206 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0682-0748, respectively).
    In general, refineries are expected to need a flare gas flow 
monitor and either a gas chromatograph, total hydrocarbon analyzer, or 
calorimeter to comply with the final suite of operational and 
monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 63.670 (primarily because refinery 
flare gas can be highly variable in composition and flaring events can 
be unpredictable and episodic in nature). However, flares at OLD 
facilities control a limited amount of flare vent gas streams compared 
to more numerous and variable waste streams at petroleum refineries. 
Given that OLD emission sources are storage tanks and transfer racks, 
the range of organic liquids being distributed through these emissions 
sources are likely known and have consistent composition and flow. 
Therefore, due to the more certain nature of gas streams at OLD 
facilities, we anticipate that owners or operators of flares in the OLD 
source category would use process knowledge, engineering calculations, 
and grab samples as their compliance approach specified at 40 CFR 
63.670(j)(6). Instead of continuously monitoring composition and net 
heating value of the flare vent gas (NHVvg), we anticipate owners and 
operators would be able to characterize the vent gases that could be 
routed to the flare based on a minimum of seven grab samples (14 daily 
grab samples for continuously operated flares) and determine the NHVvg 
that will be used in the equation at 40 CFR 63.670(m)(1) for all 
flaring events (based on the minimum net heating value of the grab 
samples) to determine NHVcz. We are also proposing to allow engineering 
estimates to characterize the amount of gas flared and the amount of 
assist gas (if applicable) introduced into the system. For example, we 
believe that the use of fan curves to estimate air assist rates would 
be acceptable. We anticipate that owners or operators of flares at OLD 
facilities would be able to use the net heating value determined from 
the initial sampling phase and measured or estimated flare vent gas and 
assist gas flow rates, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with 
the standards. We believe most, if not all, owners or operators of 
flares in the OLD source category would be able to use this compliance 
approach.
    Finally, we are proposing that owners or operators of flares in the 
OLD source category that use grab sampling and engineering calculations 
to determine compliance must still assess compliance with the NHVcz 
operating limit on a 15-minute block average using the equation at 40 
CFR 63.670(m)(1) and cumulative volumetric flows of flare vent gas, 
assist steam, and premix assist air. See section IV.A.1.e of this 
preamble for our rationale for proposing to use a 15-minute block 
averaging period for determining continuous compliance.
    We solicit comment on the proposed revisions related to NHVcz.
e. Data Averaging Periods for Flare Gas Operating Limits
    Except for the visible emissions operating limits as described in 
section IV.A.1.b, we are proposing to use a 15-minute block averaging 
period for each proposed flare operating parameter (i.e., presence of a 
pilot flame, flare tip velocity, and NHVcz) to ensure that the flare is 
operated within the appropriate operating conditions. We consider a 
short averaging time to be the most appropriate for assessing proper 
flare performance because flare vent gas flow rates and composition can 
change significantly over short periods of time. Furthermore, because 
destruction efficiency can fall precipitously when a flare is 
controlling vent gases below (or outside) the proposed operating 
limits, short time periods where the operating limits are not met could 
seriously impact the overall performance of the flare. Refer to the 
Petroleum Refinery preambles (79 FR 36880 and 80 FR 75178) for further 
details supporting why we believe a 15-minute averaging period is 
appropriate. We solicit comment on this proposed revision.
f. Emergency Flaring
    We are not proposing the work practice standards for emergency 
flaring that are currently allowed at 40 CFR 63.670(o) for refinery 
flares because we do not believe emergency shutdown situations that 
could occur at a petroleum refinery would exist for the storage and 
transfer operations covered by the OLD regulations. Should an emergency 
occur during an organic liquids transfer, the transfer operation could 
be halted, which in turn would also stop the flow of gas to the flare. 
Similarly, tank breathing losses are fairly steady and predictable and, 
except for a force majeure situation, would not produce any rapid 
increases in gas flow to a flare. We solicit comment on this proposed 
decision.

[[Page 56306]]

g. Impacts of the Flare Operating and Monitoring Requirements
    The EPA expects that the newly proposed requirements for flares 
used as APCDs in the OLD source category will affect 27 flares of 
various flare tip designs (e.g., steam-assisted, air-assisted, and non-
assisted flare tips) that receive flare vent gas flow on a regular 
basis (i.e., other than during periods of SSM).
    Costs were estimated for each flare for a given facility, 
considering the proposed compliance approach discussed in this section 
of the preamble. The results of the impact estimates are summarized in 
Table 2 of this preamble. The baseline emission estimate and the 
emission reductions achieved by the proposed rule were estimated by 
back-calculating from the NEI-reported volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
and HAP controlled emissions assuming various levels of control 
(assuming all flares at OLD facilities operate at a combustion 
efficiency of either 90 percent, 92 percent, or 95 percent instead of 
98 percent). We note that the requirements for flares we are proposing 
in this action will ensure compliance with the MACT standards. As such, 
these proposed operational and monitoring requirements for flares have 
the potential to reduce excess emissions from flares by as much as 64 
tpy of HAP and 645 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline control efficiency 
of 90 percent) or 24 tpy of HAP and 242 tpy of VOC (assuming a baseline 
control efficiency of 95 percent). The VOC compounds are non-methane, 
non-ethane total hydrocarbons. According to the modeling file we used 
to assess risk (see section III.C.1 of this preamble), there are 
approximately 39 individual HAP compounds (28 organic HAP compounds and 
11 other HAP compounds) included in the emission inventory for flares, 
but many of these are emitted in trace quantities. A little more than 
half of the HAP emissions from flares are attributable to 1,3-
butadiene, cumene, and vinyl acetate. For more detail on the impact 
estimates, see the technical memorandum, Control Option Impacts for 
Flares Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074.

 Table 2--Nationwide Costs of Proposed Amendments To Ensure Proper Flare
                               Performance
                                 [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total capital   Total annualized
         Control description             investment     costs (million $/
                                         (million $)          year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flare Operational and Monitoring                  0.19              0.36
 Requirements.......................
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................              0.19              0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pressure Relief Devices
    The acronym ``PRD'' means pressure relief device and is common 
vernacular to describe a variety of devices that release gas to prevent 
over-pressurization in a system. A PRD does not release emissions 
during normal operation but is used only to release unplanned, 
nonroutine discharges whenever the system exceeds a pressure setting. 
Typically, the EPA considers PRD releases to result from an operator 
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or 
other unexpected causes that require immediate venting of gas from 
process equipment to avoid safety hazards or equipment damage. At OLD 
operations, the EPA is aware of PRDs installed on storage tanks, 
transport vehicles (i.e., cargo tank or tank car), and vapor balancing 
systems.
    For the OLD NESHAP, PRDs are not subject to the emission limits in 
the rule but are subject to work practice standards. Because the EPA 
has determined for a number of reasons that it is not practicable to 
measure emissions from a PRD release in any source category, NESHAP 
rules prescribe work practices instead of emission limits. When the 
vapor balancing option is used, the OLD NESHAP work practice requires 
that no PRD on the storage tank or on the cargo tank or tank car shall 
open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes 
(i.e., breathing losses). To avoid breathing losses, the valve pressure 
must be set to no less than 2.5 psia (unless an owner/operator can 
justify that a different value is sufficient to prevent breathing 
losses). In addition, the PRD must be monitored quarterly to identify 
any leaks to the atmosphere while the vent is in the closed position. A 
leak is defined as an instrument reading of 500 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) or greater, and any leak that is detected must be 
repaired within 5 days. For OLD storage tank operations that comply 
using allowable methods in the OLD NESHAP other than vapor balancing, 
the OLD NESHAP requires venting emissions through a closed vent system 
to any combination of control devices or fuel gas system or back to 
process or comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    The EPA is proposing to clarify that PRDs on vapor return lines of 
a vapor balancing system are also subject to the vapor balancing system 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv). We request comments on 
whether work practices should be adopted for PRDs that are not part of 
a vapor balancing system and whether work practices similar to those 
promulgated for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC are 
necessary and appropriate for OLD operations. We do not believe similar 
high-pressure events such as those possible on equipment in petroleum 
refineries are applicable to the storage and transfer operations 
subject to the OLD NESHAP because we do not expect the kind of 
conditions that produce high-pressure events at large refinery process 
equipment (e.g., non-routine evacuation of process equipment) to occur 
at storage tanks or transfer operations subject to the OLD NESHAP 
(generally storage and transfer of liquids stored at pressures close to 
atmospheric pressure). If there are non-vapor balancing system PRDs, we 
request further information on the nature of these devices, including 
the following: Whether these PRDs are in heavy liquid service; whether 
they have a design pressure setting of greater than or less than 2.5 
pounds per square inch gauge; whether they release only in response to 
thermal expansion of fluid; and whether they are pilot-operated and 
balanced bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the 
PRD is vented through a control system. Finally, we request comment on 
whether monitoring devices should be required to be installed and 
operated to ensure the owner and operator is able to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv) 
that no PRD shall open

[[Page 56307]]

during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes.

B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described in section III.C of this preamble, for the OLD source 
category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP 
emitted and multipathway and environmental risk screening assessments 
on the PB-HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment 
briefly below and in more detail in the document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 3 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the 
inhalation risk assessment for the source category. More detailed 
information on the risk assessment can be found in the risk document, 
available in the docket for this action.

                         Table 3--Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Population at
                                             Maximum individual  increased risk of     Annual cancer     Maximum chronic      Maximum screening acute
          Number of facilities \1\            cancer risk (in 1   cancer >=1-in-1     incidence (cases   noncancer TOSHI         noncancer HQ \4\
                                                million) \2\          million            per year)             \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157........................................                 20            350,000                 0.03              0.4   HQREL = 1 (toluene,
                                                                                                                           formaldehyde, and
                                                                                                                           chloroform).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the source category is respiratory.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
  available acute dose-response value.

    As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, the chronic inhalation cancer 
risk assessment, based on actual emissions could be as high as 20-in-1 
million, with 1,3-butadiene from equipment leaks as the major 
contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this 
source category is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess 
case every 33 years. About 350,000 people are estimated to have cancer 
risks above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from this source category, 
with about 3,600 of those people estimated to have cancer risks above 
10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source 
category could be up to 0.4 (respiratory) driven by emissions of 
chlorine from equipment leaks, and no one is exposed to TOSHI levels 
above 1.
    For the OLD source category, it was determined that actual 
emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable 
emissions. The risk results summarized above, based on actual source 
category emissions, therefore, also describe the risk results based on 
allowable emissions.
2. Acute Risk Results
    Table 3 of this preamble provides the maximum acute HQ (based on 
the REL) of 1, driven by actual emissions of toluene, formaldehyde, and 
chloroform. By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective 
level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, 
even for repeated exposures.
    As noted previously, for this source category, the primary emission 
sources of toluene (storage tanks), formaldehyde (unidentified source), 
and chloroform (equipment leaks) emissions were each modeled with an 
hourly emissions multiplier of 10 times the annual emissions rate. The 
maximum acute HQ reflects the highest value estimated to occur outside 
facility boundaries. As presented in Table 3 of this preamble, no 
facilities are estimated to have an acute HQ greater than 1.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    Of the 157 facilities included in the assessment, 24 facilities 
reported emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (POM and arsenic) with six 
facilities exceeding the Tier 1 screening value of 1. For emissions of 
the non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury), eight facilities 
reported emissions with no facility exceeding the Tier 1 screening 
value of 1 for cadmium or mercury. One facility's emission rates of POM 
exceeded the screening value by a factor of 9 and a factor of 3 for 
arsenic. Due to the theoretical construct of the screening model, these 
factors are not directly translatable into estimates of risk or HQs for 
these facilities; rather they indicate that the initial multipathway 
screening assessment does not rule out the potential for multipathway 
impacts of concern. For facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 
multipathway screening threshold emission rate for one or more PB-HAP, 
we used additional facility site-specific information to perform a Tier 
2 assessment and determine the maximum chronic cancer and noncancer 
impacts for the source category. Based on the Tier 2 multipathway 
cancer assessment, POM emissions exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening 
value by a factor of 4 for the fisher scenario and 6 for the farmer 
scenario. Arsenic emissions did not exceed the Tier 2 cancer screening 
value. POM and arsenic combined exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening 
value by a factor of 6 for the farmer scenario and a factor of 4 for 
the gardener scenario.
    An exceedance of a screening threshold emission rate in any of the 
tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it 
represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For 
example, a screening threshold emission rate of 2 for a non-carcinogen 
can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be 
lower than 2. Similarly, a Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate of 
5 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower 
than 5-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the conservative, or 
health-protective, assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We 
choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for 
the influential parameters used in the screening tiers, and we assume 
that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead 
to a high total exposure. Further cancer screening was not warranted 
based upon the conservative nature of the screen.
    Tier 2 noncancer screening threshold emission rates for both 
mercury and cadmium emissions were below 1. Thus, based on the Tier 2 
results presented above, additional screening or site-specific 
assessments were not deemed necessary.

[[Page 56308]]

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the OLD source category for 
the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, hydrochloric acid, 
hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric 
chloride), and POM.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which 
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and mercury emissions had 
no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. POM 
emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at one facility for a no-effect level 
(sediment community) by a maximum screening value of 6.
    A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for POM emissions. In the 
Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the 
ecological benchmarks evaluated for POM.
    For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead 
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each 
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points 
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In 
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., 
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
    Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, 
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The facility-wide chronic MIR and TOSHI are based on emissions from 
all sources at the identified facilities (both MACT and non-MACT 
sources).
    The results indicate that 61 facilities have a facility-wide cancer 
MIR greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, 25 of those facilities 
have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or equal to 10-in-1-
million, 10 facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 
equal to 100-in-1 million, and one facility has a facility-wide cancer 
MIR greater than or equal to 1,000-in-1 million. There are 21 
additional facilities in the facility-wide dataset that are not in the 
MACT actual dataset. For these facilities, permits or other information 
show applicability to OLD, but no 2014 NEI information regarding HAP 
emissions for these facilities reasonably match with any equipment that 
could be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These facilities are not included 
in Table 3 of this preamble but are included in the population risk 
estimates in this paragraph. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 
2,000-in-1 million, primarily driven by ethylene oxide from a non-
category source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole 
facility is 0.9 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in 
every 1.1 years. Approximately 5,300,000 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from 
both MACT and non-MACT sources at the facilities in this source 
category. Approximately 1,500,000 of these people are estimated to have 
cancer risks above 10-in-1 million, with 88,500 people estimated to 
have cancer risks above 100-in-1 million, and 1,000 people estimated to 
have cancer risks above 1,000-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide 
TOSHI (kidney) for the source category is estimated to be 10, mainly 
driven by emissions of trichloroethylene from a non-category source. 
Approximately 1,100 people are exposed to noncancer HI levels above 1, 
based on facility-wide emissions from the facilities in this source 
category.
    Regarding the facility-wide risks due to ethylene oxide (described 
above), which are driven by emission sources that are not part of the 
OLD source category, we intend to evaluate those facility-wide 
estimated emissions and risks further and may address these in a 
separate future action, as appropriate. In particular, the EPA is 
addressing ethylene oxide based on the results of the latest National 
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) released in August 2018, which identified 
the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country 
(NATA is the Agency's nationwide air toxics screening tool, designed to 
help the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies identify areas, 
pollutants, or types of sources for further examination). The latest 
NATA estimates that ethylene oxide significantly contributes to 
potential elevated cancer risks in some census tracts across the U.S. 
(less than 1 percent of the total number of tracts). These elevated 
risks are largely driven by an EPA risk value that was updated in late 
2016. The EPA will work with industry and state, local, and tribal air 
agencies as the EPA takes a two-pronged approach to address ethylene 
oxide emissions: (1) Reviewing and, as appropriate, revising CAA 
regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide--starting with air 
toxics emissions standards for miscellaneous organic chemical 
manufacturing facilities and commercial sterilizers; and (2) conducting 
site-specific risk assessments and, as necessary, implementing emission 
control strategies for targeted high-risk facilities. The EPA will post 
updates on its work to address ethylene oxide on its website at: 
https://www.epa.gov/ethylene-oxide.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the OLD source category 
across different demographic groups within the populations living near 
facilities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, adults without a high school diploma, people 
living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty 
level, and linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 
of this preamble below. These results, for various demographic groups, 
are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the 
population living within 50 km of the facilities.

[[Page 56309]]



                     Table 4--OLD Demographic Risk Analysis Results--50 km Study Area Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                    with cancer
                                                                                   risk greater     Population
                                                                                   than or equal      with HI
                                                                                     to 1-in-1    greater than 1
                                                                                      million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Nationwide            Source Category
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049         350,000               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           White and Minority by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              26               0
Minority........................................................              38              74               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minority by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12              13               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             0.3               0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              18              58               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               2               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              32               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              68               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14              32               0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              86              68               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6              14               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the OLD source category demographic analysis 
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 
350,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one 
with a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    Regarding cancer risk, the specific demographic results indicate 
that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by OLD 
emissions, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, is greater than its 
corresponding nationwide percentage for the following demographics: 
Minority, African American, Hispanic or Latino, Below Poverty Level, 
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma, and Linguistically Isolated. 
The remaining demographic group percentages are the same or less than 
the corresponding nationwide percentages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors For Populations Living Near Organic Liquids 
Distribution Source Category Operations, available in the docket for 
this action.

C. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this 
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual emissions from OLD 
operations located at major sources of HAP, and we considered these in 
determining acceptability.
    The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed 
to actual or allowable emissions from the source category is 20-in-1 
million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures 
is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 33 
years. Approximately 350,000 people face an increased cancer risk at or 
above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to actual HAP emissions 
from this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer 
TOSHI from inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. The 
screening assessment of worst-case inhalation impacts indicates a 
worst-case maximum acute HQ of 1 for toluene, formaldehyde, and 
chloroform based on the 1-hour REL for each pollutant.
    Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a 
three-tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in 
this source category. The only pollutants with elevated Tier 1 and Tier 
2 screening values are POM (cancer). The Tier 2 screening value for POM 
was 6 which means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower 
than 6-in-1 million. For noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value for both 
cadmium and mercury is less than 1.
    In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source 
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk 
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate 
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the 
individual most exposed are well below 100-in-1 million, which is the 
presumptive limit of acceptability. In

[[Page 56310]]

addition, the highest chronic noncancer TOSHI is well below 1, 
indicating low likelihood of adverse noncancer effects from inhalation 
exposures. The maximum acute HQ for all pollutants is 1 based on the 
REL for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform. There are also low risks 
associated with ingestion, with the highest cancer risk lower than 6-
in-1 million and the highest noncancer hazard below 1, based on a Tier 
2 multipathway assessment.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III 
of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable for 
this source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to 
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of 
safety analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the 
risk assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk 
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the 
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule 
review to determine whether there are any emission reduction measures 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the 
risks associated with these emissions.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are 
acceptable for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and in this 
ample margin of safety analysis, we considered all of the available 
health information along with the cost and feasibility of available HAP 
control measures. Under the technology review, we identified more 
stringent storage tank and leak requirements, and we determined that 
these requirements are cost effective. However, for this ample margin 
of safety analysis, we evaluated the estimated change in risks, and 
while there was some decrease in both the MIR and the number of people 
exposed to cancer risks above 1-in-1 million, we determined that the 
current NESHAP already provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health due primarily to the baseline risk levels. We note, 
however, that we are proposing to adopt the cost-effective measures 
under the technology review, as discussed in section IV.D of this 
preamble.

D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

1. Storage Vessels
    Storage vessels are used for storing liquid feedstocks, 
intermediates, or finished products for distribution at OLD facilities. 
Most storage vessels are vertical cylindrical designs with either a 
fixed or floating roof. Emissions from storage vessels occur due to 
tank content expansions (breathing losses) and tank content movements 
(working losses).
    Under the current OLD NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.2346 and Table 2 to 
subpart EEEE of part 63, the owner or operator of an existing or new 
storage tank meeting certain capacity and average annual true vapor 
pressure of organic HAP criteria must reduce the total organic HAP 
emissions from the storage tank by one of three control options. The 
first option is to reduce total organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by 
weight using a closed vent system routed to a (1) flare, (2) non-flare 
APCD, or (3) fuel gas system or process meeting applicable requirements 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. The second option is to comply with 
vapor balancing requirements. The third option is to either install an 
IFR with proper seals or install an external floating roof with proper 
seals and enhanced fitting controls meeting applicable requirements of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Table 5 of this preamble outlines the 
current rule applicability thresholds for these storage tank control 
requirements.

Table 5--Current OLD NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Average True Vapor
                     Pressure Thresholds for Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Tank contents and average true
                                          vapor  pressure of total Table
 Existing/new source and tank capacity    1 to subpart EEEE  of part 63
                                                   organic HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil and if the annual
 capacity >=18.9 cubic meters (5,000      average true vapor pressure of
 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters         the stored organic liquid is
 (50,000 gallons).                        >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil and if the annual
 capacity >=189.3 cubic meters (50,000    average true vapor pressure of
 gallons).                                the stored organic liquid is
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=18.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters   the stored organic liquid is
 (10,000 gallons).                        >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=37.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic        the stored organic liquid is
 meters (50,000 gallons).                 >=0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=189.3 cubic meters     average true vapor pressure of
 (50,000 gallons).                        the stored organic liquid is
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil.
Existing, reconstructed, or new          Not crude oil or condensate and
 affected source meeting any of the       if the annual average true
 capacity criteria specified above.       vapor pressure of the stored
                                          organic liquid is >=76.6
                                          kilopascals (11.1 psia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56311]]

    As part of our technology review for storage vessels, we identified 
the following emission reduction options: (1) Revising the average true 
vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources 
requiring control to align with those of the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC) and National Emission Standards for Organic 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (``HON,'' 40 CFR part 63, subpart G) where the 
thresholds are lower and (2) in addition to requirements specified in 
option 1, requiring leak detection and repair (LDAR) using Method 21 
with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof storage 
vessels (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent 
by weight control requirements.
    We identified option 1 as a development in practices, processes, 
and control technologies because it reflects requirements and 
applicability thresholds that are widely applicable to existing tanks 
that are often collocated with OLD sources and which have been found to 
be cost effective for organic liquid storage tanks. The OLD NESHAP 
applicability thresholds for new sources are more stringent than other 
similar rules. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the 
capacity and average true vapor pressure thresholds for new source 
storage tanks. Table 6 of this preamble lists the proposed capacity and 
average true vapor pressure thresholds for control. Note that we also 
propose to clarify that condensate and crude oil are considered to be 
the same material with respect to OLD applicability (see section IV.E.3 
of this preamble for more details on this clarification).

  Table 6--Proposed OLD NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Annual Average
   True Vapor Pressure Thresholds for Control Under Control Option \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Tank contents and average true
                                         vapor pressure of total Table 1
 Existing/new source and tank capacity      to subpart EEEE of part 63
                                                   organic HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=18.9 cubic meters (5,000      if the annual average true
 gallons) and <75.7 cubic meters          vapor pressure of the stored
 (20,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=27.6
                                          kilopascals (4.0 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=75.7 cubic meters (20,000     if the annual average true
 gallons) and <151.4 cubic meters         vapor pressure of the stored
 (40,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=13.1
                                          kilopascals (1.9 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=151.4 cubic meters (40,000    if the annual average true
 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters         vapor pressure of the stored
 (50,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=5.2
                                          kilopascals (0.75 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=189.3 cubic meters (50,000    if the annual average true
 gallons).                                vapor pressure of the stored
                                          organic liquid is <76.6
                                          kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=18.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters   the stored organic liquid is
 (10,000 gallons).                        >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=37.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic        the stored organic liquid is
 meters (50,000 gallons).                 >=0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=189.3 cubic meters     average true vapor pressure of
 (50,000 gallons).                        the stored organic liquid is
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing, reconstructed, or new          Not crude oil or condensate and
 affected source meeting any of the       if the annual average true
 capacity criteria specified above.       vapor pressure of the stored
                                          organic liquid is >=76.6
                                          kilopascals (11.1 psia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Option 2 is an improvement in practices because these monitoring 
methods have been required by other regulatory agencies since 
promulgation of the OLD NESHAP to confirm the vapor tightness of tank 
seals and gaskets to ensure compliance with the standards. Further, we 
have observed leaks on roof deck fittings through monitoring with 
Method 21 that could not be found with visual observation techniques. 
See the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review 
for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source 
Category, available in the docket to this action for further background 
on this control option.
    This proposed option would apply to any fixed roof storage tank 
that is part of an OLD affected source that is not subject to the 95 
percent by weight and equivalent controls according to the proposed 
thresholds above. The proposed requirements of option 2 would apply to 
new and existing sources for storage tanks having a capacity of 3.8 
cubic meters (1,000 gallons) or greater that store organic liquids with 
an annual average true vapor pressure of 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia) or 
greater.
    Table 7 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the 
two options considered to be cost effective and the expected reduction 
in modeled emissions from storage tank emission points. We also 
evaluated other storage tank control options beyond these two, 
including installation of geodesic domes on external floating roof 
tanks, during our technology review, but did not find them to be 
generally cost effective and, therefore, have not discussed them in 
detail here. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all 
options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Storage Tanks Located in the Organic 
Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the docket to this 
action.
    Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each 
of the

[[Page 56312]]

options, we consider control options 1 and 2 to be cost-effective 
strategies for further reducing emissions from storage tanks at OLD 
facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP requirements for 
storage tanks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We solicit comment on 
the proposed revisions related to storage tanks based on technology 
review under CAA section 112(d)(6).

                                      Table 7--Nationwide Emissions Reductions and Costs of Control Options Considered for Storage Tanks at OLD Sources \1\
                                                                                             [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Total        Total
                                                                    Total      annualized   annualized      VOC          HAP         VOC cost        VOC cost        HAP cost        HAP cost
                        Control  option                            capital     costs w/o    costs with    emission     emission    effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                                  investment  credits ($/  credits ($/   reductions   reductions  w/o credits ($/  with credits   w/o credits ($/  with credits
                                                                     ($)         year)        year)        (tpy)        (tpy)          ton)           ($/ton)          ton)           ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................    2,380,000      309,000      127,000          202          117           1,500             630           2,600           1,100
2..............................................................            0       30,000    (118,000)          164           95             180           (720)             320         (1,200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recovery credits represent the savings in product that would not be lost from tank losses or fitting leaks.

2. Equipment Leaks
    Emissions from equipment leaks occur in the form of gases or 
liquids that escape to the atmosphere through many types of connection 
points (e.g., threaded fittings) or through the moving parts of certain 
types of process equipment during normal operation. Equipment regulated 
by the OLD NESHAP includes pumps, PRDs (as part of a vapor balancing 
system), sampling collection systems, and valves that operate in 
organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year. The OLD NESHAP 
provides the option for equipment to meet the control requirements of 
either 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT (National Emission Standards for 
Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1 Standards), UU (National Emission 
Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards), or H 
(National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Equipment Leaks). The equipment leak requirements vary by equipment 
(component) type and by requirement (i.e., subpart TT, UU, or H) but 
generally require LDAR programs using Method 21 to monitor at certain 
frequencies (e.g., monthly, quarterly, every 2 quarters, annually) and 
specify leak definitions (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 10,000 ppm) if the 
component is in gas or light liquid service. The LDAR provisions for 
components in heavy liquid service require sensory monitoring and the 
use of Method 21 to monitor leaks identified through sensory 
monitoring.
    Our technology review for equipment leaks identified two 
developments in LDAR practices and processes: (1) Adding connectors to 
the monitored equipment component types at a leak definition of 500 ppm 
(i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with either 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts UU or H) and (2) eliminating the option of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT for valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems, 
essentially requiring compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU or H.
    These two proposed practices and processes are already in effect at 
sources that are often collocated with OLD NESHAP sources, such as in 
the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). Further, we have found 
that several OLD sources are permitted using various state LDAR 
regulations that incorporate equipment leak provisions at the 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart UU requirement level or above and also require 
connector monitoring as part of the facility's air permit requirements.
    For equipment leaks control option 1, the baseline is that 
connectors are not controlled using a LDAR program since the current 
OLD NESHAP does not include them as equipment to be monitored. For 
control option 2, the impact is lowering the leak definitions for 
valves and pumps to account for the differences in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart UU from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. That 
is, valves in light liquid service would drop from a leak definition of 
10,000 ppmv to 500 ppmv, and pumps would drop from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000 
ppmv. Sampling connection requirements are the same for the two 
subparts.
    Table 8 of this preamble presents the nationwide impacts for the 
two options considered and the expected reduction in modeled emissions 
from equipment leak emission points. During our technology review, we 
also evaluated additional options for controlling equipment leaks, 
which would have had lower leak definitions for valves and pumps than 
the two options identified here. Details on the assumptions and 
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, 
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks 
Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available 
in the docket to this action.
    Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each 
of the options, we consider control option 1 to be a cost-effective 
strategy for further reducing emissions from equipment leaks at OLD 
facilities and are proposing to revise the OLD NESHAP for equipment 
leaks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are not proposing option 2 
because we consider this option to not be cost effective. We solicit 
comment on the proposed revisions related to equipment leaks based on 
technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6).

                                     Table 8--Nationwide Emissions Reduction and Costs of Control Options Considered for Equipment Leaks at OLD Sources \1\
                                                                                             [2016$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Total        Total
                                                                    Total      annualized   annualized      VOC          HAP         VOC cost        VOC cost        HAP cost        HAP cost
                         Control option                            capital     costs w/o    costs with    emission     emission    effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                                  investment  credits ($/  credits ($/   reductions   reductions  w/o credits ($/  with credits   w/o credits ($/  with credits
                                                                     ($)         year)        year)        (tpy)        (tpy)          ton)           ($/ton)          ton)           ($/ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................................    1,640,000      567,000      490,000          300          174           1,900           1,600           3,300           2,800

[[Page 56313]]

 
2..............................................................    2,509,000      565,000      516,000           54           31          10,500           9,500          18,000          16,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recovery credits are the savings in product that would not be lost from equipment due to leaks.

3. Transfer Racks
    Transfer racks are process equipment that transfer liquids from 
storage vessels into cargo tanks (i.e., tank trucks and railcars). 
Emissions from transfer racks occur as the organic liquid is loaded 
into the cargo tank, thereby displacing the vapor space in the tank 
above the liquid's surface. These emissions can be affected primarily 
by the turbulence (i.e., splashing) during loading, temperature of the 
liquids, and volume transferred.
    The current OLD NESHAP requires control of transfer racks in 
organic liquid service through a variety of means, but with an 
equivalent control efficiency of 98 percent. This control efficiency 
was determined during the NESHAP rulemaking to be achievable by well-
designed and operated combustion devices (69 FR 5054, February 3, 
2004). We evaluated the thresholds for control in the current rule 
against the 2012 proposed uniform standards for storage vessels and 
transfer operations (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2010-0871) and found that 
the current thresholds for controls are equivalent or more stringent 
than those in proposed in 2012.
    We also considered an option that would apply 98-percent control 
requirements for transfer racks to large throughput transfer racks 
transferring organic liquid materials that are 5 percent or less by 
weight HAP. We analyzed the population of transfer racks and identified 
potentially affected transfer racks. Considering the costs of control 
and the HAP emissions for these racks, this option was also found to be 
cost ineffective. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to change the 
emission standard for transfer racks. For more information, see the 
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Transfer Racks 
Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category memorandum 
in the docket for this action.
4. Fenceline Monitoring Alternative
    The EPA is proposing a fenceline monitoring program as an 
alternative compliance option for certain requirements being proposed 
in this action. The fenceline monitoring option would be available to 
existing and new OLD facilities in lieu of implementing certain 
proposed requirements for storage vessels and equipment leaks. OLD 
operations located at facilities that are required to implement a 
fenceline monitoring program under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP at 40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC would not be eligible to use this alternative 
compliance option. The rationale for excluding petroleum refineries 
from exercising the fenceline monitoring alternative is because these 
facilities already implement a fenceline monitoring program for benzene 
and because only a few refineries have OLD operations, which contribute 
a small proportion of the refineries overall HAP emissions inventory. 
We believe petroleum refineries should continue to implement fenceline 
monitoring under the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP.
    We are proposing optional fenceline monitoring as an advancement in 
monitoring practice because of the significant quantities of HAP 
emissions originating from OLD operations that are fugitive in nature, 
and as such, are impractical to directly measure (for example, fixed 
roof tanks, external floating roof tanks, equipment leaks, uncontrolled 
transfer operations). Direct measurement of fugitive emissions from 
sources such as storage vessels and equipment leaks can be costly and 
difficult, especially if required to be deployed on all OLD sources of 
fugitive emissions throughout the source category.\29\ This is a major 
reason why fugitive emissions associated with OLD operations are 
generally estimated using factors and correlations rather than by 
direct measurement. For example, equipment leak emissions are estimated 
using emissions factors or correlations between leak rates and 
concentrations from Method 21 instrument monitoring. Relying on these 
kinds of approaches introduces uncertainty into the emissions inventory 
for fugitive emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In general, testing fugitive sources requires methodologies 
for which the EPA has not developed standard test methods and for 
which there are few contractors that can perform such testing. While 
it may be possible to obtain data on some fugitive sources, the 
testing requires intense planning and analysis by highly qualified 
experts in order to limit the data uncertainty and isolate the 
fugitive sources. These techniques often require very expensive 
equipment to obtain results. Additionally, by their nature, fugitive 
sources have more variable emissions than point sources, making it 
more difficult to determine representative testing conditions. Point 
source emissions occur at all times that the process operates and 
are routed through a stack where mass emissions may be determined by 
measuring concentration and flow, whereas equipment such as 
connectors only exhibit emissions when there is an issue that needs 
to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the technology review, we evaluated developments in 
processes, practices, and control technologies for measuring and 
controlling fugitive emissions from individual emission points at OLD 
sources. For storage vessels, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this 
preamble, we are proposing to lower the vapor pressure threshold for 
emission control for storage tanks at existing sources having 
capacities of 20,000 to 50,0000 gallons and we are proposing to require 
monitoring of components on fixed roof storage tanks. For equipment 
leaks, as discussed in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, we are 
proposing to include connectors in the LDAR program.
    We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD operations may 
implement a fenceline monitoring program in lieu of the proposed 
technology review amendments for storage tanks and equipment leaks 
discussed above. In summary, if an owner or operator opts to implement 
the fenceline monitoring alternative standard, then the facility would 
not need to perform connector monitoring for equipment leaks, would not 
need to perform annual inspections on storage tank closures, and would 
not need to install controls for storage tanks between 20,000 and 
50,000 gallons pursuant to Table 2b. Instead of complying with these 
requirements, the facility would need to develop a detailed inventory 
of allowable HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility, 
including identification of which equipment are in OLD service;

[[Page 56314]]

determine which HAP to monitor based on emissions from OLD equipment; 
run the HEM-3 model to determine the annual average modeled 
concentration of each HAP; set an action level based on the modeled 
concentration of selected HAP; submit the modeling input file and 
results to the EPA for approval; deploy passive sample tubes on the 
fenceline of your facility every 14 days using Method 325A of appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 63 (``Method 325A''); have the passive tubes analyzed 
for the selected HAP using Method 325B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 
(``Method 325B''); calculate the difference of the highest recorded 
concentration minus the lowest recorded concentration (i.e., delta C) 
for each sample period; calculate a rolling annual average delta C for 
each selected HAP; report recorded concentrations and calculated delta 
C values to the EPA electronically; and, if the rolling annual average 
delta C is greater than the action level established from the modeling 
effort, then the facility must perform a root cause analysis and take 
corrective action to bring the annual average delta C to below the 
action level. Like the petroleum refinery fenceline monitoring results, 
the EPA plans to make the reported monitored data publicly available. 
Details about this optional fenceline monitoring program are described 
in the subsections below: (a) Developments in Monitoring Technology and 
Practices; (b) Analytes to Monitor; (c) Concentration Action Level; (d) 
Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors; (e) Reporting 
Monitoring Results; (f) Reducing Monitoring Frequency; (g) Corrective 
Action Requirements; and (h) Costs Associated with Fenceline Monitoring 
Alternatives.
    The EPA is proposing this option for several reasons: (1) There is 
concern that the uncertainty surrounding estimated fugitive emissions 
from OLD operations may be underestimating actual fugitive emissions 
from OLD operations; (2) the proposed fenceline monitoring program 
would provide owners and operators a flexible alternative to 
appropriately manage fugitive emissions of HAP from OLD operations if 
they are significantly greater than estimated values; and (3) the 
proposed frequency of monitoring time-integrated samples on a 2-week 
basis would provide an opportunity for owners and operators to detect 
and manage any spikes in fugitive emissions sooner than they might have 
been detected from equipment subject to annual or quarterly monitoring 
in the proposed amendments or from equipment that is not subject to 
equipment leak monitoring in the proposed rule.
    The EPA believes the proposed fenceline monitoring alternative 
would be equivalent to the proposed technology review revisions it 
would replace. The EPA is proposing to establish the trigger for root 
cause analysis and corrective action based on modeled HAP 
concentrations emitted from OLD equipment and considering the expected 
concentrations of HAP at the fenceline from all equipment at the 
facility. The HAP to be monitored are those having the most HAP 
emissions from OLD equipment at the facility including those that are 
emitted from equipment that would have been subject to the proposed 
requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks had the owner or 
operator of the facility not opted to implement the alternative 
fenceline monitoring. If actual annual average delta C is at or below 
the modeled values considering allowable emissions adjusted to reflect 
compliance with the connector monitoring and proposed amendments to the 
storage tank requirements, then fugitive emissions from the facility 
having OLD operations would be considered equivalent to the level of 
control that would be required by these proposed amendments. If the 
actual annual average delta C is above the action level, then the 
facility must perform root cause analysis and, if the cause is from 
emissions at the facility, then the facility would be required to 
reduce emissions to a level so that the annual average delta C is below 
the action level.
    As discussed above, we believe the proposed fenceline monitoring 
option would achieve an equivalent level of HAP emissions reductions as 
the proposed amendments to the storage tank and equipment leak 
requirements that this program would replace and would be appropriate 
under CAA section 112(d)(6) to propose as an alternative equivalent 
requirement to address fugitive emissions from OLD sources.
    Regarding uncertainty in emissions, emissions of HAP from OLD 
operations are often fugitive, that is, emissions that are not routed 
through a stack or cannot reasonably be measured. Emissions from 
storage tanks that are not routed through a closed vent system to 
control are usually calculated using equations in Chapter 7 of the 
EPA's Compilation of Air Emissions Factors (AP-42).\30\ Equipment leaks 
are often calculated using presumptive emission factors for different 
types of equipment (e.g., valves, pump seals, sampling connections, 
connectors) in specific types of service (gas, light liquid, heavy 
liquid) using the EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 
Estimates.\31\ There is uncertainty surrounding these emission factors. 
Actual emissions may be different if the equipment is operating at 
different conditions than those used to set the emission factors. A 
large proportion of HAP emissions from OLD operations are inventoried 
by calculating emissions using these emission factors and protocols. By 
monitoring fenceline concentrations of HAP and comparing the annual 
average concentrations to the concentrations that would be expected 
from modeling the emissions calculated using emission factors, the 
owner or operator would be able to determine if the emissions from the 
facility are close to those that were calculated in the inventory used 
to generate the action level. In this way, fenceline monitoring is a 
method that can help evaluate whether the uncertainty surrounding the 
calculations used to estimate fugitive emissions at a particular 
facility is a concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch07/index.html.
    \31\ https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1006KE4.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the opportunity to detect spikes in fugitive emissions 
earlier, the 2-week sample time is more frequent than the LDAR 
requirements in the proposed rule (quarterly, annual) and more frequent 
than the proposed floating roof inspection requirements (annual for 
closure devices on fixed roof tanks, annual top-side floating roof 
inspections, and close-up inspections of floating roof seals when the 
storage tanks are emptied and degassed). This provides an opportunity 
to detect problems sooner than they otherwise might be detected. Also, 
there is an opportunity for the monitors to detect emissions from 
equipment that would not otherwise be detected with the requirements 
for storage tanks and equipment leaks in the proposed amendments to 
this rule. Fenceline monitoring would provide the opportunity to 
identify any significant increase in emissions (e.g., a large equipment 
leak or a significant tear in a storage vessel seal) in a more timely 
manner, which would allow owners or operators to identify and reduce 
HAP emissions more rapidly than if a source relied solely on the 
existing monitoring and inspection methods required by the OLD NESHAP. 
Small or short-term increases in emissions are not likely to raise the 
fenceline concentration above the action level, so a fenceline

[[Page 56315]]

monitoring approach will generally target larger emission sources that 
have the most impact on the ambient pollutant concentration near the 
facility.
    Further, selection of the HAP to monitor are based on the emissions 
from OLD operations that would be subject to these proposed amended 
requirements (connector monitoring, tank closure inspections, and 
revised storage tank vapor pressure thresholds for control) at the 
facility. The action level would be set using modeled concentrations of 
these HAP emissions from all equipment at the facility and would 
represent an equivalent level of control to the proposed enhancements 
to the storage tanks and equipment leak requirements. Therefore, we 
conclude that, over the long term, the HAP emission reductions achieved 
by complying with the fenceline monitoring alternative would be 
equivalent to, or better than, compliance with the enhanced standards 
being proposed here because of the potential for earlier detection of 
significant emission leaks and the potential to address fugitive 
emissions that are not being reflected in the HAP emission inventories 
due to the uncertainty surrounding how those emissions are calculated.
    The following proposed requirements would not apply if a source 
chooses to comply with the fenceline monitoring alternative: (1) Lower 
threshold (i.e., tank vapor pressure and volume) for requiring emission 
controls on tanks expressed in proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63 
subpart EEEE; (2) inspection of closure devices on fixed roof tanks 
expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2343(e)(4); and (3) LDAR monitoring for 
connectors expressed at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1). The proposed 
revisions, if finalized, would not change a facility's responsibility 
to comply with the emissions standards and other requirements of the 
OLD NESHAP as currently in effect and the amendments to the rule other 
than the three identified above in this paragraph. We solicit comment 
on the proposed revisions related to the fenceline monitoring 
alternative based on technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6).
a. Developments in Monitoring Technology and Practices
    The fenceline monitoring alternative is a practicable NESHAP 
requirement because of developments in monitoring technology. The EPA 
reviewed the available literature and identified several methods for 
measuring fenceline emissions. The methods analyzed were (1) Passive 
diffusive tube monitoring networks; (2) active monitoring station 
networks; (3) ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy 
(UV-DOAS) fenceline monitoring; (4) open-path Fourier transform 
infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); (5) Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) 
monitoring; and (6) solar occultation flux monitoring. We considered 
these monitoring methods as developments in practices under CAA section 
112(d)(6) for purposes of all fugitive emission sources at OLD 
operations.
    While each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses, 
we conclude that a passive diffusive tube monitoring network is the 
most appropriate fenceline monitoring technology that has been 
demonstrated and is applicable to OLD operations. We conclude that DIAL 
and solar occultation flux can be used for short-term studies, but 
these methods are not appropriate for continuous monitoring. While 
active monitoring stations, UV-DOAS, and FTIR are technically feasible, 
passive diffusive tubes have been demonstrated to be feasible and 
commercially available with substantially lower capital and operating 
costs. We, therefore, are proposing to require the use of passive 
diffusive tubes as the monitoring technology for the fenceline 
monitoring alternative for OLD operations. Our evaluation of the six 
alternative fugitive monitoring technologies is summarized in the 
proposal preamble for the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR at 79 FR 36880 
(June 30, 2014). For this action, we have not evaluated any other 
fugitive emissions monitoring techniques beyond those described in the 
Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR. While the discussion in the proposal 
preamble of the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR is in the context of 
emissions from a petroleum refinery, passive tube monitoring is equally 
applicable to HAP emitted by OLD operations. The method for conducting 
fenceline monitoring using this technology is prescribed in Methods 
325A and 325B. The method is applicable to any VOC that has been 
properly validated under Method 325B. Table 12.1 of Method 325B lists 
benzene and 17 additional organic compounds having verified method 
performance and validated uptake rates for specified sorbents used in 
the passive sampling tubes. Owners and operators of an OLD operation 
can obtain approval from the EPA for additional HAP compounds or 
different sorbents by conducting validation testing described in 
Addendum A of Method 325B or in one of the following national/
international standard methods: ISO 16017-2:2003(E), American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6196-03 (Reapproved 2009), BS EN 
14662-4:2005, or a method reported in the peer-reviewed open 
literature.
b. Analytes To Monitor
    For facilities that opt to implement fenceline monitoring at 40 CFR 
63.2348(b)(2), we are proposing to specify how to determine the HAP to 
monitor and the action level that determines when root cause and 
corrective action must be taken. There is a wide variety of organic 
liquids stored at different facilities in the nation. Accordingly, we 
do not believe there is a single HAP that is suitable to universally 
represent an accurate indicator of the performance of tank and other 
fugitive emission control strategies across all OLD facilities. To 
ensure an effective monitoring framework, we are proposing that a 
facility that chooses the fenceline monitoring alternative would 
monitor simultaneously for at least the number of HAP that will 
represent the HAP emissions from the OLD operations at the facility. We 
are proposing that each facility would monitor for the organic HAP that 
has the most annual allowable emissions from OLD operations. If this 
HAP is emitted from the equipment that would have been subject to the 
proposed new requirements (i.e., the connectors subject to the 
equipment leak provisions at proposed 40 CFR 63.2346(l)(1) and the 
storage tanks that would have been subject to the control criteria at 
proposed Table 2b of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE or 40 CFR 
63.2343(e)(4)), then monitoring that HAP at the fenceline is 
sufficient. Otherwise, the facility must monitor that HAP as well as 
additional HAP necessary to ensure that the HAP being emitted from 
sources that would have been subject to additional control are 
monitored through the fenceline program, i.e., each piece of OLD 
equipment that would have been subject to controls emits at least one 
HAP monitored at the fenceline. We are soliciting comment on whether 
one of the analytes should be set as benzene, which is a pollutant 
common to most terminals subject to the OLD NESHAP. We are also 
soliciting comment on whether different criteria should be established 
to determine which analytes should be monitored and reported.
c. Concentration Action Level
    We are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(b)(3), the method by which the 
facility would determine the action level for each monitored HAP. The 
action level is compared to the annual

[[Page 56316]]

average delta C to determine whether a root cause analysis, and 
potentially corrective action to reduce emissions, is triggered. The 
action level would be set for each HAP as an air concentration, 
expressed in micrograms per cubic meter, equal to the highest modeled 
fenceline concentration for the selected HAP.
    As input to the modeling, each facility would be required to 
prepare an inventory of their allowable emissions assuming full 
compliance with the final revised OLD NESHAP developed from this 
regulatory action. To ensure consistency and equity among affected 
sources, each facility would follow guidance developed by the EPA for 
preparing the emissions inventory and conducting modeling using the 
HEM-3 model, which contains an atmospheric dispersion model and 
meteorological data. A draft of the proposed guidance is available for 
review and comment in the docket for this proposed action (see Draft 
Guidance on Determination of Analytes and Action Levels for Fenceline 
Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution Sources).
    In order to be eligible for the fenceline monitoring option, we are 
proposing the monitored HAP's site-specific action level derived from 
the modeling must be at least 5 times greater than the method detection 
limit for the HAP. This requirement will ensure that sources are not 
unreasonably put into a corrective action routine due solely to the 
relationship between the action level and the method detection limit. 
For any 2-week sampling period, if the lowest recorded value falls 
below the method detection limit for an analyte, then for the purposes 
of calculating the delta C, a zero is used. Also, if all sample results 
for any 2-week sample period are below the method detection limit, then 
you must use the method detection limit as the highest sample result 
for the purposes of calculating the delta C, effectively making delta C 
equal to the method detection limit. Therefore, if the action level is 
set to a value too close to the method detection limit, then achieving 
an annual average delta C at or below the action level could become 
difficult because only a few detectable readings could bring the annual 
average delta C above the action level when those readings are averaged 
with the method level of detection for the other sample periods. 
Therefore, requiring an action level of at least 5 times greater than 
the method limit of detection would alleviate this difficulty and 
prevent cases where root cause analysis and corrective action are 
required simply due to the way detectable concentrations are averaged 
with the method limit of detection which is close to the action level. 
To reduce the likelihood of this occurring, we are setting an 
appropriate requirement that the method detection limit be well below 
the action level for the HAP.
    We propose that owners or operators of an existing affected OLD 
operation would conduct modeling and submit the results and proposed 
action levels to the Administrator no later than 1 year after the 
effective date of the final rule, then deploy samplers and begin 
collecting data no later than 2 years after the effective date of the 
final rule. For new sources, if an owner or operator elects to conduct 
a fenceline monitoring program, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator would (1) model and submit for EPA approval action levels 
within 3 months after establishment of allowable emissions in the title 
V permit, (2) begin monitoring upon commencement of operation, (3) 
submit the first report no later than 45 days following the end of the 
calendar quarter in which 1 full year of monitoring data was collected, 
and (4) subsequently submit monitoring reports by the end of each 
subsequent calendar quarter.
d. Siting and Sampling Requirements for Fenceline Monitors
    The EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 63.2348(c) specification of the 
passive monitoring locations. Facilities that use the fenceline 
monitoring alternative must deploy and operate monitors by following 
the requirements of Methods 325A and 325B. Method 325A requires 
deployment of a minimum of 12 monitors around the fenceline, although 
the minimum number and the placement of monitors depends on the size, 
shape, and linear distance around the facility, as well as the 
proximity of emissions sources to the property boundary, as described 
in the method. Method 325A also specifies the requirements for sample 
collection, while Method 325B specifies the requirements for sample 
preparation and analysis.
    The EPA is proposing that passive fenceline monitors would be 
deployed and sampling would commence starting 2 years after the 
effective date of this final rule. Passive sorbent tubes would be used 
to collect 2-week time-integrated samples. For each 2-week period, the 
facility would determine a delta C, calculated as the lowest sorbent 
tube sample value subtracted from the highest sorbent tube sample 
value. This approach is intended to subtract out the estimated 
contribution from background emissions that do not originate from the 
OLD facility. The delta C for the most recent 26 sampling periods would 
be averaged to calculate an annual average delta C. The annual average 
delta C would be determined on a rolling basis, meaning that it is 
updated with every new sample (i.e., every 2 weeks, a new annual 
average delta C is determined from the most recent 26 sampling 
periods). This rolling annual average would be compared against the 
relevant concentration action level.
e. Reporting Monitoring Results
    After 1 full year of monitoring, the fenceline monitoring reports 
would be submitted electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), to the EPA on a quarterly frequency. 
Because the concentration action level is compared to an annual average 
delta C, monitoring data from 1 full year is needed to assess 
compliance with the requirements of the alternative fenceline 
compliance option. Therefore, we are proposing that OLD owners and 
operators would not be required to submit the initial fenceline 
monitoring report until after 1 full year of data is available. The 
initial report would be required to be submitted no later than 45 days 
following the end of the calendar quarter in which 1 full year of 
monitoring data is obtained. Each subsequent compliance report would 
include monitoring data collected for the calendar quarter following 
the data reported in the previous report and would be due no later than 
45 days following the end of the calendar quarter covered by the 
monitoring. For example, if the effective date of this rule is March 
27, 2020, then the establishment of the action levels must be submitted 
to the EPA or the delegated authority by March 27, 2021; fenceline 
monitoring would begin by March 27, 2022; the first report would 
include data collected from March 27, 2022, through March 31, 2023; and 
the first report would be submitted by May 15, 2023. At that point, 
quarterly reporting would commence; the next report would include data 
collected from April 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023, and would be 
submitted by August 14, 2023. See section IV.E.2 of this preamble for 
further discussion on reporting fenceline monitoring data.
f. Reducing Monitoring Frequency
    To reduce the burden of monitoring, we are proposing provisions at 
40 CFR 63.2348(e)(3) that would allow OLD owners or operators to reduce 
the frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling locations where 
ambient air concentrations are consistently well below the fenceline 
concentration action level for all analytes. Specifically,

[[Page 56317]]

we are allowing owners or operators to monitor every other 2-week 
period (i.e., skip period monitoring) if over a 2-year period, each 
sample collected at a specific monitoring location is at or below one 
tenth of the action level for each analyte. If every sample collected 
from that sampling location during the subsequent 2 years is at or 
below one tenth of the action level, the monitoring frequency may be 
reduced from every other sampling period to once every sixth sampling 
period (approximately quarterly). After an additional 2 years, the 
monitoring can be reduced to once every thirteenth sampling period 
(semiannually) and finally to annually after another 2 years, provided 
the samples continue to be at or below one tenth of the action level 
during all sampling events at that location. If at any time a sample 
for a monitoring location that is monitored at a reduced frequency 
returns a concentration greater than one tenth the action level, the 
owner or operator must return to the original sampling requirements for 
1 quarter (monitor every 2 weeks for the next six monitoring periods 
for that location). If every sample collected during that quarter is at 
or below one tenth the action level, then the sampling frequency 
reverts back to the reduced monitoring frequency for that monitoring 
location; if not, then the sampling frequency reverts back to the 
original monitoring frequency, with samples being taken every 2-week 
period.
g. Corrective Action Requirements
    If at any time the annual average delta C exceeds the action level 
for any of the monitored HAP, then a root cause analysis is required to 
determine the source of the emissions that caused the exceedance and 
whether corrective action is needed to return monitored delta C 
concentrations to below the relevant action level. As described 
previously, the EPA is proposing that the owner or operator analyze the 
samples and compare the rolling annual average fenceline concentration, 
adjusted to remove the estimated background emissions, to the 
concentration action level. This section summarizes the corrective 
action requirements in this proposed rule.
    We are proposing that the calculation of the rolling annual average 
delta C for each monitored HAP must be completed within 45 days after 
the completion of each 2-week sampling period. If the rolling annual 
average delta C exceeds the respective concentration action level for 
any monitored HAP, the facility must, within 5 days of determining the 
concentration action level has been exceeded, initiate a root cause 
analysis to determine the primary cause, and any other contributing 
cause(s), of the exceedance. The facility must complete the root cause 
analysis and implement corrective action within 45 days of initiating 
the root cause analysis. We are not proposing specific controls or 
corrections that would be required when the concentration action level 
is exceeded because the cause of an exceedance could vary greatly from 
facility to facility and episode to episode, since many different 
sources emit fugitives. Rather, we are proposing to allow facilities to 
determine, based on their own analysis of their operations, the action 
that must be taken to reduce air concentrations at the fenceline to 
levels at or below the concentration action level.
    If, upon completion of the corrective action described above, the 
owner or operator exceeds the action level for the next 2-week sampling 
period following the completion of a first set of corrective actions, 
the owner or operator would be required to develop and submit a 
corrective action plan that would describe the corrective actions 
completed to date. The plan would include a schedule for implementation 
of emission reduction measures that the owner or operator can 
demonstrate as soon as practical. The plan would be submitted to the 
Administrator within 60 days of an exceedance occurring during the next 
2-week sampling period following the completion of the initial round of 
corrective action. The corrective action plan does not need to be 
approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator is not deemed out 
of compliance with the concentration action level, provided that the 
appropriate corrective action measures are taken according to the time 
frame detailed in the corrective action plan.
    We anticipate that the fenceline monitoring requirements and 
associated corrective action provisions would provide an alternative 
compliance option to reduce exposure to HAP that we believe would not 
pose an unreasonable burden on OLD operations. Assuming the inventories 
and associated modeling conducted by the OLD operators are accurate, we 
expect that few, if any, facilities will need to engage in required 
corrective action. We do, however, expect that facilities may identify 
``poor-performing'' sources (e.g., those with unusual leaks) from the 
fenceline monitoring data and, based on this additional information, 
will take action to reduce HAP emissions before they otherwise would 
have been aware of the issue through existing inspection and 
enforcement measures.
    In some instances, a high fenceline concentration may be affected 
by a non-OLD emission source that is collocated within the property 
boundary. The likely instances of this situation would be leaks from 
equipment or storage vessels from processes that are subject to the HON 
(40 CFR part 63, subparts F, G, H), the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF), or the NESHAP for 
Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR part 63, subpart R). Whenever the 
action level is exceeded, we are proposing that the OLD owner or 
operator must take whatever corrective action is needed to reduce the 
relevant HAP air concentration to below the action level concentration, 
including corrective actions for any contributing sources that are 
under common ownership or common control of the OLD operation and that 
are within the plant site boundary. We conclude that requiring 
corrective action for all commonly owned or controlled equipment is 
reasonable because the fenceline alternative is an optional control 
strategy and would likely be selected if the OLD facility determined 
that the fenceline alternative provides an economic advantage or 
potential cost savings or if the facility otherwise wishes to perform 
fenceline monitoring as a more effective and flexible way to manage 
fugitive emissions. In a situation where collocated equipment is not 
under common ownership or control of the OLD owner or operator, then 
the rule provisions for adjusting for background HAP concentrations, 
previously discussed in this section of the preamble, would apply.
h. Costs Associated With Fenceline Monitoring Alternatives
    The cost for fenceline monitoring is dependent on the sampling 
frequency and the number of monitoring locations needed based on the 
size and geometry of the facility. For typical storage terminals 
subject to the OLD NESHAP, we assume the size of each facility would be 
less than 750 acres and the number of monitoring sites to be no more 
than 18 based on the specifications in Methods 325A and 325B. We use 
the same approach to estimate costs as outlined in the June 2015 
technical memorandum, Fenceline Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final 
Rule, from the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, also available in the 
docket for this action. We estimate the first-year installation and 
equipment costs for the passive tube monitoring system could cost up to 
$95,370. We estimate that

[[Page 56318]]

annualized costs for ongoing monitoring to facilities that choose to 
implement this alternative compliance option would be up to $35,000 per 
year per facility, and total annualized costs would be up to $45,000 
per year per facility. These figures are expressed in year 2016$.
    The primary goal of a fenceline monitoring network is to ensure 
that owners and operators properly monitor and manage fugitive HAP 
emissions. Because we are proposing a concentration action level that 
each facility derives by modeling fenceline HAP concentrations after 
full compliance with the proposed and existing requirements of the OLD 
NESHAP, as amended by this proposed action, the fenceline concentration 
action level would be set at levels that each facility in the category 
can meet. Therefore, we do not project any additional HAP emission 
reductions beyond the proposed requirements that the alternative 
fenceline monitoring compliance option would achieve. However, if an 
owner or operator has underestimated the fugitive emissions from one or 
more sources (e.g., a leak develops or a tank seal or fitting fails), 
then a fenceline monitoring system would likely identify those excess 
emissions earlier than under current and proposed amended monitoring 
requirements. The fenceline monitoring system would ensure that HAP 
emissions in excess of those projected would be addressed, potentially 
more completely and quickly than the requirements replaced by 
implementing the fenceline monitoring. We note that any costs for a 
fugitive monitoring system would be offset, to some extent, by product 
recovery because addressing these leaks more quickly has the potential 
to reduce product losses.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. 
We also are proposing various other changes to require electronic 
reporting of emissions test results, and to clarify text or correct 
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. 
Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed 
below.
1. SSM Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously.
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.2378(b). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 
we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are 
also proposing several revisions to Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE (the General Provisions Applicability Table, hereafter referred to 
as the ``General Provisions table to subpart EEEE'') as is explained in 
more detail below. For example, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2350(c) 
to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement 
that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate 
and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to 
the SSM exemption as further described below. In addition, we are 
proposing to make the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 
63.2406 that specifically addresses SSM periods no longer applicable 
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Finally, because 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE requires closed 
vent systems and APCDs to meet certain requirements of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS, we are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(l) to make portions of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (those applicable references related to the 
SSM exemption) no longer applicable.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
    We are proposing that, emissions from startup and shutdown 
activities must be included when determining if all the standards are 
being attained. As currently proposed in 40 CFR 63.2378(e), you must be 
in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating 
limits) in this subpart ``at all times,'' except during periods of 
nonoperation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) 
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. 
Emission reductions for transfer rack operations are typically achieved 
by routing vapors to an APCD such as a flare, thermal oxidizer, or 
carbon adsorber. It is common practice in this source category to start 
an APCD prior to startup of the emissions source it is controlling, so 
the APCD would be operating before emissions are routed to it. We 
expect APCDs would be operating during startup and shutdown events in a 
manner consistent with normal operating periods, and that these APCDs 
will be operated to maintain and meet the monitoring parameter 
operating limits set during the performance test. We do not expect 
startup and shutdown events to affect emissions from storage vessels or 
equipment leaks. Working and breathing losses from storage vessels are 
the same regardless of whether the process is operating under normal 
operating conditions or if it is in a startup or shutdown event. Leak 
detection programs associated with equipment leaks are in place to 
detect leaks, and, therefore, it is inconsequential whether the process 
is operating under normal operating conditions or is in startup or 
shutdown.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing 
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the

[[Page 56319]]

category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency 
to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the 
best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court 
has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how 
the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of 
Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, 
nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting 
CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances''). As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an APCD with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result 
of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a 
baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit 
that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent 
control to zero control until the APCD was repaired. The source's 
emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during 
normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction 
period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal 
operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions 
could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly 
less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-
malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to 
avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent 
with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had 
information to determine that such work practices reflected the level 
of control that applies to the best performing sources (80 FR 75178, 
75211-14, December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA's interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
    Finally, in keeping with the elimination of the SSM exemption, we 
are proposing at 40 CFR 63.2346(m) to remove the use of SSM exemption 
provisions located in subparts referenced by the OLD NESHAP (i.e., 40 
CFR part 63, subparts H, SS, and UU) when the owner or operator is 
demonstrating compliance with the OLD NESHAP.
b. Proposed Revisions Related to the General Provisions Applicability 
Table
    40 CFR 63.2350(d) General duty. We are proposing to revise the 
General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead 
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2350(d) that reflects 
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference 
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore,

[[Page 56320]]

the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2350(d) does not 
include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table to 
subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.2350(d).
    The proposed language in 40 CFR 63.2350(d) would require that the 
owner or operator operate and maintain any affected source, including 
APCD and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions. For 
example, in the event of an emission capture system or APCD malfunction 
for a controlled operation, to comply with the proposed new language in 
40 CFR 63.2350(d), the facility would need to cease the controlled 
operation as quickly as practicable to ensure that excess emissions 
during emission capture system and APCD malfunctions are minimized.
    SSM Plan. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to 
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a 
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample 
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus the SSM plan 
requirements are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA 
vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the 
CAA requires that section 112 standards generally apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts 
sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed 
above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained 
in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 
EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all 
times.
    40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6) Performance testing. We are proposing to 
revise the General Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 
We are also proposing to remove a similar requirement at 40 CFR 
63.2354(b)(5). 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing 
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(6). The performance testing 
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions 
performance testing provisions in several respects. The proposed 
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and 
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes 
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions 
will not allow performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should 
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during 
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. Also, the EPA is proposing to add language at 40 CFR 
63.2354(b)(6) that requires the owner or operator to record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) requires that 
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator upon request 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test,'' but does not specifically require the information 
to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this 
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement 
to record the information.
    Monitoring. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table 
to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(a)(4) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Refer to section IV.A.1 of this 
preamble for discussion of this proposed revision.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (Table 12) entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the 
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not 
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set 
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring 
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in 
column 4 to a ``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer 
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 
63.2366(c) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the 
final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The program 
of corrective action should be included in the plan required under 40 
CFR 63.8(d)(2).''
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing 
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2390(f). The regulatory text we 
are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is 
replacing in that the General Provisions require the creation and 
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2390(f) a 
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment

[[Page 56321]]

based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that 
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is 
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any 
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how 
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source 
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the 
``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision 
requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions 
were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer 
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2390(f)(3).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table to subpart 
EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' 
in column 4 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the provision allows an owner 
or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to 
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    40 CFR 63.2386 Reporting. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no.'' Similarly, 
we are also proposing that the references to this specific provision 
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)) at 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(5) and Table 11 to 
subpart EEEE would no longer be applicable. 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 
describes the reporting requirements for SSM. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2386(d)(1)(xiii). The replacement language 
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates 
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language 
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any 
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual compliance report already required under this rule. We are 
proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, 
duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if 
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters (e.g., organic liquid 
loading rates and control efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We would no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments 
would eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) (at 40 CFR 
63.2386(c)(5) and item 1.a of Table 11 to subpart EEEE) that contains 
the description of the previously required SSM report format and 
submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    Requirements for flares. We are proposing to revise the General 
Provisions table to subpart EEEE (Table 12) entry for 40 CFR 63.11(b) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in which 40 CFR 
63.11(b) would be no longer applicable beginning 3 years after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Refer to section 
IV.A.1 of this preamble for discussion of this proposed revision.
c. Requirements for Safety Devices
    We are proposing to remove the safety device opening allowance of 
40 CFR 63.2346(i) beginning 3 years after publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register. Pressure relief device provisions are 
discussed in more detail in section IV.A.2 of this preamble.
d. Proposed Revisions Related to the Periods of Planned Routine 
Maintenance of a Control Device and Bypass of Routing Emissions to a 
Fuel Gas System or Process
    Under the current OLD rule, there are two allowances for storage 
tank and transfer rack emission limits to exceed the standard for up to 
240 hours per year: (1) Periods of planned routine maintenance of a 
control device and (2) bypass of the fuel gas system or process if 
emissions are routed to these for control. In 2004, the EPA added these 
allowances in the final rule in response to a comment that suggested 
that an allowance is needed for planned routine maintenance of control 
devices when storage tanks cannot be taken out of service.\32\ These 
allowances represent periods of shutdown for the control devices used 
to comply with the standards, so we are proposing to remove these 
allowance periods for transfer racks and storage tank working losses to 
be consistent with our proposal to eliminate other SSM event exemptions 
discussed earlier in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Response to Comments Document For Promulgated 
Standards--Organic Liquid Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Industry [A-
98-13 V-C-01], available at Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-
0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transfer rack operations and storage tank working losses, most 
facilities would likely be able to plan transfers to occur when the 
control device is not shut down for maintenance. The owner or operator 
of a storage tank or transfer operation also would have the option to 
continue to transfer organic liquids during the planned routine 
maintenance of the control device by operating a temporary control 
device to meet the standards during these periods. We propose to 
continue to allow storage tank breathing losses to occur during planned 
routine maintenance of a control device for up to 240 hours per year 
because these emissions would be significantly less than emptying and 
degassing a storage tank prior to conducting planned routine 
maintenance on a control device. We request comment on whether we 
should allow some period of exceedance for solely tank breathing losses 
during planned routine maintenance of a control device. See the 
memorandum, 240-hour Exceedance Allowance Control Analysis, in the 
docket for this action for details on alternative control costs and 
impacts.
    We expect this change to result in emission reductions of HAP. 
However, we do not have enough information to make an accurate estimate 
of the HAP

[[Page 56322]]

emission reductions, and we are not including any in the environmental 
impacts, although we expect these HAP emission reductions could be up 
to 390 tpy based on assumptions about pump rates and number of hours 
needed for the planned routine maintenance of the control device at 
each controlled transfer rack. We present the cost impacts of this 
proposed revision in section V.C of this preamble.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing that owners and operators of OLD facilities submit 
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance 
evaluation reports, compliance reports, NOCS reports, and fenceline 
monitoring reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using 
CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is 
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for 
this action. The proposed rule requires that performance test results 
collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \33\ at the time of 
the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the 
ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in portable 
document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. 
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring 
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are 
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the 
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance 
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of 
the ERT. The proposed rule requires that NOCS reports be submitted as a 
PDF upload in CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For compliance reports and fenceline monitoring reports, the 
proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate 
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. Draft versions of 
the proposed templates for these reports are available in the docket 
for this action.\34\ We specifically request comment on the content, 
layout, and overall design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See OLD_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx and 
OLD_Fenceline_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, which are available in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which 
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, 
the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report 
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should 
occur as soon as possible. We are providing these potential extensions 
to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they 
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for 
reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may 
be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes 
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2386(i). The situation where an 
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or 
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 
63.2386(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or 
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of 
the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \35\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \36\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\37\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \36\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \37\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Amendments and Corrections
    The EPA has noted a situation where compliance assurance may be 
challenged or possibly compromised due to the current rule's 
requirements for emission sources not requiring control as specified in 
40 CFR 63.2343. In the current provisions, the ``annual average true 
vapor pressure'' definition contains the determination options, which 
include some testing methods as options but also allow for standard 
reference texts. The EPA is proposing to require testing and 
recordkeeping to confirm the annual average true vapor pressure at 
least every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the tank's 
contents, whichever occurs first, to ensure the tank's applicability 
and confirm that it should not be subject to the 95-percent control 
requirements of the regulation. We are also proposing that this 
periodic testing requirement may be met if the OLD responsible official 
has been provided a certificate of analysis that includes vapor 
pressure analysis data for the tank's contents by the liquid's supplier 
within the 5-year period.
    The HAP content determination requirements are not expressly stated 
in the ``organic liquids'' definition, but there are HAP content 
determination methods listed in 40 CFR 63.2354. The methods include 
testing and analysis, material safety data sheets, or certified product 
data sheets. No frequency for making these determinations are specified 
in the current OLD NESHAP. Similar to the annual true vapor pressure, 
we are proposing a requirement that the contents of tanks that are 
claimed to be not subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less 
than 5-percent HAP (and, therefore, do not meet the definition of 
``organic liquids'' within the OLD NESHAP)

[[Page 56323]]

should be tested every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the 
tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm that the tank is 
not storing ``organic liquids'' and, therefore, is not subject to the 
rule. We are also proposing that this periodic testing requirement may 
be met if the OLD responsible official has been provided HAP content 
analysis data for the tank's contents by the liquid's supplier within 
the 5-year period.
    The EPA is requesting comment on the need for these periodic 
testing and analysis confirmations and also whether a definition of 
``significant change to the tank's contents'' is necessary for 
implementation purposes.
    We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2354(c), which specified the 
determination of HAP content of an organic liquid, by adding the 
voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ATSM D6886-18, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile 
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas 
Chromatography,'' as another acceptable method. We are also proposing 
to add a sentence at the end of this paragraph that requires analysis 
by Method B or Method C in section of 4.3 of the VCS, ASTM D6886-18, 
when organic liquids contain formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride. The 
rationale for adding the use of ASTM D8668-18 and its use as a 
governing method for organic liquids that contain formaldehyde or 
carbon tetrachloride results from the inability of Method 311 of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to detect the presence of these compounds.
    We are proposing to amend the definition of the term ``annual 
average true vapor pressure'' at 40 CFR 63.2406 by replacing one of the 
acceptable methods for the determination of vapor pressure. We propose 
to replace the method, ASTM D2879, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor 
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature 
of Liquids by Isoteniscope,'' with the method, ASTM D6378-18a, 
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of 
Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures 
(Triple Expansion Method).'' ASTM D2879, the method in the current OLD 
NESHAP, requires the use of an isoteniscope and involves heating the 
sample until it boils, which can result in the loss of volatiles before 
the vapor pressure is measured. The method we are proposing as a 
replacement is a newer, automated device method that does not have this 
step and is expected to produce more accurate vapor pressure 
measurements for organic liquids regulated in the OLD NESHAP. This 
method is suitable for a range of vapor to liquid ratios of 4:1 to 1:1. 
We are also proposing that the use of this method to determine vapor 
pressure of a liquid for the purposes of this rule sets the vapor to 
liquid ratio at 4:1. Also, we are proposing to clarify in the 
definition of the term ``annual average true vapor pressure'' regarding 
how the American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2517, 
Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, third edition, 
February 1989 (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) can be used 
to calculate vapor pressure. API Publication 2517 does not prescribe 
methods that measure the vapor pressure of a liquid. However, this 
publication does serve as a standard reference, although, it is 
somewhat dated. It contains a table of vapor pressures of a few pure 
substances at temperatures between 40 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It 
also has charts and equations that can calculate true vapor pressure 
from stock temperature and Reid vapor pressure for crude oils and 
refined petroleum stocks. AP-42 Chapter 7, which is publicly available, 
contains similar information regarding the determination of vapor 
pressure as described in API Publication 2517. For these reasons, we 
are proposing to remove specific reference to API Publication 2517 in 
the definition of the term ``annual average true vapor pressure.''
    At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control 
devices, we are proposing to clarify that Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 
40 CFR part 60 (``Method 18'') and Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 63 (``Method 320'') are not appropriate for a combustion control 
device because these methods would not detect the presence of HAP, 
other than those HAP present at the inlet of the control device, that 
may be generated from the combustion device. Also, we are specifying 
that Method 320 is not appropriate if the gas stream contains entrained 
water droplets.
    At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(4) and Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE, item 1.a.i.(5), for performance tests on nonflare control 
devices, for cases in which formaldehyde is present in the uncontrolled 
vent stream, we are proposing to allow the use of Method 320 or Method 
323 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 to measure the removal of 
formaldehyde by the control device provided there are no entrained 
water droplets in the gas stream.
    At Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, item 1.a.i.(3), we are 
replacing the specification of Method 3 of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 
60 with Method 3A of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 because Method 3A 
is more accurate.
    At 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(ii)(B), we are proposing to clarify that 
ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004) may be used as an alternative to Method 
18 for target compounds not listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 
provided that you must demonstrate recovery of the compound in addition 
to the other conditions stated in the current rule.
    At 40 CFR 63.2366(c), we are proposing to add specification of 
written procedures for the operation of continuous emissions monitoring 
systems (CEMS). At 40 CFR 63.2366(d), we are proposing to add 
specification of location of sampling probe for CEMS.
    At 40 CFR 63.2406, we are proposing to add a definition of the term 
condensate and to specify its regulation in this rule in the same way 
crude oil is regulated at the definition of the term ``organic liquid'' 
and at Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. We are defining 
the term condensate using the same definition that is used in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HH. We are making this clarification to ensure that 
condensate (which, like crude oil, is an unrefined reservoir fluid 
having significant quantities of HAP) is treated in the same manner as 
crude oil in the OLD NESHAP.
    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) collects and reports 
data regarding crude oil and lease condensate production in EIA Form-
914 as combined values and defines crude oil to include lease 
condensate.\38\ EIA defines crude oil in its glossary as ``Crude oil: A 
mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural 
underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after 
passing through surface separating facilities. Depending upon the 
characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include 1. Small 
amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in natural 
underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure after 
being recovered from oil well (casing head) gas in lease separators and 
are subsequently comingled with the crude stream without being 
separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a liquid from 
natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities and later 
mixed into the crude stream is also included; 2. Small amounts of

[[Page 56324]]

nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil, such as sulfur and various 
metals; 3. Drip gases, and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar sands, 
oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.'' \39\ Therefore, because the 
current definition of crude oil at 40 CFR 63.2406 defines crude oil to 
mean any fluid named crude oil and because condensates are a 
significant part of crude oil production stream and are often sold as 
fluids called condensate, we are adding the term condensate and using 
it in the proposed amendments to ensure that unrefined reservoir fluids 
named as condensate, that have HAP contents with a similar range as 
crude oils, are being regulated in the same manner as crude oil in the 
OLD NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Monthly Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/.
    \39\ EIA Glossary, https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are adding the definition of the terms ``pressure relief 
device'' and ``relief valve'' at 40 CFR 63.2406. The definitions of 
these terms are the same as those included in the Petroleum Refinery 
Sector final rule (see 83 FR 60696, November 26, 2018) and currently 
used at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. We are also proposing to revise the 
term ``pressure relief valve'' to ``relief valve'' at 40 CFR 
63.2346(a)(4)(v).
    Finally, there are several additional revisions that we are 
proposing to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE to clarify text or correct 
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. 
These proposed editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized 
in Table 9 of this preamble.

    Table 9--Summary of Proposed Editorial, Clarification, and Minor
               Corrections to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation(s)                       Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2338(c)......................  Referencing correction. Change
                                          ``paragraphs (c)(1) through
                                          (4)'' to ``paragraphs (c)(1)
                                          through (3)'' because there is
                                          no paragraph (c)(4).
40 CFR 63.2342(d)......................  Referencing correction. Change
                                          ``in Sec.   63.2382(a) and
                                          (b)(1) through (3)'' to ``in
                                          Sec.   63.2382(a) and (b),''
                                          because there is no paragraph
                                          (b)(3).
40 CFR 63.2343(a)......................  Removing two uses of the
                                          extraneous phrase ``identified
                                          in paragraph (a) of this
                                          section.''
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(v)................  Correcting the spelling of the
                                          word ``gauge.''
40 CFR 63.2343(c)(1)(iii)..............  Referencing correction. Change
                                          ``paragraph (b) or this
                                          section'' to ``paragraph (c)
                                          or this section.''
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(ii) and (d)(2); 40  Referencing correction for U.S.
 CFR 63.2362(b)(2); 40 CFR                Department of Transportation
 63.2390(c)(2); and item 6 of Table 5     transport vehicle requirements
 to Subpart EEEE.                         from ``pressure test
                                          requirements of 49 CFR part
                                          180 for cargo tanks and 49 CFR
                                          173.31 for tank cars'' to
                                          ``qualification and
                                          maintenance requirements in 49
                                          CFR part 180, subpart E for
                                          cargo tanks and subpart F for
                                          tank cars''.
40 CFR 63.2350(a)......................  Referencing correction: Change
                                          ``in Sec.   63.2338(b)(1)
                                          through (4)'' to ``in Sec.
                                          63.2338(b)(1) through (5)''
                                          because the last item in the
                                          list was not included.
40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(i)(A),   Removing the word ``EPA'' from
 (b)(3)(i)(B), (b)(3), (c); 40 CFR        the phrase ``EPA Method''
 63.2406(b) definition of ``vapor-tight   where the phrase precedes
 transport vehicle;'' and Table 5 to      designation of a method
 Subpart EEEE.                            published in title 40 of the
                                          CFR.
40 CFR 63.2354(c)......................  Changing the term used for the
                                          Occupational Safety and Health
                                          Administration's hazard
                                          communication standard from
                                          ``material safety data sheet
                                          (MSDS)'' to ``safety data
                                          sheet (SDS).''
40 CFR 63.2366(a)......................  Spelling out ``continuous
                                          monitoring system'' before the
                                          acronym ``CMS,'' which is a
                                          term defined at 40 CFR 63.2.
40 CFR 63.2406.........................  In the definition of the term,
                                          annual average true vapor
                                          pressure, removing the word
                                          ``standard'' from ``standard
                                          conditions'' because the
                                          conditions specified in this
                                          definition are not standard
                                          conditions as defined at 40
                                          CFR 63.2 and used in this
                                          subpart.
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE................  In item 8, correcting a cross-
                                          reference citation from
                                          63.2366(c) to 63.2366(b).
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE...............  Adding an entry for Sec.
                                          63.7(e)(4), which specifies
                                          the Administrator has the
                                          authority to require
                                          performance testing regardless
                                          of specification of
                                          performance testing at Sec.
                                          63.7(e)(1)-(3).
                                         Changing the entry for Sec.
                                          63.10(d)(2), Report of
                                          Performance Test Results, from
                                          Yes to No. Proposed 40 CFR
                                          63.2386 specifies how and when
                                          the performance test results
                                          are reported.
                                         Changing the entry for Sec.
                                          63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii), Excess
                                          Emissions Report and Summary
                                          Report, from Yes to No. This
                                          information is required to be
                                          submitted at proposed 40 CFR
                                          63.2386.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the OLD NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for 
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(d)(6) 
are subject to the compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under 
section 112(i).
    For all of the requirements we are proposing under CAA sections 
112(d)(2), (3), and (d)(6), we are proposing all affected sources must 
comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later. 
For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the compliance 
date shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 
years after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 
three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission 
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of 
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In 
determining what compliance period is as expeditious as

[[Page 56325]]

practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to plan and 
construct projects and change operating procedures.
    We are proposing new monitoring requirements for flares under CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3). We anticipate that these requirements could 
require engineering evaluations and, possibly in some limited cases, 
require the installation of new flare monitoring equipment and possibly 
new control systems to monitor and adjust assist gas (air or steam) 
addition rates. Installation of new monitoring and control equipment on 
flares will require the flare to be taken out of service. Depending on 
the configuration of the flares and flare header system, taking the 
flare out of service may also require a significant portion of the OLD 
source to be shut down, especially if the facility is primarily a bulk 
organic liquids terminal. Therefore, we are proposing that it is 
necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final rule 
(or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply 
with the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares.
    Under our technology review for equipment leaks under CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are proposing to revise the LDAR requirements to add 
connectors to the monitored equipment.
    Also, as a result of our technology review for storage tanks, we 
are proposing to lower applicability thresholds for tanks requiring 95-
percent HAP control so that more tanks will require control than with 
the existing OLD NESHAP. Furthermore, we are proposing tank fitting 
LDAR requirements for fixed roof storage tanks that are below the 
applicability threshold for 95-percent HAP control. We project some 
owners and operators would require engineering evaluations, 
solicitation and review of vendor quotes, contracting and installation 
of control equipment, which would require affected storage tanks to be 
out of service while the retrofits with IFR or closed vent systems are 
being installed. In addition, facilities will need time to read and 
understand the amended rule requirements and update standard operating 
procedures. Therefore, we are proposing that it is necessary to provide 
3 years after the effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, 
whichever is later) for owners or operators to comply with the proposed 
storage tank and equipment leak provisions.
    Finally, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM by 
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard 
during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and 
implement an SSM plan; we are also proposing electronic reporting 
requirements. We are positing that facilities would need some time to 
successfully accomplish these revisions, including time to read and 
understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations 
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown, as defined in the rule, and make any necessary 
adjustments, and to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary 
hardware and software. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple 
different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and 
the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From 
our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the 
entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 3 
years after the effective date of the final rule to be the most 
expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that 
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this 
regulation's revised requirements within 3 years of the regulation's 
effective date. For new sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after the publication date of this proposed action, we 
are requiring compliance upon initial startup.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are 177 sources currently operating OLD equipment subject to 
the OLD NESHAP. A complete list of facilities that are currently 
subject to the OLD NESHAP is available in Appendix 1 of the memorandum, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
    EPA projects four new liquids terminals and one major terminal 
expansion that would be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These new sources 
are not included in the risk assessment modeling effort but are 
included in the impacts analysis.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The risk assessment model input file identifies approximately 2,400 
tons HAP emitted per year from equipment regulated by the OLD NESHAP. 
The predominant HAP compounds include toluene, hexane, methanol, 
xylenes (mixture of o, m, and p isomers), benzene, styrene, methyl 
isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride, methyl tert-butyl ether, and ethyl 
benzene. More information about the baseline emissions in the risk 
assessment model input file can be found in Appendix 1 of the 
memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids 
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action. This proposed action would reduce HAP emissions from 
OLD NESHAP sources. The EPA estimates HAP emission reductions of 
approximately 386 tpy based on our analysis of the proposed actions 
described in sections IV.D.1 and 2 in this preamble. More information 
about the estimated emission reductions of this proposed action can be 
found in the document, National Impacts of the 2019 Risk and Technology 
Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    We estimate a resulting reduction of the MIR from 20-in-1 million 
to about 10-in-1 million. Likewise, population exposed to a cancer risk 
of greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would be reduced from 
350,000 to about 220,000. While not explicitly calculated, we would 
expect commensurate reductions in other risks metrics such as 
incidence, acute risk, multipathway risks, and ecological risks.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate the total capital costs of these proposed amendments to 
be approximately $4.5 million and the total annualized costs (including 
recovery credits) to be $1.8 million per year (2016 dollars). We also 
estimate the present value in 2016 of the costs is $8.4 million at a 
discount rate of 3 percent and $6.2 million at 7 percent (2016 
dollars). Calculated as an equivalent annualized value, which is 
consistent with the present value of costs in 2016, the costs are $1.8 
million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.5 million at a discount 
rate of 7 percent (2016 dollars). The annualized costs include those 
for operating and maintenance, and recovery credits of approximately 
$400,000 per year from the reduction in leaks and evaporative emissions 
from storage tanks. To estimate savings in chemicals not being emitted 
(i.e., lost) due to the equipment leak control options, we applied a 
recovery credit of $900 per ton of VOC to the VOC emission reductions 
in the analyses. The $900 per ton recovery credit has historically been 
used by the EPA to represent the variety of chemicals that are used as 
reactants and produced at

[[Page 56326]]

synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities,\40\ however, we 
recognize that this value is from a 2007 analysis and may be outdated. 
Therefore, we solicit comment on the availability of more recent 
information to potentially update the value used in this analysis to 
estimate the recovery credits. We used an interest rate of 5 percent to 
annualize the total capital costs. These estimated costs are associated 
with amendments of the requirements for storage tanks, LDAR, flares, 
and transfer racks. Table 10 of this preamble shows the estimated costs 
for each of the equipment types. Detailed information about how we 
estimated these costs are described in the following documents 
available in the docket for this action: National Impacts of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule for the Organic Liquids 
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, and Economic Impact and 
Small Business Analysis for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ U.S. EPA. 2007. Standards of Performance for Equipment 
Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 
Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in 
Petroleum Refineries (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/E7-13203/standards-of-performance-for-equipment-leaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicals-manufacturing). EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0699.

                Table 10--Summary of Costs of Proposed Amendments by Equipment Type, in Millions
                                                     [2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total annualized
                                                              cost (without        Annual       Total annualized
              Equipment type                 Capital cost    annual recovery      recovery     cost (with annual
                                                                 credits)          credits     recovery credits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage tanks.............................            2.68               0.41            0.33               0.08
LDAR--connector monitoring................            1.64               0.57            0.08               0.49
Flares....................................            0.19               0.36             N/A               0.36
Transfer racks............................            0.00               0.88             N/A               0.88
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................            4.51               2.22            0.41               1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for this proposal, as 
detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis 
for the Proposed OLD Production Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action. The economic 
impacts of the proposal are calculated as the percentage of total 
annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent owners to their 
revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct economic impact 
to ultimate parent owners of OLD facilities while presuming no impact 
on consumers. We estimate that none of the ultimate parent owners 
affected by this proposal will incur total annualized costs of 0.2 
percent or greater of their revenues. This estimate reflects the total 
annualized costs without product recovery as a credit. Thus, these 
economic impacts are low for affected companies and the industries 
impacted by this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts on 
the markets for affected products. The costs of the proposal are not 
expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of 
whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission 
reductions of HAP associated with this proposed action. However, we 
expect this proposed action would result in benefits associated with 
HAP emission reductions and lower risk of adverse health effects in 
communities near OLD sources.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional 
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are 
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used 
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment 
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in 
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and 
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this 
preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are

[[Page 56327]]

provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to OMB for review. This action is a significant regulatory action 
because it is likely to result in a rule that raises novel legal or 
policy issues. This regulatory action is not likely to have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, 
local, or tribal governments or communities. Any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action. The EPA has prepared an economic analysis, Economic Impact 
and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), which is available in the docket 
for this proposed rule.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be 
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associate with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 1963.07. You can find a copy of the ICR in the 
docket for this action, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing amendments that would change the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for OLD operations. The proposed amendments 
also require electronic reporting of performance test results and 
reports and compliance reports. The information would be collected to 
ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of OLD 
operations at major sources of HAP are affected by these proposed 
amendments. These respondents include, but are not limited to, 
facilities having NAICS codes: 4247 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products 
Merchant Wholesalers), 4861 (Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil), and 
4931 (Warehousing and Storage).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 
and 114 of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 181 facilities.
    Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
    Total estimated burden: 5,967 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $820,212 (per year), which includes $216,154 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than November 20, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are all small 
businesses. The Agency has determined that nine small entities are 
affected by these proposed amendments, which is 9 percent of all 
affected ultimate parent businesses. These nine small businesses may 
experience an impact of annualized costs of less than 0.20 percent of 
their annual revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the 
Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the 2019 Proposed 
Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in 
the docket for this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. None of the facilities that have been identified 
as being affected by this action are owned or operated by tribal 
governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. This 
action's health and risk assessments are contained in contained in 
sections III.A and C and sections IV.B and C of this preamble and in 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 
2019 Proposed Rule, which includes how risks to infants and children 
are addressed, and which is available in the docket for this action. 
The EPA expects that the emission reductions of HAP resulting from this 
proposed action would improve children's health.

[[Page 56328]]

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA expects this proposed action 
would not reduce crude oil supply, fuel production, coal production, 
natural gas production, or electricity production. We estimate that 
this proposed action would have minimal impact on the amount of imports 
or exports of crude oils, condensates, or other organic liquids used in 
the energy supply industries. Given the minimal impacts on energy 
supply, distribution, and use as a whole nationally, all of which are 
under the threshold screening criteria for compliance with this 
Executive Order established by OMB, no significant adverse energy 
effects are expected to occur.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the OLD NESHAP through the Enhanced National 
Standards Systems Network database managed by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for 
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25, 
25A, 26, 26A, and 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and Methods 301, 
311, 316, 320, 325A, and 325B of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. During the 
EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 
described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar 
to the EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential 
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the 
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant 
method validation data that meet the requirements of Method 301 of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the 
EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS.
    No applicable VCSs were identified for Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
21, 22, 27, and 316.
    Seven VCSs were identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA test 
methods for the purposes of this rule:
    (1) The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust 
Gas Analyses,'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B manual 
portion only and not the instrumental portion. Therefore, we are 
proposing to add this standard as a footnote to item 1.a.i.(3) of Table 
5 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by 
reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(1). ASME PTC 19.10 specifies methods, 
apparatus, and calculations which are used in conjunction with 
Performance Test Codes to determine quantitatively, the gaseous 
constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. 
The gases covered by this method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon 
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, 
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. Included are 
instrumental methods as well as (normally, wet chemical) methods. This 
method is available at the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990. See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
    (2) The VCS ASTM D6420-18, ``Standard Test Method for Determination 
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry.'' This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA 
as an alternative to Method 18 only when the target compounds are all 
known, and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as 
measurable. ASTM D6420 should not be specified as a total VOC method. 
Therefore, we are proposing to add this standard as a footnote to Table 
5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by 
reference at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(93). We are also proposing to update 
reference to the older version of this standard (i.e., ASTM D6420-99 
(Reapproved 2004) at 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3) to the new 2018 version and 
are proposing to remove reference to the old version of this standard 
at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(90) for use in the OLD NESHAP. ASTM D6420 is a field 
test method that employs a direct interface gas chromatograph/mass 
spectrometer (GCMS) to determine the mass concentration of any subset 
of 36 compounds listed in this method. Mass emission rates are 
determined by multiplying the mass concentration by the effluent 
volumetric flow rate. This field test method employs laboratory GCMS 
techniques and QA/quality control (QC) procedures in common 
application. This field test method provides data with accuracy and 
precision similar to most laboratory GCMS instrumentation.
    (3) The VCS ASTM D6735-01(2009), ``Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to 
Method 26 or Method 26A from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources, which 
is specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which is cited in the OLD 
NESHAP. For further information about the EPA's proposal to allow the 
use of this VCS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, see the EPA's Ethylene 
Production RTR proposed amendments in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0357. It is not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    (4) The VCS California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 310, 
``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and 
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products'' is an 
acceptable alternative to Method 311. However, we are not proposing to 
specify use of this method in the OLD NESHAP because CARB Method 310 is 
designed to measure the contents of aerosol cans and would not be well 
suited for organic liquid samples regulated under the OLD NESHAP. It is 
not being proposed for incorporation by reference in this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    (5) The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable 
alternative to Method 320. In the September 22, 2008, NTTA summary, 
ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to Method 320 with 
caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is an extractive FTIR based field test method 
used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target analytes 
from stationary source effluent. Because an FTIR analyzer is 
potentially capable of analyzing hundreds of compounds, this test 
method is not analyte or source specific. This field test method 
employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source 
effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and 
quantification of gaseous compounds. Concentration results are 
provided. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) 
and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct 
measurement of a certified

[[Page 56329]]

spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM 
D6348-01(2010) version. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Standard Test Method 
for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable 
alternative to Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion 
of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. We are proposing to 
allow the use of this VCS as an alternative to Method 320 at 40 CFR 
63.2354(b)(3) and (4) and at Table 5 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE 
under conditions that the test plan preparation and implementation in 
the Annexes to ASTM D6348-12e1, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; 
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation 
A5.5); %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%; if the %R value does not meet this 
criterion for a target compound, then the test data is not acceptable 
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., 
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest); and the %R value for each compound must be reported in the 
test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.

    We are proposing to incorporate this method at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(85) 
for use in the OLD NESHAP.
    (6) The VCS ISO 16017-2:2003, ``Indoor, Ambient and Workplace Air 
Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds by Sorbent Tube/
Thermal Desorption/Capillary Gas Chromatography--Part 2: Diffusive 
Sampling,'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 325B. This VCS is 
already incorporated by reference in Method 325B.
    (7) The VCS ASTM D6196-03(2009), ``Standard Practice for Selection 
of Sorbents, Sampling and Thermal Desorption Analysis Procedures for 
Volatile Organic Compounds in Air,'' is an acceptable alternative to 
Methods 325A and 325B. This VCS is already incorporated by reference in 
Method 325B.
    Additionally, the EPA proposes to use ASTM D6886-18, ``Standard 
Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile 
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas 
Chromatography,'' and ASTM D6378-18a, ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, 
Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion 
Method).'' ASTM D6886-18 is proposed to be used as one acceptable 
method to determine the percent weight of HAP in organic liquid, 
especially for liquids that contain a significant amount of carbon 
tetrachloride or formaldehyde, which are not detected using the Flame 
Ionization Detector based standard in the governing method currently 
cited in the OLD NESHAP (i.e., Method 311). ASTM D6378-18a is proposed 
to be used as a method to determine the vapor pressure of a liquid and 
whether equipment that stores or transfers such liquid is subject to 
emission standards of the OLD NESHAP.
    The ASTM methods proposed for incorporation by reference are 
available at ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/. 
During the comment period, these methods are available in read-only 
format at https://www.astm.org/EPA.htm.
    Finally, the EPA proposes to use EPA-454/B-08-002, ``Quality 
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems. Volume IV: 
Meteorological Measurements Version 2.0 (Final).'' If an owner or 
operator of an OLD source opts to implement a fenceline monitoring 
program proposed at 40 CFR 63.2348 and if the owner or operator opts to 
collect meteorological data from an on-site meteorological station, 
then the proposed rule requires the owner or operator to standardize, 
calibrate, and operate the meteorological station according to the 
procedures set forth in this document. This document is available in 
the docket for this action.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated 
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in 
risks between demographic groups, including the African American, 
Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below 
the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50 
km of OLD facilities has a higher percentage of minority, lower income, 
and lower education people when compared to the nationwide percentages 
of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities, 
the risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable, and 
emissions reductions from the proposed revisions will benefit these 
groups the most.
    The documentation for this decision is contained in sections IV.B 
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology 
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Operations, 
which is available in the docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 26, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraphs (h)(31) and (32), removing the phrase ``63.2406,'' 
without replacement;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (e)(1) and (h)(85);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(100) through (111) as paragraphs 
(h)(103) through (114), paragraphs (h)(92) through (99) as paragraphs 
(h)(94) through (101), and paragraphs (h)(89) through (91) as 
paragraphs (h)(90) through (92), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(89);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(91);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93);
0
g. Adding new paragraph (h)(102); and
0
h. Revising paragraph (n)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the

[[Page 56330]]

approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in 
this section, the EPA must publish a document in the Federal Register 
and the material must be available to the public. All approved material 
is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC 
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 
telephone number 202-566-1744, and is available from the sources listed 
below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 63.3166(a), 
63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 
63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 
5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
* * * * *
    (89) ASTM D6378-18a, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and 
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method), approved 
December 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.2343(b)(5) and 
63.2406.
* * * * *
    (91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2004, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.457(b), 63.485(g), 60.485a(g), 63.772(a), 
63.772(e), 63.1282(a) and (d), and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2018, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
* * * * *
    (102) ASTM D6886-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of the 
Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-
Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography, approved October 1, 2018, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.2354(c).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) EPA-454/B-08-002, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 
Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), 
March 24, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.658(d), 63.2348(d) and 
appendix A to this part: Method 325A.
* * * * *

Subpart EEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

0
3. Section 63.2338 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2338  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (c) The equipment listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section and used in the identified operations is excluded from the 
affected source.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.2342 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and adding paragraphs (e) and 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2342  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you 
have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this 
subpart according to the schedule identified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), 
or (3) of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you 
have an existing affected source, you must comply with this subpart 
according to the schedule identified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) 
of this section, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. Sec.  
63.2343 and 63.2382(a), as applicable, according to the schedules in 
Sec.  63.2382(a) and (b)(1) through (2) and in subpart A of this part. 
Some of these notifications must be submitted before the compliance 
dates for the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice 
standards in this subpart.
    (e) An affected source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must be in compliance 
with the requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this 
section upon initial startup or [date 3 years after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. An affected 
source that commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 
2019, must be in compliance with the requirements listed in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (7) of this section upon initial startup.
    (1) The requirements for storage tanks not requiring control 
specified in Sec.  63.2343(b)(4) through (7).
    (2) The requirements for storage tanks at an existing affected 
source specified in Sec.  63.2346(a)(5) and (6), Sec.  
63.2386(d)(3)(iii), Sec.  63.2396(a)(4), Table 2 to this subpart, 
footnote (2), and Table 2b to this subpart.
    (3) The equipment leak requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(l), 
Table 4 to this subpart, item 7, and footnote (1), Table 10 to this 
subpart, item 5.b.i and footnote (1).
    (4) The fenceline monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2348, Sec.  63.2386(k), and Sec.  63.2390(i) according to the 
compliance dates specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (5) The flare requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(k), Sec.  
63.2382(d)(2)(ix), Sec.  63.2386(d)(5), Sec.  63.2390(h), Table 2 to 
this subpart, footnote (1), Table 3 to this subpart, item 7.d, Table 8 
to this subpart, items 1.a.iii and 2.a.iii, and Table 9 to this 
subpart, item 7.e.
    (6) The requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m), Sec.  
63.2350(d), Sec.  63.2366(c), Sec.  63.2390(f) and (g), Sec.  
63.2386(c)(11) and (12), Sec.  63.2386(d)(1)(xiii) and (f) through (j), 
Sec.  63.2378(e), Table 9 to this subpart, footnote (1), and Table 10 
to this subpart, items 1.a.i and 2.a.ii.
    (7) The performance testing requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2354(b)(6).
    (f) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in Sec.  
63.2348:

[[Page 56331]]

    (1) An affected source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must submit modeling 
results, proposed analytes, and action levels according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.2348(b) upon initial startup or [date 1 year 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
whichever is later. All affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must submit modeling results, 
proposed analytes and action levels according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.2348(b) as part of your permit application for the new OLD 
operations.
    (2) An affected source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of 
the modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and be in compliance with all 
requirements of Sec.  63.2348 upon initial startup or [date 2 years 
after date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], 
whichever is later. An affected source that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after October 21, 2019, must obtain approval of the 
modeling results, proposed analytes, and action levels submitted in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section and must be in compliance with all 
requirements listed in Sec.  63.2348 by initial startup.
0
5. Section 63.2343 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) 
introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(7);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2343  What are my requirements for emission sources not 
requiring control?

    This section establishes the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements for emission sources identified in Sec.  63.2338 
that do not require control under this subpart (i.e., under Sec.  
63.2346(a) through (e)). Such emission sources are not subject to any 
other notification, recordkeeping, or reporting sections in this 
subpart, including Sec.  63.2350(c), except as indicated in paragraphs 
(a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) For each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity 
of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons), you must comply with 
paragraph (e) of this section. Also, for each storage tank subject to 
this subpart having a capacity of less than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 
gallons) and for each transfer rack subject to this subpart that only 
unloads organic liquids (i.e., no organic liquids are loaded at any of 
the transfer racks), you must keep documentation that verifies that 
each storage tank and transfer rack identified in paragraph (a) of this 
section is not required to be controlled. The documentation must be 
kept up-to-date (i.e., all such emission sources at a facility are 
identified in the documentation regardless of when the documentation 
was last compiled) and must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious inspection and review according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1), 
including records stored in electronic form in a separate location. The 
documentation may consist of identification of the tanks and transfer 
racks identified in paragraph (a) of this section on a plant site plan 
or process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID).
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, for 
each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 
cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control 
based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 
through 6, you must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must monitor each potential source of vapor leakage 
from each fixed roof storage tank and its closure devices for leaks as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of 
this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct 
subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after previous monitoring is 
performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains organic 
liquid.
    (A) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use 
according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of 
methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per 
million.
    (B) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the 
end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used 
to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in 
Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 to this chapter, 
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration 
gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-
test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value 
and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
    (C) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration response, you must 
re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with 
instrument readings below the appropriate leak definition and above the 
leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the percent of negative drift/
divided by 100).
    (ii) An instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv) or greater defines a leak.
    (iii) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs 
or completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a 
repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be 
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of 
up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each decision 
to use an extension, as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through 
(C) of this section. Not repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage 
tank within the time frame specified in this paragraph is a deviation. 
If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the second 
extension period, report the date when the fixed roof storage tank was 
emptied or repaired in your compliance report.
    (A) Records for a first extension must include a description of the 
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable 
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions 
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the 
fixed roof storage tank during the extension period.
    (B) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records 
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during 
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to 
ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or 
repaired by the end of the second extension period.
    (C) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was 
completely emptied, if applicable.
    (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic vapor pressure analyses or obtain 
vapor pressure analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according 
to the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (ii) of this 
section to demonstrate that the annual average true vapor pressure of 
the organic liquid

[[Page 56332]]

associated with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each 
periodic vapor pressure analysis, you must use ASTM D6378-18a 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), a vapor to liquid ratio 
of 4:1, and the actual annual average temperature as defined in this 
subpart. Maintain records of each periodic annual average true vapor 
pressure analysis according to the requirements of Sec.  63.2394.
    (i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and 
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October 21, 2019, 
you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor 
pressure analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or 
conduct subsequent periodic vapor pressure analyses no later than 60 
months thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents 
of storage tank are a different commodity since the previous analysis, 
whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain 
analysis data or conduct the first periodic vapor pressure analysis no 
later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by Sec.  
63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic vapor 
pressure analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank are a different 
commodity since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first.
    (6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must conduct periodic HAP content analyses or obtain 
HAP content analysis data from the organic liquid supplier according to 
the schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section 
to demonstrate that the HAP content of the organic liquid associated 
with each storage tank is below control thresholds. For each periodic 
HAP content analysis, you must use the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.2354(c), except you may not use voluntary consensus standards, 
safety data sheets (SDS), or certified product data sheets. Maintain 
records of each periodic HAP content analysis according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.2394.
    (i) For each existing affected source, and for each new and 
reconstructed affected source that commences construction or 
reconstruction after April 2, 2002, and on or before October 21, 2019, 
you must obtain analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content 
analysis on or before [date 3 years after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register] and obtain analysis data or conduct 
subsequent periodic HAP content analyses no later than 60 months 
thereafter following the previous analysis, or if the contents of 
storage tank have changed significantly since the previous analysis, 
whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For each new and reconstructed affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, you must obtain 
analysis data or conduct the first periodic HAP content analysis no 
later than 60 months following the initial analysis required by Sec.  
63.2358 and obtain analysis data or conduct subsequent periodic HAP 
content analyses no later than 60 months thereafter following the 
previous analysis, or if the contents of storage tank have changed 
significantly since the previous analysis, whichever occurs first.
    (7) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) 
apply.
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section, 
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 
section apply to the following storage tanks:
    (A) Storage tanks at an existing affected source subject to this 
subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more 
that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified in 
Table 2b of this subpart, items 1 through 3.
    (B) Storage tanks at a reconstructed or new affected source subject 
to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) 
or more that are not subject to control based on the criteria specified 
in Table 2 to this subpart, items 3 through 6.
    (ii) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.2348, then you are not required to comply with 
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(7)(i) of this section. Instead, you may 
continue to comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section 
for each storage tank subject to this subpart having a capacity of 18.9 
cubic meters (5,000 gallons) or more that is not subject to control 
based on the criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 
through 6.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) If you are already submitting a Notification of Compliance 
Status or a first Compliance report under Sec.  63.2386(c), you do not 
need to submit a separate Notification of Compliance Status or first 
Compliance report for each transfer rack that meets the conditions 
identified in paragraph (c) of this section (i.e., a single 
Notification of Compliance Status or first Compliance report should be 
submitted).
* * * * *
    (e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), for each fixed roof storage tank having a capacity less 
than 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) but greater than 3.8 cubic 
meters (1,000 gallons) storing an organic liquid with an annual average 
true vapor pressure greater than 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia), you must 
monitor each closure device and potential source of vapor leakage as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct monitoring using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of 
this chapter within 90 days after the initial fill. You must conduct 
subsequent monitoring no later than 1 year after the previous 
monitoring is performed, provided the fixed roof storage tank contains 
organic liquid.
    (i) Calibrate the instrument before use on the day of its use 
according to the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 of this chapter. Calibration gases must be zero air and a mixture of 
methane in air at a concentration of no greater than 2,000 parts per 
million.
    (ii) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the 
end of each monitoring day using the same calibration gas that was used 
to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures in 
Section 10.1 of Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 to this chapter, 
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration 
gas value. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial and post-
test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas value 
and multiply by 100 to express the calibration drift as a percentage.
    (iii) If the calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent, you must re-monitor all equipment monitored since 
the last calibration.
    (2) An instrument reading of 500 ppmv or greater defines a leak.
    (3) When a leak is identified, you must either complete repairs or 
completely empty the fixed roof storage tank within 45 days. If a 
repair cannot be completed or the fixed roof storage tank cannot be 
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of 
up to 30 additional days

[[Page 56333]]

each. Keep records documenting each decision to use an extension, as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. Not 
repairing or emptying the fixed roof storage tank within the time frame 
specified in this paragraph is a deviation. If you do not empty or 
repair leaks before the end of the second extension period, report the 
date when the fixed roof storage tank was emptied or repaired in your 
compliance report.
    (i) Records for a first extension must include a description of the 
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable 
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions 
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the 
fixed roof storage tank during the extension period.
    (ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records 
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during 
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to 
ensure that the fixed roof storage tank was completely emptied or 
repaired by the end of the second extension period.
    (iii) Record the date on which the fixed roof storage tank was 
completely emptied, if applicable.
0
6. Section 63.2346 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 
(a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iv), paragraph (a)(4)(v) introductory text, and 
paragraph (a)(4)(v)(A);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), (d)(2), (e), (f) and (i); 
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (k), (l), and (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2346   What emission limitations, operating limits, and work 
practice standards must I meet?

    (a) Storage tanks. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) and (m) 
of this section, for each storage tank storing organic liquids that 
meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control 
in Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through 5, you must comply with 
paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For each storage 
tank storing organic liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid 
vapor pressure criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart, item 6, 
you must comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (4) of this section.
    (1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 or 2b to this 
subpart and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the 
applicable requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for 
meeting emission limits, except substitute the term ``storage tank'' at 
each occurrence of the term ``storage vessel'' in subpart SS.
    (2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this 
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (m) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Transport vehicles must have a current certification in 
accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. 
DOT) qualification and maintenance requirements of 49 CFR part 180, 
subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars.
* * * * *
    (iv) No pressure relief device on the storage tank, on the vapor 
return line, or on the cargo tank or tank car, shall open during 
loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (breathing 
losses).
    (v) Pressure relief devices must be set to no less than 2.5 pounds 
per square inch gauge (psig) at all times to prevent breathing losses. 
Pressure relief devices may be set at values less than 2.5 psig if the 
owner or operator provides rationale in the notification of compliance 
status report explaining why the alternative value is sufficient to 
prevent breathing losses at all times. The owner or operator shall 
comply with paragraphs (a)(4)(v)(A) through (C) of this section for 
each relief valve.
    (A) The relief valve shall be monitored quarterly using the method 
described in Sec.  63.180(b).
* * * * *
    (5) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, 
beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure criteria, 
and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected 
source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1 no longer apply. Instead, for 
each storage tank at an existing affected source storing organic 
liquids that meets the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria 
for control in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, you must 
comply with paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section.
    (6) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.2348, then you are not required to comply with 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Instead, you may continue to comply 
with the tank capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria and the 
emission limits specified for storage tanks at an existing affected 
source in Table 2 of this subpart, item 1.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart 
and comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable 
requirements for transfer racks specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
SS, for meeting emission limits.
    (2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. If you comply with this 
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraph (m) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Equipment leak components. Except as specified in paragraph (l) 
of this section, for each pump, valve, and sampling connection that 
operates in organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year, 
you must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), 
subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart H. Pumps, valves, and sampling 
connectors that are insulated to provide protection against persistent 
sub-freezing temperatures are subject to the ``difficult to monitor'' 
provisions in the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. 
This paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one 
storage tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for 
control in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
    (d) * * *
    (2) Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport 
vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. 
DOT qualification and maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, 
subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank cars.
    (e) Operating limits. For each high throughput transfer rack, you 
must meet each operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart for each 
control device used to comply with the provisions of this subpart 
whenever emissions from the loading of organic liquids are routed to 
the control device. Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this 
section, for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, you 
must comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the requirements for 
monitored parameters as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for 
storage vessels and, during the loading of organic liquids, for low 
throughput transfer racks, respectively. Alternatively, you may comply 
with the operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (f) Surrogate for organic HAP. For noncombustion devices, if you 
elect to

[[Page 56334]]

demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction requirement in Table 2 
or 2b to this subpart using total organic compounds (TOC) rather than 
organic HAP, you must first demonstrate, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator, that TOC is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP in 
your case; that is, for your storage tank(s) and/or transfer rack(s), 
the percent destruction of organic HAP is equal to or higher than the 
percent destruction of TOC. This demonstration must be conducted prior 
to or during the initial compliance test.
* * * * *
    (i) Safety device. Opening of a safety device is allowed at any 
time that it is required to avoid unsafe operating conditions. 
Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no longer applies.
* * * * *
    (k) Flares. Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified 
in Sec.  63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer 
rack, if you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare 
then you must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2380 
instead of the requirements in Sec.  63.987 and the provisions 
regarding flare compliance assessments at Sec.  63.997(a), (b), and 
(c).
    (l) Equipment leak components. Beginning no later than the 
compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342(e), paragraph (c) of this 
section no longer applies. Instead, you must comply with paragraph 
(l)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, for 
each connector, pump, valve, and sampling connection that operates in 
organic liquids service for at least 300 hours per year, you must 
comply with paragraph (m) of this section and the applicable 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU (control level 2), or 
subpart H. Connectors, pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are 
insulated to provide protection against persistent sub-freezing 
temperatures are subject to the ``difficult to monitor'' provisions in 
the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This 
paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage 
tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control 
in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
    (2) If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.2348, then you may choose to comply with this 
paragraph instead of paragraph (l)(1) of this section. For each pump, 
valve, and sampling connection that operates in organic liquids service 
for at least 300 hours per year, you must comply with paragraph (m) of 
this section and the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level 2), or subpart 
H. Pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are insulated to provide 
protection against persistent sub-freezing temperatures are subject to 
the ``difficult to monitor'' provisions in the applicable subpart 
selected by the owner or operator. This paragraph only applies if the 
affected source has at least one storage tank or transfer rack that 
meets the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 or 2b to this 
subpart.
    (m) Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction. Beginning no later than 
the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342(e), the referenced 
provisions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (19) of this section 
do not apply when demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
H, subpart SS, and subpart UU.
    (1) The second sentence of Sec.  63.181(d)(5)(i) of subpart H.
    (2) Sec.  63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
    (3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
    (4) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and 
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.  
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
    (5) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions'' 
in Sec.  63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
    (6) Sec.  63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (7) Sec.  63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
    (8) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(i) of subpart 
SS.
    (9) Sec.  63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
    (10) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
    (11) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or 
malfunctions'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
    (12) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) 
and (B) of this section'' from Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
    (13) The second sentence of Sec.  63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (14) Sec.  63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
    (15) Sec.  63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
    (16) Sec.  63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
    (17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
    (18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
    (19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction)'' from Sec.  63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
0
7. Section 63.2348 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2348   What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet?

    (a) If you own or operate a facility that is not required to 
conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to Sec.  63.658, then you may opt 
to conduct fenceline monitoring pursuant to this section. Beginning no 
later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342(f), if you 
choose to comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2343(b)(7)(ii) and Sec.  63.2346(a)(6) and (l)(2), then you must 
conduct sampling along the facility property boundary and analyze the 
samples in accordance with Methods 325A and 325B of appendix A of this 
part and paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
    (b) You must determine your target analytes for monitoring and 
site-specific action level for each analyte as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must use EPA's Guidance on Determination of Analytes and 
Action Levels for Fenceline Monitoring of Organic Liquids Distribution 
Sources to develop your HAP emissions inventory and conduct your 
modeling. The HAP emissions inventory is set at allowable emissions 
from all equipment at the source under common control of the owner and 
operator of the OLD operation. For this modeling effort, modeled 
allowable emissions from storage tanks and equipment leaks must be 
adjusted to take into account the requirements at Sec. Sec.  
63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) for the purpose of setting the 
analytes and action level of the fenceline monitoring program.
    (2) You must determine at least one target analyte as prescribed in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Each analyte must have an available uptake rate at Table 12.1 
of Method 325B of appendix A to this part or must have an uptake rate 
for the selected sorbent validated using Addendum A of Method 325B of 
appendix A to this part.
    (ii) A HAP cannot be used to meet the fenceline monitoring 
requirements of this section unless the corresponding action level is 
at least five times the method detection limit for the HAP.
    (iii) The first analyte is the Table 1 HAP with the most allowable 
emissions from OLD operations at the facility on an annual basis. If 
this HAP is emitted from all equipment that would have

[[Page 56335]]

been subject to the requirements at Sec. Sec.  63.2343(b)(4), 
63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement fenceline 
monitoring according to this section, then no other analytes are 
required to be monitored. If this HAP is not emitted from all equipment 
that would have been subject to the requirements at Sec. Sec.  
63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had you not opted to implement 
fenceline monitoring according to this section, then you must monitor 
additional analytes as outlined in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 
section.
    (iv) You must select additional analytes from Table 1 that best 
represent emissions of HAP from all OLD operations that do not emit the 
HAP selected in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section and that would 
have been subject to the storage tank and connector monitoring 
requirements at Sec. Sec.  63.2343(b)(4), 63.2346(a)(5), and (l)(1) had 
you not opted to implement fenceline monitoring according to this 
section. Select the Table 1 HAP having the most allowable emissions 
from this set of equipment. If the HAP selected in this step is not 
emitted from all the OLD equipment in this step, then repeat this step 
until at least one selected HAP is emitted from this set of equipment.
    (3) The action level for each analyte selected in paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section is set as the highest modeled concentration of all 
fenceline user-defined receptors in the model results, expressed in 
micrograms per cubic meter, and rounded to two significant figures.
    (4) You must submit the modeling results and proposed analytes and 
action levels to the Administrator no later than the date specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(f)(1).
    (5) You must determine revised analytes or action levels when your 
title V permit is renewed; when other permit amendments decrease 
allowable emissions of any target analyte by more than 10 percent below 
emissions described in the modeling effort used to establish the 
current analytes and action levels; or upon issuance of a permit 
modification that results in the conditions of paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section no longer being met. You may choose to revise analytes or 
action levels at other times when changes at the source occur that 
would result in different modeling results. You must submit your 
revised modeling results and new proposed analytes and action levels to 
the Administrator no later than 3 months after any permit renewal or 
amendment triggering model revisions has been issued.
    (i) If a revised action level is determined for a currently 
monitored analyte, for the first year, the action level shall be 
calculated for each sample period as a weighted average of the previous 
action level and the new action level. After 26 sampling periods, the 
new action level takes effect. Beginning with the first biweekly 
sampling period following approval by the Administrator of the revised 
modeling, determine your weighted action level according to the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.000

    Where:

N1 = number of samples during the rolling annual period 
prior to change of action level
N2 = number of samples during the rolling annual period 
since the change in action level
AL1 = prior action level, [mu]g/m3
AL2 = new action level, [mu]g/m3
26 = number of samples in an annual period

    (ii) If revised modeling results eliminate an analyte that is 
currently being monitored, then once monitoring of that analyte stops, 
you are no longer subject to the requirement in paragraph (f) of this 
section to determine whether the action level has been exceeded. If the 
action level for the analyte hasn't been exceeded, you are no longer 
required to monitor that analyte starting in the biweekly period that 
begins following approval by the Administrator of the revised modeling. 
If the action level for the analyte has been exceeded, you must be 
below the action level for the analyte for one full year (26 sampling 
periods) before you stop monitoring for that analyte.
    (iii) If revised modeling results establish a new analyte to be 
monitored, you must begin monitoring for the new analyte in the first 
biweekly period that begins following approval by the Administrator of 
the revised modeling. You are not subject to the requirement in 
paragraph (f) of this section to determine whether the action level has 
been exceeded prior to collecting a full year (26 sampling periods) of 
monitoring data for the new analyte.
    (c) You must determine passive monitor locations in accordance with 
Section 8.2 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part.
    (1) As it pertains to this subpart, known sources of VOCs, as used 
in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part for siting 
passive monitors, means any part of the affected source as defined in 
Sec.  63.2338(b). For this subpart, an additional monitor is not 
required if the only emission sources within 50 meters of the 
monitoring boundary are equipment leak sources satisfying all of the 
conditions in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The equipment leak sources in organic liquids service within 50 
meters of the monitoring boundary are limited to valves, pumps, 
connectors, and sampling connections. If compressors, pressure relief 
devices, or agitators in organic liquids service are present within 50 
meters of the monitoring boundary, the additional passive monitoring 
location specified in Section 8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to 
this part must be used.
    (ii) All equipment leak sources in in organic liquids service, 
including valves, pumps, connectors, and sampling connections must be 
monitored using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 no less 
frequently than quarterly with no provisions for skip period 
monitoring, or according to the provisions of Sec.  63.11(c) 
Alternative Work practice for monitoring equipment for leaks. For the 
purpose of this provision, a leak is detected if the instrument reading 
equals or exceeds the applicable limits in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) 
through (E) of this section:
    (A) For valves, pumps or connectors at an existing source, an 
instrument reading of 10,000 ppmv.
    (B) For valves or connectors at a new source, an instrument reading 
of 500 ppmv.
    (C) For pumps at a new source, an instrument reading of 2,000 ppmv.
    (D) For sampling connections, an instrument reading of 500 ppmv 
above background.
    (E) For equipment monitored according to the Alternative Work 
practice for monitoring equipment for leaks, the leak definitions 
contained in Sec.  63.11(c)(6)(i) through (iii).
    (iii) All equipment leak sources in organic liquids service must be 
inspected using visual, audible,

[[Page 56336]]

olfactory, or any other detection method at least monthly. A leak is 
detected if the inspection identifies a potential leak to the 
atmosphere or if there are indications of liquids dripping.
    (iv) All leaks identified by the monitoring or inspections 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be 
repaired no later than 15 calendar days after it is detected with no 
provisions for delay of repair. If a repair is not completed within 15 
calendar days, the additional passive monitor specified in Section 
8.2.1.3 in Method 325A of appendix A to this part must be used.
    (2) You may collect one or more background samples if you believe 
that an offsite upwind source may influence the sampler measurements. 
If you elect to collect one or more background samples, you must 
develop and submit a site-specific monitoring plan for approval 
according to the requirements in paragraph (i) of this section. Upon 
approval of the site-specific monitoring plan, the background 
sampler(s) should be operated co-currently with the routine samplers.
    (3) If there are 19 or fewer monitoring locations, you must collect 
at least one co-located duplicate sample per sampling period and at 
least one field blank per sampling period. If there are 20 or more 
monitoring locations, you must collect at least two co-located 
duplicate samples per sampling period and at least one field blank per 
sampling period. The co-located duplicates may be collected at any of 
the perimeter sampling locations.
    (4) You must follow the procedure in Section 9.6 of Method 325B of 
appendix A to this part to determine the detection limit of the 
analytes for each sampler used to collect samples, background samples 
(if you elect to do so), co-located samples and blanks.
    (d) You must collect and record meteorological data according to 
the applicable requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (i)(2) of this section or if an alternative test method is 
used that provides time-resolved measurements, you must:
    (i) Use an on-site meteorological station in accordance with 
Section 8.3 of Method 325A of appendix A to this part.
    (ii) Collect and record hourly average meteorological data, 
including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, and wind 
direction and calculate daily unit vector wind direction and daily 
sigma theta.
    (2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, you must collect and record sampling period average 
temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-site 
meteorological station in accordance with Section 8.3.1 through 8.3.3 
of Method 325A of appendix A to this part or, alternatively, using data 
from the closest National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station 
provided the NWS meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 
miles) of the plant site.
    (3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, you must follow 
the calibration and standardization procedures for meteorological 
measurements in EPA-454/B-08-002 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14).
    (e) You must use a sampling period and sampling frequency as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Sampling period. A 14-day sampling period must be used, unless 
a shorter sampling period is determined to be necessary under paragraph 
(g) or (i) of this section. A sampling period is defined as the period 
during which a sampling tube is deployed at a specific sampling 
location with the diffusive sampling end cap in-place and does not 
include the time required to analyze the sample. For the purpose of 
this subpart, a 14-day sampling period may be no shorter than 13 
calendar days and no longer than 15 calendar days, but the routine 
sampling period must be 14 calendar days.
    (2) Base sampling frequency. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) 
of this section, the frequency of sample collection must be once each 
contiguous 14-day sampling period, such that the beginning of the next 
14-day sampling period begins immediately upon the completion of the 
previous 14-day sampling period.
    (3) Alternative sampling frequency for burden reduction. When an 
individual monitor consistently achieves results at or below one tenth 
of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may 
elect to use the applicable minimum sampling frequency specified in 
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this section for that monitoring 
site. When calculating the biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) 
for the monitoring period when using this alternative for burden 
reduction, substitute zero for the sample result for the monitoring 
site for any period where a sample is not taken.
    (i) If every sample at a monitoring site is at or below one tenth 
of the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes for 2 
years (52 consecutive samples), every other sampling period can be 
skipped for that monitoring site, i.e., sampling will occur 
approximately once per month.
    (ii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section is at or 
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored 
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 26 consecutive ``monthly'' samples), five 
14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site 
following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur 
approximately once per quarter.
    (iii) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is at or 
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored 
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 8 consecutive quarterly samples), twelve 
14-day sampling periods can be skipped for that monitoring site 
following each period of sampling, i.e., sampling will occur twice a 
year.
    (iv) If every sample at a monitoring site that is monitored at the 
frequency specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section is at or 
below one tenth of the corresponding action level for all monitored 
analytes for 2 years (i.e., 4 consecutive semiannual samples), only one 
sample per year is required for that monitoring site. For yearly 
sampling, samples must occur at least 10 months but no more than 14 
months apart.
    (v) If at any time a sample for a monitoring site that is monitored 
at the frequency specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 
section returns a result that is above one tenth of the corresponding 
action level for any analyte, the sampling site must return to the 
original sampling requirements of contiguous 14-day sampling periods 
with no skip periods for one quarter (six 14-day sampling periods). If 
every sample collected during this quarter is at or below one tenth of 
the corresponding action level for all monitored analytes, you may 
revert back to the reduced monitoring schedule applicable for that 
monitoring site prior to the sample reading exceeding one tenth of the 
action level. If any sample collected during this quarter is above one 
tenth of the corresponding action level for any analyte, that 
monitoring site must return to the original sampling requirements of 
contiguous 14-day sampling periods with no skip periods for a minimum 
of 2 years. The burden reduction requirements can be used again for 
that monitoring site once the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of 
this section are met again, i.e., after 52 contiguous 14-day samples 
with no results above one tenth of the corresponding action level for 
all monitored analytes.

[[Page 56337]]

    (f) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, you must 
determine whether the results are above or below the corresponding 
action level for each analyte as follows:
    (1) You must determine the facility impact on the analyte 
concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each analyte for each 14-day 
sampling period according to either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (i) of this section, for each analyte, you must determine the 
highest and lowest sample results from the sample pool and calculate 
[Delta]c as the difference in these concentrations. Co-located samples 
must be averaged together for the purposes of determining the analyte 
concentration for that sampling location, and, if applicable, for 
determining [Delta]c. You must adhere to the following procedures when 
one or more samples for the sampling period are below the method 
detection limit for an analyte:
    (A) If the lowest value of an analyte is below detection, you must 
use zero as the lowest sample result when calculating [Delta]c.
    (B) If all sample results for a particular analyte are below the 
method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the 
highest sample result and zero as the lowest sample result when 
calculating [Delta]c.
    (ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (i) of this section, you must determine [Delta]c using the 
calculation protocols outlined in the approved site-specific monitoring 
plan and in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) For each analyte, you must calculate the annual average 
[Delta]c based on the average of the 26 most recent 14-day sampling 
periods. You must update this annual average value after receiving the 
results of each subsequent 14-day sampling period.
    (3) If the annual average [Delta]c value for an analyte is less 
than or equal to the corresponding action level determined in paragraph 
(b) of this section, the concentration is below the action level. If 
the annual average [Delta]c value for any analyte is greater than the 
corresponding action level determined in paragraph (b) of this section, 
then you must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective action in 
accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
    (g) Within 5 days of determining that the action level for any 
analyte has been exceeded for any annual average [Delta]c and no longer 
than 50 days after completion of the sampling period in which the 
action level was first exceeded, you must initiate a root cause 
analysis to determine the cause of such exceedance and to determine 
appropriate corrective action, such as those described in paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (4) of this section. The root cause analysis and initial 
corrective action analysis must be completed and initial corrective 
actions taken no later than 45 days after determining there is an 
exceedance. Root cause analysis and corrective action may include, but 
is not limited to:
    (1) Leak inspection using Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7 of 
this chapter and repairing any leaks found.
    (2) Leak inspection using optical gas imaging and repairing any 
leaks found.
    (3) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high emissions 
and implementing repairs to reduce the level of emissions.
    (4) Employing progressively more frequent sampling, analysis and 
meteorology (e.g., using shorter sampling periods for Methods 325A and 
325B of appendix A of this part, or using active sampling techniques).
    (h) If, upon completion of the corrective action analysis and 
corrective actions such as those described in paragraph (g) of this 
section, the [Delta]c value for the next 14-day sampling period for 
which the sampling start time begins after the completion of the 
corrective actions is greater than the action level for the same 
analyte that previously exceed the action level or if all corrective 
action measures identified require more than 45 days to implement, you 
must develop a corrective action plan that describes the corrective 
action(s) completed to date, additional measures that you propose to 
employ to reduce fenceline concentrations below the action level, and a 
schedule for completion of these measures. You must submit the 
corrective action plan to the Administrator within 60 days after 
receiving the analytical results indicating that the [Delta]c value for 
the 14-day sampling period following the completion of the initial 
corrective action is greater than the action level or, if no initial 
corrective actions were identified, no later than 60 days following the 
completion of the corrective action analysis required in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
    (i) You may request approval from the Administrator for a site-
specific monitoring plan to account for offsite upwind sources 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) You must prepare and submit a site-specific monitoring plan and 
receive approval of the site-specific monitoring plan prior to using 
the near-field source alternative calculation for determining [Delta]c 
provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. The site-specific 
monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the elements specified in 
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The procedures in 
Section 12 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part are not required, 
but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-field source 
contributions.
    (i) Identification of the near-field source or sources.
    (ii) Location of the additional monitoring stations that must be 
used to determine the uniform background concentration and the near-
field source concentration contribution.
    (iii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted 
by the near-field source. If more than one near-field source is 
present, identify the near-field source or sources that are expected to 
contribute to the concentration at that monitoring location.
    (iv) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating) 
the planned data reduction and calculations to determine the near-field 
source concentration contribution for each monitoring location.
    (v) If more frequent monitoring or a monitoring station other than 
a passive diffusive tube monitoring station is proposed, provide a 
detailed description of the measurement methods, measurement frequency, 
and recording frequency for determining the uniform background or near-
field source concentration contribution. Uniform background and near-
field source concentration contributions must be determined by a real-
time or semi-continuous measurement technique that can be reconciled 
with the measurements taken using the passive diffusive tubes.
    (2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, for 
each analyte covered by the site-specific monitoring plan, you must 
determine [Delta]c for comparison with the corresponding action level 
using the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) For each monitoring location, calculate [Delta]ci 
using the following equation.

[Delta]ci = MFCi - NFSi - UB

Where:

[Delta]ci = The fenceline concentration, corrected for 
background, at measurement location i, micrograms per cubic meter 
([micro]g/m\3\).
MFCi = The measured fenceline concentration at 
measurement location i, [micro]g/m\3\.
NFSi = The near-field source contributing concentration 
at measurement location i determined using the additional

[[Page 56338]]

measurements and calculation procedures included in the site-
specific monitoring plan, [micro]g/m\3\. For monitoring locations 
that are not included in the site-specific monitoring plan as 
impacted by a near-field source, use NFSi = 0 [micro]g/m\3\.
UB = The uniform background concentration determined using the 
additional measurements included in the site-specific monitoring 
plan, [micro]g/m\3\. If no additional measurements are specified in 
the site-specific monitoring plan for determining the uniform 
background concentration, use UB = 0 [micro]g/m\3\.

    (ii) When one or more samples for the sampling period are below the 
method detection limit for an analyte, adhere to the following 
procedures:
    (A) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location used 
for the uniform background concentration is below the method detection 
limit, you must use zero for UB for that monitoring period.
    (B) If the analyte concentration at the monitoring location(s) used 
to determine the near-field source contributing concentration is below 
the method detection limit, you must use zero for the monitoring 
location concentration when calculating NFSi for that monitoring 
period.
    (C) If a fenceline monitoring location sample result is below the 
method detection limit, you must use the method detection limit as the 
sample result.
    (iii) Determine [Delta]c for the monitoring period as the maximum 
value of [Delta]ci from all of the fenceline monitoring locations for 
that monitoring period.
    (3) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted and 
approved as described in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval.
    (ii) The site-specific monitoring plan must also be submitted to 
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143-01), Attention: Organic Liquids 
Distribution Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted 
to [email protected].
    (iii) The Administrator must approve or disapprove the plan in 90 
days. The plan is considered approved if the Administrator either 
approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in 
writing. The 90-day period must begin when the Administrator receives 
the plan.
    (iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-
specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, you may 
revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan following the 
requirements in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 90-
day period starts over with the resubmission of the revised monitoring 
plan.
    (4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring 
plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy and reasonableness of 
the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the 
Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-
specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those 
described in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) The identification of the near-field source or sources.
    (ii) The monitoring location selected to determine the uniform 
background concentration or an indication that no uniform background 
concentration monitor will be used.
    (iii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to 
determine the near-field source concentration contribution.
    (iv) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations 
impacted by the near-field source or sources.
    (v) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and 
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration 
contribution for each monitoring location.
    (vi) If more frequent monitoring is proposed, the adequacy of the 
description of the measurement and recording frequency proposed and the 
adequacy of the rationale for using the alternative monitoring 
frequency.
    (vii) The appropriateness of the measurement technique selected for 
determining the uniform background and near-field source concentration 
contributions.
    (j) You must comply with the applicable recordkeeping requirements 
in Sec.  63.2390(i) and reporting requirements in Sec.  63.2386(k).
    (k) As outlined in Sec.  63.7(f), you may submit a request for an 
alternative test method. At a minimum, the request must follow the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all or a partial 
number of passive samplers required in Method 325A of appendix A of 
this part.
    (2) The alternative method must be validated for each analyte 
according to Method 301 in appendix A of this part or contain 
performance-based procedures and indicators to ensure self-validation.
    (3) The method detection limit must nominally be no greater than 
one fifth of the action level for each analyte. The alternate test 
method must describe the procedures used to provide field verification 
of the detection limit.
    (4) The spatial coverage must be equal to or better than the 
spatial coverage provided in Method 325A of appendix A of this part.
    (i) For path average concentration open-path instruments, the 
physical path length of the measurement must be no more than a passive 
sample footprint (the spacing that would be provided by the sorbent 
traps when following Method 325A). For example, if Method 325A requires 
spacing monitors A and B 610 meters (2,000 feet) apart, then the 
physical path length limit for the measurement at that portion of the 
fenceline must be no more than 610 meters (2,000 feet).
    (ii) For range resolved open-path instrument or approach, the 
instrument or approach must be able to resolve an average concentration 
over each passive sampler footprint within the path length of the 
instrument.
    (iii) The extra samplers required in Sections 8.2.1.3 of Method 
325A may be omitted when they fall within the path length of an open-
path instrument.
    (5) At a minimum, non-integrating alternative test methods must 
provide a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
    (6) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements 
(less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative 
test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to 
outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point 
for the two week average. The alternative test method approach must 
have wind speed, direction and stability class of the same time 
resolution and within the footprint of the instrument.
    (7) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the [Delta]c 
for the 14-day average high sample result, all results measured under 
the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For 
purposes of averaging data points for the 14-day average low sample 
result, all results measured under the method detection limit must use 
zero.
0
8. Section 63.2350 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 56339]]

Sec.  63.2350   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, 
operating limits, and work practice standards in this subpart at all 
times when the equipment identified in Sec.  63.2338(b)(1) through (5) 
is in OLD operation.
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions 
in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) Except for emission sources not required to be controlled as 
specified in Sec.  63.2343, you must develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). Beginning no later than [date 3 years after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no 
longer applies; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy of 
the plan must be retained and available on-site for five years after 
[date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal 
Register].
    (d) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), paragraph (b) of this section no longer applies. Instead, 
at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, 
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to 
minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to 
reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have 
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in 
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.
0
9. Section 63.2354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(3)(i), and 
(b)(3)(ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2354   What performance tests, design evaluations, and 
performance evaluations must I conduct?

    (a) * * *
    (2) For each design evaluation you conduct, you must use the 
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. You must also 
comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (3) For each performance evaluation of a continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) you conduct, you must follow the requirements 
in Sec.  63.8(e) and paragraph (d) of this section. For CEMS installed 
after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.2342(e), conduct a 
performance evaluation of each CEMS within 180 days of installation of 
the monitoring system.
    (b)(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, for 
nonflare control devices, you must conduct each performance test 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), and either Sec.  
63.988(b), Sec.  63.990(b), or Sec.  63.995(b), using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.997(e).
* * * * *
    (3)(i) In addition to Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-7, to determine compliance with the TOC emission limit, you may use 
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 320 of appendix A 
to this part to determine compliance with the total organic HAP 
emission limit. You may not use Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A 
to this part if the control device is a combustion device, and you must 
not use Method 320 of appendix A to this part if the gas stream 
contains entrained water droplets. All compounds quantified by Method 
320 of appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section 
13.0 of Method 320 of appendix A to this part. As an alternative to 
Method 18, for determining compliance with the total organic HAP 
emission limit, you may use ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14), under the conditions specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (A) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 
320 of appendix A to this part to measure compliance with the 
percentage efficiency limit, you must first determine which organic HAP 
are present in the inlet gas stream (i.e., uncontrolled emissions) 
using knowledge of the organic liquids or the screening procedure 
described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test, you must 
analyze samples collected simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the 
control device. Quantify the emissions for the same organic HAP 
identified as present in the inlet gas stream for both the inlet and 
outlet gas streams of the control device.
    (B) If you use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 
320 of appendix A to this part, to measure compliance with the emission 
concentration limit, you must first determine which organic HAP are 
present in the inlet gas stream using knowledge of the organic liquids 
or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the 
performance test, analyze samples collected as specified in Method 18 
at the outlet of the control device. Quantify the control device outlet 
emission concentration for the same organic HAP identified as present 
in the inlet or uncontrolled gas stream.
    (ii) You may use ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), to determine compliance with the total organic HAP 
emission limit if the target concentration for each HAP is between 150 
parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv and either of the conditions 
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section exists. For 
target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 and not 
amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, you may not use ASTM D6420-
18.
    (A) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14); or
    (B) For target compounds not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-18 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), but potentially detected 
by mass spectrometry, you must demonstrate recovery of the compound and 
the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as 
detailed in ASTM D6420-18, Section 10.5.3, must be followed, met, 
documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water-
soluble.
    (iii) You may use ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the 
conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart.
    (4) If a principal component of the uncontrolled or inlet gas 
stream to the control device is formaldehyde, you must use Method 316, 
Method 320, or Method 323 of appendix A to this part for measuring the 
formaldehyde, except you must not use Method 320 or Method 323 of 
appendix A to this part if the gas stream contains entrained water 
droplets. If you use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, 
formaldehyde must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320 
of appendix A to this part. You must

[[Page 56340]]

measure formaldehyde either at the inlet and outlet of the control 
device to determine control efficiency or at the outlet of a combustion 
device for determining compliance with the emission concentration 
limit. You may use ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14) instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the 
conditions specified in footnote 4 of table 5 to this subpart.
    (5) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, you 
may not conduct performance tests during periods of SSM, as specified 
in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), paragraphs (b)(1) and (5) of this section no longer apply. 
Instead, you must conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) In lieu of the requirements specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), you 
must conduct performance tests under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies based on representative performance of the 
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (B) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(A) of this section, you must 
conduct each performance test according to the requirements in either 
Sec.  63.988(b), Sec.  63.990(b), or Sec.  63.995(b), using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.997(e). You must also comply with the 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (c) To determine the HAP content of the organic liquid, you may use 
Method 311 of appendix A to this part, ASTM D6886-18 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14), or other method approved by the 
Administrator. If you use ASTM D6886-18 to determine the HAP content, 
you must use either Method B or Method B in conjunction with Method C, 
as described in section 4.3 of ASTM D6886-18. In addition, you may use 
other means, such as voluntary consensus standards, safety data sheets 
(SDS), or certified product data sheets, to determine the HAP content 
of the organic liquid. If the method you select to determine the HAP 
content provides HAP content ranges, you must use the upper end of each 
HAP content range in determining the total HAP content of the organic 
liquid. The EPA may require you to test the HAP content of an organic 
liquid using Method 311 of appendix A to this part or other method 
approved by the Administrator. For liquids that contain any amount of 
formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, you may not use Method 311 of 
appendix A to this part. If the results of the Method 311 of appendix A 
to this part (or any other approved method) are different from the HAP 
content determined by another means, the Method 311 of appendix A to 
this part (or approved method) results will govern. For liquids that 
contain any amount of formaldehyde or carbon tetrachloride, if the 
results of ASTM D6886-18 using method B or C in section 4.3 (or any 
other approved method) are different from the HAP content determined by 
another means, ASTM D6886-18 using method B or C in section 4 (or 
approved method) results will govern.
    (d) Each VOC CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained 
according to the requirements of one of the following performance 
specifications located in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B: Performance 
Specification 8, Performance Specification 8A, Performance 
Specification 9, or Performance Specification 15. You must also comply 
with the requirements of procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, for 
CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A.
    (1) For CEMS using Performance Specification 9 or 15, determine the 
target analyte(s) for calibration using either process knowledge or the 
screening procedures of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6.
    (2) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8A, conduct the 
relative accuracy test audits required under Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix F in accordance with Performance Specification 8, Sections 
8 and 11. The relative accuracy must meet the criteria of Performance 
Speciation 8, Section 13.2.
    (3) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A, calibrate the 
instrument on methane and report the results as carbon (C1). Use Method 
25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 as the reference method for the 
relative accuracy tests.
    (4) If you are required to monitor oxygen in order to conduct 
concentration corrections, you must use Performance Specification 3 of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to certify your oxygen CEMS, and you must 
comply with procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. Use Method 3A of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, as the reference method when conducting a 
relative accuracy test audit.
0
10. Section 63.2358 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2358   By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For storage tanks and transfer racks at existing affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
October 21, 2019, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations listed in Table 2b to this subpart within 180 days 
of either the initial startup or [date 3 years after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later, 
except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) For storage tanks with an existing internal or external 
floating roof, complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b to this subpart 
and item 1.a. in Table 4 to this subpart, you must conduct your initial 
compliance demonstration the next time the storage tank is emptied and 
degassed, but not later than [date 10 years after date of publication 
of final rule in the Federal Register].
    (ii) For storage tanks complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b of 
this subpart and item 1.b. or 1.c. in Table 4 of this subpart, you must 
comply within 180 days after [date 3 years after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register].
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.2362 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2362   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (2) For transport vehicles that you own that do not have vapor 
collection equipment, you must maintain current certification in 
accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and maintenance requirements 
in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks and subpart F for tank 
cars.
0
12. Section 63.2366 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2366   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring 
system (CMS) on each control device

[[Page 56341]]

required in order to comply with this subpart. If you use a continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) (as defined in Sec.  63.981), you 
must comply with Sec.  63.2346(m) and the applicable requirements for 
CPMS in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for the control device being used. 
If you use a CEMS, you must install, operate, and maintain the CEMS 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and paragraph (d) of this 
section, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) For nonflare control devices controlling storage tanks and low 
throughput transfer racks, you must submit a monitoring plan according 
to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for monitoring 
plans. You must also comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2346(m).
    (c) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must keep the written procedures required by Sec.  
63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or until the 
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to 
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. 
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous 
(i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on 
record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the 
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. 
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan 
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2). In addition to the information 
required in Sec.  63.8(d)(2), your written procedures for CEMS must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section:
    (1) Description of CEMS installation location.
    (2) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the 
manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment components 
and the span of the analyzer.
    (3) Routine quality control and assurance procedures.
    (4) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS performance evaluation, 
which must include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; a process 
change that is expected to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the 
Administrator's request for a performance evaluation under section 114 
of the Clean Air Act.
    (5) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), 
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c) and (e)(1).
    (d) For each CEMS, you must locate the sampling probe or other 
interface at a measurement location such that you obtain representative 
measurements of emissions from the regulated source and comply with the 
applicable requirements specified in Sec.  63.2354(d).
0
13. Section 63.2370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2370   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you as specified 
in Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) You must submit the results of the initial compliance 
determination in the Notification of Compliance Status according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.2382(d). If the initial compliance 
determination includes a performance test and the results are submitted 
electronically via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) in accordance with Sec.  63.2386(g), the unit(s) 
tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance 
test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of Compliance 
Status in lieu of the performance test results. The performance test 
results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the Notification of 
Compliance Status is submitted.
0
14. Section 63.2374 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2374   When do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance and how do I use the collected data?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You must also 
comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.2378 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2378   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 2 
through 4 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and in Tables 8 through 10 to 
this subpart, as applicable. You must also comply with the requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (b) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must 
follow the requirements in Sec.  63.6(e)(1) and (3) during periods of 
startup, shutdown, malfunction, or nonoperation of the affected source 
or any part thereof. In addition, the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section apply.
    (1) The emission limitations in this subpart apply at all times 
except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or 
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which this subpart applies. The emission limitations of this subpart 
apply during periods of SSM, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (3) of this section. However, if a SSM, or period of nonoperation 
of one portion of the affected source does not affect the ability of a 
particular emission source to comply with the emission limitations to 
which it is subject, then that emission source is still required to 
comply with the applicable emission limitations of this subpart during 
the startup, shutdown, malfunction, or period of nonoperation.
    (2) The owner or operator must not shut down control devices or 
monitoring systems that are required or utilized for achieving 
compliance with this subpart during periods of SSM while emissions are 
being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown would 
contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items of 
equipment. This paragraph (b)(2) does not apply if the item of 
equipment is malfunctioning. This paragraph (b)(2) also does not apply 
if the owner or operator shuts down the compliance equipment (other 
than monitoring systems) to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous SSM 
of the affected source or portion thereof. If the owner or operator has 
reason to believe that monitoring equipment would be damaged due to a 
contemporaneous SSM of the affected source of portion thereof, the 
owner or operator must provide documentation supporting such a claim in 
the next Compliance report required in Table 11 to this subpart, item 
1. Once approved by the Administrator, the provision for ceasing to 
collect, during a SSM, monitoring data that would otherwise be required 
by the provisions of this subpart must be incorporated into the SSM 
plan.
    (3) During SSM, you must implement, to the extent reasonably 
available, measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions. For 
purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), the term ``excess

[[Page 56342]]

emissions'' means emissions greater than those allowed by the emission 
limits that apply during normal operational periods. The measures to be 
taken must be identified in the SSM plan, and may include, but are not 
limited to, air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies, 
work practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the 
manner of operation of the affected source. Back-up control devices are 
not required, but may be used if available.
    (c) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, periods 
of planned routine maintenance of a control device used to control 
storage tanks or transfer racks, during which the control device does 
not meet the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, must not 
exceed 240 hours per year.
    (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you 
elect to route emissions from storage tanks or transfer racks to a fuel 
gas system or to a process, as allowed by Sec.  63.982(d), to comply 
with the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, the total 
aggregate amount of time during which the emissions bypass the fuel gas 
system or process during the calendar year without being routed to a 
control device, for all reasons (except SSM or product changeovers of 
flexible operation units and periods when a storage tank has been 
emptied and degassed), must not exceed 240 hours.
    (e) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section no longer apply. 
Instead, you must be in compliance with each emission limitation, 
operating limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section at all times, except during periods of nonoperation of 
the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies. The use of a 
bypass line at any time on a closed vent system to divert a vent stream 
to the atmosphere or to a control device not meeting the requirements 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section is an emissions standards 
deviation. Equipment subject to the work practice standards for 
equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 4 are not 
subject to this paragraph (e). If you are subject to the bypass 
monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.983(a)(3) of subpart SS, then you 
must continue to comply with the requirements in Sec.  63.983(a)(3) of 
subpart SS and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  
63.998(d)(1)(ii) and Sec.  63.999(c)(2) of subpart SS, in addition to 
Sec.  63.2346(m), the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2390(g), and the reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2386(c)(12).
    (f) The CEMS data must be reduced to daily averages computed using 
valid data consistent with the data availability requirements specified 
in Sec.  63.999(c)(6)(i)(B) through (D), except monitoring data also 
are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values 
are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour 
when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are 
being performed. In computing daily averages to determine compliance 
with this subpart, you must exclude monitoring data recorded during 
CEMS breakdowns, out of control periods, repairs, maintenance periods, 
calibration checks, or other quality assurance activities.
0
16. Section 63.2380 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2380   What are my requirements for certain flares?

    (a) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), if you reduce organic HAP emissions by venting emissions 
through a closed vent system to a steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-
assisted flare to control emissions from a storage tank, low throughput 
transfer rack, or high throughput transfer rack, then the flare 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.11(b); 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS; 
the provisions specified in items 7.a through 7.d of Table 3; Table 8 
to this subpart; and the provisions specified in items 1.a.iii and 
2.a.iii, and items 7.a through 7.d.2 of Table 9 to this subpart no 
longer apply. Instead, you must meet the applicable requirements for 
flares as specified in Sec. Sec.  63.670 and 63.671 of subpart CC, 
including the provisions in Tables 12 and 13 to subpart CC of this 
part, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this 
section. For purposes of compliance with this paragraph, the following 
terms are defined in Sec.  63.641 of subpart CC: Assist air, assist 
steam, center steam, combustion zone, combustion zone gas, flare, flare 
purge gas, flare supplemental gas, flare sweep gas, flare vent gas, 
lower steam, net heating value, perimeter assist air, pilot gas, premix 
assist air, total steam, and upper steam.
    (b) The following phrases in Sec.  63.670(c) of subpart CC do not 
apply:
    (1) ``[S]pecify the smokeless design capacity of each flare and''; 
and
    (2) ``[A]nd the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless 
design capacity of the flare''.
    (c) The phrase ``and the flare vent gas flow rate is less than the 
smokeless design capacity of the flare'' in Sec.  63.670(d) of subpart 
CC does not apply.
    (d) Sec.  63.670(o) does not apply.
    (e) Substitute ``affected source'' for each occurrence of 
``petroleum refinery.''
    (f) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
    (g) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions 
limitation requirements specified in Sec.  63.670(r) of subpart CC in 
lieu of the requirements in Sec.  63.670(d) through (f) of subpart CC, 
as applicable. However, instead of complying with Sec.  
63.670(r)(3)(iii) of subpart CC, you must also submit the alternative 
means of emissions limitation request to the following address: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom 
(E143-01), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 109 
T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Electronic 
copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted to [email protected].
    (h) If you choose to determine compositional analysis for net 
heating value with a continuous process mass spectrometer, then you 
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must meet the requirements in Sec.  63.671(e)(2) of subpart 
CC. You may augment the minimum list of calibration gas components 
found in Sec.  63.671(e)(2) of subpart CC with compounds found during a 
pre-survey or known to be in the gas through process knowledge.
    (2) Calibration gas cylinders must be certified to an accuracy of 2 
percent and traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) standards.
    (3) For unknown gas components that have similar analytical mass 
fragments to calibration compounds, you may report the unknowns as an 
increase in the overlapped calibration gas compound. For unknown 
compounds that produce mass fragments that do not overlap calibration 
compounds, you may use the response factor for the nearest molecular 
weight hydrocarbon in the calibration mix to quantify the unknown 
component's NHVvg.
    (4) You may use the response factor for n-pentane to quantify any 
unknown components detected with a higher molecular weight than n-
pentane.
    (5) You must perform an initial calibration to identify mass 
fragment overlap and response factors for the target compounds.
    (6) You must meet applicable requirements in Performance

[[Page 56343]]

Specification 9 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60 for continuous 
monitoring system acceptance including, but not limited to, performing 
an initial multi-point calibration check at three concentrations 
following the procedure in Section 10.1 and performing the periodic 
calibration requirements listed for gas chromatographs in Table 13 of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, for the process mass spectrometer. You may 
use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net Heating 
Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table 13 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
    (7) The average instrument calibration error (CE) for each 
calibration compound at any calibration concentration must not differ 
by more than 10 percent from the certified cylinder gas value. The CE 
for each component in the calibration blend must be calculated using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.001

Where:

Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)

    (i) If you use a gas chromatograph or mass spectrometer for 
compositional analysis for net heating value, then you may choose to 
use the CE of NHV measured versus the cylinder tag value NHV as the 
measure of agreement for daily calibration and quarterly audits in lieu 
of determining the compound-specific CE. The CE for NHV at any 
calibration level must not differ by more than 10 percent from the 
certified cylinder gas value. The CE for must be calculated using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC19.002

Where:

NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)

    (j) Instead of complying with Sec.  63.670(p) of subpart CC, you 
must keep the flare monitoring records specified in Sec.  63.2390(h).
    (k) Instead of complying with Sec.  63.670(q) of subpart CC, you 
must comply with the reporting requirements specified in Sec.  
63.2382(d)(2)(ix) and Sec.  63.2386(d)(5).
0
 17. Section 63.2382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(1), 
(d)(2) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), and 
adding (d)(2)(ix) and (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2382   What notifications must I submit and when and what 
information should be submitted?

    (a) You must submit each notification in subpart SS of this part, 
Table 12 to this subpart, and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section that applies to you. You must submit these notifications 
according to the schedule in Table 12 to this subpart and as specified 
in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. You must also comply 
with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
* * * * *
    (d)(1) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are required to 
conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 5, 6, or 7 to this 
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status.
    (2) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the 
information required in Sec.  63.999(b) and in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 
through (ix) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The results of emissions profiles, performance tests, 
engineering analyses, design evaluations, flare compliance assessments, 
inspections and repairs, and calculations used to demonstrate initial 
compliance according to Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart. For performance 
tests, results must include descriptions of sampling and analysis 
procedures and quality assurance procedures. If performance test 
results are submitted electronically via CEDRI in accordance with Sec.  
63.2386(g), the unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date 
that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in the 
Notification of Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test 
results. The performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the 
date the Notification of Compliance Status is submitted.
* * * * *
    (vi) The applicable information specified in Sec.  63.1039(a)(1) 
through (3) for all pumps and valves subject to the work practice 
standards for equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, 
item 4, and all connectors subject to the work practice standards for 
equipment leak components in Table 4 to this subpart, item 7.
    (vii) If you are complying with the vapor balancing work practice 
standard for transfer racks according to Table 4 to this subpart, item 
3.a, include a statement to that effect and a statement that the 
pressure vent settings on the affected storage tanks are greater than 
or equal to 2.5 psig.
* * * * *
    (ix) For flares subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.2380, you 
must also submit the information in this paragraph in a supplement to 
the Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first 
applicable compliance date for flare monitoring. In lieu of the 
information required in Sec.  63.987(b) of subpart SS, the Notification 
of Compliance Status must include flare design (e.g., steam-assisted, 
air-assisted, or non-assisted); all visible emission readings, heat 
content determinations, flow rate measurements, and exit velocity 
determinations made during the initial visible emissions demonstration 
required by Sec.  63.670(h) of subpart CC, as applicable; and all 
periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame is 
absent.
    (3) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance 
Status reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). If you claim 
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is 
confidential business information (CBI), then submit a complete report, 
including information

[[Page 56344]]

claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly 
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom 
(C404-02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930 
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must 
be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure 
for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided 
you meet the requirements outlined in Sec.  63.2386(i) or (j), as 
applicable.
0
18. Section 63.2386 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraph 
(c) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), paragraph 
(c)(8) introductory text and paragraph (c)(9);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(11) and (c)(12);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, paragraph (d)(1) 
introductory text, paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(vii), 
(d)(1)(ix), and (d)(1)(x);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(xiii) through (d)(1)(xv);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(5);
0
g. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2386   What reports must I submit and when and what 
information is to be submitted in each?

    (a) You must submit each report in subpart SS of this part, Table 
11 to this subpart, Table 12 to this subpart, and in paragraphs (c) 
through (k) of this section that applies to you. You must also comply 
with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
according to Table 11 to this subpart and by the dates shown in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, by the dates shown in 
subpart SS of this part, and by the dates shown in Table 12 to this 
subpart, whichever are applicable.
* * * * *
    (c) First Compliance report. The first Compliance report must 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) of 
this section, as well as the information specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, including the official's 
name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and 
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information 
in the report are true, accurate, and complete. If your report is 
submitted via CEDRI, the certifier's electronic signature during the 
submission process replaces this requirement.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when 
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
* * * * *
    (5) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, if 
you had a SSM during the reporting period and you took actions 
consistent with your SSM plan, the Compliance report must include the 
information described in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
* * * * *
    (8) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(12) of this section, for 
closed vent systems and control devices used to control emissions, the 
information specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section 
for those planned routine maintenance activities that would require the 
control device to not meet the applicable emission limit.
* * * * *
    (9) A listing of all transport vehicles into which organic liquids 
were loaded at transfer racks that are subject to control based on the 
criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, 
during the previous 6 months for which vapor tightness documentation as 
required in Sec.  63.2390(c) was not on file at the facility.
* * * * *
    (11) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(5) of this section no longer applies.
    (12) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(e), paragraph (c)(8) of this section no longer applies. 
Instead, for bypass lines subject to the requirements Sec.  63.2378(e), 
the compliance report must include the start date, start time, duration 
in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in standard cubic feet (scf), 
the concentration of organic HAP in the gas in ppmv and the resulting 
mass emissions of organic HAP in pounds that bypass a control device. 
For periods when the flow indicator is not operating, report the start 
date, start time, and duration in hours.
    (d) Subsequent Compliance reports. Subsequent Compliance reports 
must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and 
paragraph (c)(12) of this section and, where applicable, the 
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with an emission 
limitation in this subpart, or for each CMS that was inoperative or out 
of control during the reporting period, you must include in the 
Compliance report the applicable information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 
through (xv) of this section. This includes periods of SSM.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped, 
and the nature and cause of the malfunction (if known).
    (ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each 
period that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and 
high-level checks.
    (iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours for each 
period that the CMS that was out of control.
    (iv) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section, 
the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether 
each deviation occurred during a period of SSM, or during another 
period.
    (v) The total duration in hours of all deviations for each CMS 
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percentage of 
the total emission source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) of this section, 
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (vii) The total duration in hours of CMS downtime for each CMS 
during the reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as 
a percentage of the total emission source operating time during that 
reporting period.
* * * * *
    (ix) A brief description of the emission source(s) at which the CMS 
deviation(s) occurred or at which the CMS was inoperative or out of 
control.
    (x) The equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s) of the CMS 
and the pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
    (xiii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(e), paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (vi) of this section no 
longer apply. For

[[Page 56345]]

each instance, report the start date, start time, and duration in hours 
of each failure. For each failure, the report must include a list of 
the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity in 
pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause 
of the deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 
applicable, and the corrective action taken.
    (xiv) Corrective actions taken for a CMS that was inoperative or 
out of control.
    (xv) Total process operating time during the reporting period.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section, 
for each storage tank and transfer rack subject to control 
requirements, include periods of planned routine maintenance during 
which the control device did not comply with the applicable emission 
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (iv) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(e), paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section no longer 
applies.
    (3) (i) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this 
section, a listing of any storage tank that became subject to controls 
based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 
items 1 through 6, since the filing of the last Compliance report.
    (ii) A listing of any transfer rack that became subject to controls 
based on the criteria for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 
items 7 through 10, since the filing of the last Compliance report.
    (iii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
Sec.  63.2342(e), the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this 
subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected source no longer 
apply as specified in Sec.  63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later 
than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342(e), you must 
include a listing of any storage tanks at an existing affected source 
that became subject to controls based on the criteria for control 
specified in Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 through 3, since the 
filing of the last Compliance report. If you choose to meet the 
fenceline monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  63.2348, then you 
are not required to comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.2380, the compliance report must include the items specified in 
paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section in lieu of the 
information required in Sec.  63.999(c)(3) of subpart SS.
    (i) Records as specified in Sec.  63.2390(h)(1) for each 15-minute 
block during which there was at least one minute when regulated 
material is routed to a flare and no pilot flame is present. Include 
the start and stop time and date of each 15-minute block.
    (ii) Visible emission records as specified in Sec.  
63.2390(h)(2)(iv) for each period of 2 consecutive hours during which 
visible emissions exceeded a total of 5 minutes.
    (iii) The periods specified in Sec.  63.2390(h)(6). Indicate the 
date and start and end time for the period, and the net heating value 
operating parameter(s) determined following the methods in Sec.  
63.670(k) through (n) of subpart CC as applicable.
    (e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If 
an affected source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 11 to 
this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and 
the Compliance report includes all required information concerning 
deviations from any emission limitation in this subpart, we will 
consider submission of the Compliance report as satisfying any 
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring 
report. However, submission of a Compliance report will not otherwise 
affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations 
from permit requirements to the applicable title V permitting 
authority.
    (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must submit all Compliance reports to the EPA via 
CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 
You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI 
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this 
subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on 
the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated 
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) 
schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, 
flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom 
(C404-02), Attention: Organic Liquids Distribution Sector Lead, 4930 
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must 
be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph. You may assert a claim of EPA system outage or force majeure 
for failure to timely comply with this reporting requirement provided 
you meet the requirements outlined in paragraph (i) or (j) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance test reports in 
accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.

[[Page 56346]]

    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a 
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The 
file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (g)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), you must start submitting performance evaluation reports in 
accordance with this paragraph. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each CMS performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), 
you must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed 
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the 
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can 
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you 
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that 
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance 
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) CBI. If you claim some of the information submitted under 
paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this section is CBI, then you must submit a 
complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The 
file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (j) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this paragraph, 
a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (k) For each OLD operation complying with the requirements in Sec.  
63.2348, you must submit the following information:
    (1) A notification to the Administrator that you are exercising the 
option to implement fenceline monitoring according to the requirements 
in Sec.  63.2348.
    (2) A report to the Administrator containing the information 
required at Sec.  63.2348(b), including the model input file, the model 
results, the selected analytes, and the action level for each analyte. 
The report must be submitted no later than the date specified in Sec.  
63.2342(f)(1).

[[Page 56347]]

    (3) Monitoring data must be submitted quarterly to EPA's CEDRI 
(CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) 
using the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart according to 
paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) The first quarterly report must be submitted once you have 
obtained 12 months of data. The first quarterly report must cover the 
period beginning on the compliance date that is specified in Sec.  
63.2342(f)(2) and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 or December 
31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after you have 
obtained 12 months of data (i.e., the first quarterly report will 
contain between 12 and 15 months of data). Each subsequent quarterly 
report must cover one of the following reporting periods: Quarter 1 
from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from April 1 through June 
30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30; and Quarter 4 from 
October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report must be 
electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days following the 
end of the reporting period.
    (ii) Report contents. Each report must contain the following 
information:
    (A) Facility name and address.
    (B) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 
3, or Quarter 4).
    (C) For the first reporting period and for any reporting period in 
which a passive monitor is added or moved, for each passive monitor: 
The latitude and longitude location coordinates; the sampler name; and 
identification of the type of sampler (i.e., regular monitor, extra 
monitor, duplicate, field blank, inactive). You must determine the 
coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. 
Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal 
places.
    (D) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
    (E) Individual sample results for each analyte reported in units of 
[micro]g/m\3\ for each monitor for each sampling period that ends 
during the reporting period. Results must be reported with at least two 
significant figures. Results below the method detection limit must be 
flagged as below the detection limit and reported at the method 
detection limit.
    (F) Data flags that indicate each monitor that was skipped for the 
sampling period, if you use an alternative sampling frequency under 
Sec.  63.2348(e)(3).
    (G) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with 
Section 9.2 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part. For each 
outlier, you must submit the individual sample result of the outlier, 
as well as the evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier.
    (H) The biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each 
analyte for each sampling period and the annual average [Delta]c for 
each analyte for each sampling period.
0
19. Section 63.2390 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3) and (d); 
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2390   What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for 
flares, you must keep all records identified in subpart SS of this part 
and in Table 12 to this subpart that are applicable, including records 
related to notifications and reports, SSM, performance tests, CMS, and 
performance evaluation plans. You must also comply with the 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section for 
flares, you must keep the records required to show continuous 
compliance, as required in subpart SS of this part and in Tables 8 
through 10 to this subpart, with each emission limitation, operating 
limit, and work practice standard that applies to you. You must also 
comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2346(m).
    (3) In addition to the information required in Sec.  63.998(c), the 
manufacturer's specifications or your written procedures must include a 
schedule for calibrations, preventative maintenance procedures, a 
schedule for preventative maintenance, and corrective actions to be 
taken if a calibration fails.
    (c) For each transport vehicle into which organic liquids are 
loaded at a transfer rack that is subject to control based on the 
criteria specified in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10, you 
must keep the applicable records in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section or alternatively the verification records in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) For transport vehicles without vapor collection equipment, 
current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT qualification and 
maintenance requirements in 49 CFR part 180, subpart E for cargo tanks 
and subpart F for tank cars.
    (3) In lieu of keeping the records specified in paragraph (c)(1) or 
(2) of this section, as applicable, the owner or operator shall record 
that the verification of U.S. DOT tank certification or Method 27 of 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 testing, required in Table 5 to this 
subpart, item 2, has been performed. Various methods for the record of 
verification can be used, such as: A check-off on a log sheet, a list 
of U.S. DOT serial numbers or Method 27 data, or a position description 
for gate security showing that the security guard will not allow any 
trucks on site that do not have the appropriate documentation.
    (d) You must keep records of the total actual annual facility-level 
organic liquid loading volume as defined in Sec.  63.2406 through 
transfer racks to document the applicability, or lack thereof, of the 
emission limitations in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through 10.
* * * * *
    (f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), for each deviation from an emission limitation, operating 
limit, and work practice standard specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section, you must keep a record of the information specified in 
paragraph (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.2350(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (g) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), for each flow event from a bypass line subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.2378(e), you must maintain records sufficient 
to determine whether or not the detected flow included flow requiring 
control. For each flow event from a bypass line requiring control that 
is released either directly to the atmosphere or to a control device 
not meeting the requirements specified in Sec.  63.2378(a), you must 
include an

[[Page 56348]]

estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of organic HAP in the 
gas and the resulting emissions of organic HAP that bypassed the 
control device using process knowledge and engineering estimates.
    (h) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the requirements in Sec.  
63.2380, you must keep records specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(10) of this section in lieu of the information required in Sec.  
63.998(a)(1) of subpart SS.
    (1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to 
detect the presence of a pilot flame as required in Sec.  63.670(b) of 
subpart CC for a minimum of 2 years. Retain records of each 15-minute 
block during which there was at least one minute that no pilot flame is 
present when regulated material is routed to a flare for a minimum of 5 
years.
    (2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations or video 
surveillance images required in Sec.  63.670(h) of subpart CC as 
specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, as 
applicable, for a minimum of 3 years.
    (i) To determine when visible emissions observations are required, 
the record must identify all periods when regulated material is vented 
to the flare.
    (ii) If visible emissions observations are performed using Method 
22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, then the record must identify 
whether the visible emissions observation was performed, the results of 
each observation, total duration of observed visible emissions, and 
whether it was a 5-minute or 2-hour observation. Record the date and 
start and end time of each visible emissions observation.
    (iii) If a video surveillance camera is used, then the record must 
include all video surveillance images recorded, with time and date 
stamps.
    (iv) For each 2-hour period for which visible emissions are 
observed for more than 5 minutes in 2 consecutive hours, then the 
record must include the date and start and end time of the 2-hour 
period and an estimate of the cumulative number of minutes in the 2-
hour period for which emissions were visible.
    (3) The 15-minute block average cumulative flows for flare vent gas 
and, if applicable, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix 
assist air specified to be monitored under Sec.  63.670(i) of subpart 
CC, along with the date and time interval for the 15-minute block. If 
multiple monitoring locations are used to determine cumulative vent gas 
flow, total steam, perimeter assist air, and premix assist air, then 
retain records of the 15-minute block average flows for each monitoring 
location for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 15-minute block 
average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent calculations for a 
minimum of 5 years. If pressure and temperature monitoring is used, 
then retain records of the 15-minute block average temperature, 
pressure, and molecular weight of the flare vent gas or assist gas 
stream for each measurement location used to determine the 15-minute 
block average cumulative flows for a minimum of 2 years, and retain the 
15-minute block average cumulative flows that are used in subsequent 
calculations for a minimum of 5 years.
    (4) The flare vent gas compositions specified to be monitored under 
Sec.  63.670(j) of subpart CC. Retain records of individual component 
concentrations from each compositional analysis for a minimum of 2 
years. If an NHVvg analyzer is used, retain records of the 15-minute 
block average values for a minimum of 5 years.
    (5) Each 15-minute block average operating parameter calculated 
following the methods specified in Sec.  63.670(k) through (n) of 
subpart CC, as applicable.
    (6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the 
applicable operating limits specified in Sec.  63.670(d) through (f) of 
subpart CC when regulated material is being routed to the flare.
    (7) All periods during which you do not perform flare monitoring 
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.670(g) through (j) of subpart 
CC.
    (8) Records of periods when there is flow of vent gas to the flare, 
but when there is no flow of regulated material to the flare, including 
the start and stop time and dates of periods of no regulated material 
flow.
    (9) The monitoring plan required in Sec.  63.2366(c).
    (10) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (xi).
    (i) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in 
63.2342(f), for each OLD operation complying with the requirements in 
Sec.  63.2348, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) 
through (10) of this section on an ongoing basis.
    (1) Coordinates of all passive monitors, including replicate 
samplers and field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological 
station. You must determine the coordinates using an instrument with an 
accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal 
degrees with at least five decimal places.
    (2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as 
the tube identifying information.
    (3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure 
measurements.
    (4) For each outlier determined in accordance with Section 9.2 of 
Method 325A of appendix A of this part, the sampler location of and the 
concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the 
result is an outlier.
    (5) For samples that will be adjusted for a background, the 
location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the 
background sampler, and the perimeter samplers to which it applies.
    (6) Individual sample results, the calculated [Delta]c for each 
analyte for each sampling period and the two samples used to determine 
it, whether background correction was used, and the annual average 
[Delta]c calculated after each sampling period.
    (7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located 
samples and blanks.
    (8) Documentation of corrective action taken each time the action 
level was exceeded.
    (9) Other records as required by Methods 325A and 325B of appendix 
A of this part.
    (10) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in Sec.  
63.2348(i), records of hourly meteorological data, including 
temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind direction, 
calculated daily unit vector wind direction and daily sigma theta, and 
other records specified in the site-specific monitoring plan.
0
20. Section 63.2396 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (e)(2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.2396  What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is 
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, as an 
alternative to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, if a storage 
tank assigned to the OLD affected source is subject to control under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to 
comply only with the requirements of this subpart for storage tanks 
meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2 to this 
subpart.
    (4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), the applicability criteria

[[Page 56349]]

for control specified in Table 2 to this subpart for storage tanks at 
an existing affected source no longer apply as specified in Sec.  
63.2346(a)(5). Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates 
specified in Sec.  63.2342(e), as an alternative to paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section, if a storage tank assigned to an existing OLD 
affected source is subject to control under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, 
or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, you may elect to comply only with the 
requirements of this subpart for storage tanks at an existing affected 
source meeting the applicability criteria for control in Table 2b to 
this subpart. If you choose to meet the fenceline monitoring 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.2348, then you are not required to 
comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342, if you 
have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections that are 
subject to a 40 CFR part 60 subpart, and those connectors, pumps, 
valves, and sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic 
liquids service, as defined in this subpart, you must comply with the 
provisions of each subpart for those equipment leak components.
    (2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec.  63.2342, if you 
have connectors, pumps, valves, or sampling connections subject to 40 
CFR part 63, subpart GGG, and those connectors, pumps, valves, and 
sampling connections are in OLD operation and in organic liquids 
service, as defined in this subpart, you may elect to comply with the 
provisions of this subpart for all such equipment leak components. You 
must identify in the Notification of Compliance Status required by 
Sec.  63.2382(b) the provisions with which you will comply.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Equipment leak components. After the compliance dates specified 
in Sec.  63.2342, if you are applying the applicable recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of another 40 CFR part 63 subpart to the 
connectors, valves, pumps, and sampling connection systems associated 
with a transfer rack subject to this subpart that only unloads organic 
liquids directly to or via pipeline to a non-tank process unit 
component or to a storage tank subject to the other 40 CFR part 63 
subpart, the owner or operator must be in compliance with the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart EEEE. If 
complying with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the 
other subpart satisfies the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 
this subpart, the owner or operator may elect to continue to comply 
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the other subpart. 
In such instances, the owner or operator will be deemed to be in 
compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this 
subpart. The owner or operator must identify the other subpart being 
complied with in the Notification of Compliance Status required by 
Sec.  63.2382(b).
0
21. Section 63.2402 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory 
text and adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2402  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority for this 
subpart to a State, local, or eligible tribal agency under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(6) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
delegated to the State, local, or eligible tribal agency.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.
    (6) Approval of a site-specific monitoring plan for fenceline 
monitoring at Sec.  63.2348(i).
0
22. Section 63.2406 is amended, in alphabetical order, by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Annual average true vapor pressure'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``Condensate'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``Deviation'' and ``Equipment Leak 
component'';
0
d. Adding the definition of ``Force majeure event'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Organic liquid'';
0
f. Adding the definitions of ``Pressure relief device'' and ``Relief 
valve''; and
0
g. Revising the definition of ``Vapor-tight transport vehicle''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2406  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Annual average true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial 
pressure exerted by the total Table 1 organic HAP in the stored or 
transferred organic liquid. For the purpose of determining if a liquid 
meets the definition of an organic liquid, the vapor pressure is 
determined using conditions of 77 degrees Fahrenheit and 29.92 inches 
of mercury. For the purpose of determining whether an organic liquid 
meets the applicability criteria in Table 2, items 1 through 6, to this 
subpart or Table 2b, items 1 through 3, use the actual annual average 
temperature as defined in this subpart. The vapor pressure value in 
either of these cases is determined:
    (1) Using standard reference texts;
    (2) By ASTM D6378-18a (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 
using a vapor to liquid ratio of 4:1; or
    (3) Using any other method that the EPA approves.
* * * * *
    Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that 
condenses due to changes in the temperature or pressure, or both, and 
remains liquid at standard conditions as specified in Sec.  63.2. Only 
those condensates downstream of the first point of custody transfer 
after the production field are considered condensates in this subpart.
* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or portion thereof, or an owner or operator of such a 
source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Before [date 180 days after date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register], fails to meet any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this 
subpart during SSM. On and after [date 180 days after date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], this paragraph no 
longer applies.
* * * * *
    Equipment leak component means each pump, valve, and sampling 
connection system used in organic liquids service at an OLD operation. 
Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.  
63.2342(e), connectors are also considered an equipment leak component. 
Valve types include control, globe, gate, plug, and ball. Relief and 
check valves are excluded.
    Force majeure event means a release of HAP, either directly to the

[[Page 56350]]

atmosphere from a safety device or discharged via a flare, that is 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Administrator to result from an 
event beyond the owner or operator's control, such as natural 
disasters; acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the 
OLD operation (e.g., external power curtailment), excluding power 
curtailment due to an interruptible service agreement; and fire or 
explosion originating at a near or adjoining facility outside of the 
OLD operation that impacts the OLD operation's ability to operate.
* * * * *
    Organic liquid means:
    (1) Any non-crude oil liquid, non-condensate liquid, or liquid 
mixture that contains 5 percent by weight or greater of the organic HAP 
listed in Table 1 to this subpart, as determined using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.2354(c).
    (2) Any crude oils or condensates downstream of the first point of 
custody transfer.
    (3) Organic liquids for purposes of this subpart do not include the 
following liquids:
    (i) Gasoline (including aviation gasoline), kerosene (No. 1 
distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier 
distillate oils and fuel oils;
    (ii) Any fuel consumed or dispensed on the plant site directly to 
users (such as fuels for fleet refueling or for refueling marine 
vessels that support the operation of the plant);
    (iii) Hazardous waste;
    (iv) Wastewater;
    (v) Ballast water; or
    (vi) Any non-crude oil or non-condensate liquid with an annual 
average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia).
* * * * *
    Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar 
device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas 
from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment 
damage. A pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator 
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or 
other unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-
actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated 
relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin 
devices.
* * * * *
    Relief valve means a type of pressure relief device that is 
designed to re-close after the pressure relief.
* * * * *
    Vapor-tight transport vehicle means a transport vehicle that has 
been demonstrated to be vapor-tight. To be considered vapor-tight, a 
transport vehicle equipped with vapor collection equipment must undergo 
a pressure change of no more than 250 pascals (1 inch of water) within 
5 minutes after it is pressurized to 4,500 pascals (18 inches of 
water). This capability must be demonstrated annually using the 
procedures specified in Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For 
all other transport vehicles, vapor tightness is demonstrated by 
performing the U.S. DOT pressure test procedures for tank cars and 
cargo tanks.
* * * * *
0
23. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

           Table 2 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Then you must . . .
 If you own or operate . . .      And if . . .               \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage tank at an       a. The stored         i. Reduce emissions
 existing affected source      organic liquid is     of total organic
 with a capacity >=18.9        not crude oil or      HAP (or, upon
 cubic meters (5,000           condensate and if     approval, TOC) by
 gallons) and <189.3 cubic     the annual average    at least 95 weight-
 meters (50,000 gallons) \2\.  true vapor pressure   percent or, as an
                               of the total Table    option, to an
                               1 organic HAP in      exhaust
                               the stored organic    concentration less
                               liquid is >=27.6      than or equal to 20
                               kilopascals (4.0      ppmv, on a dry
                               psia) and <76.6       basis corrected to
                               kilopascals (11.1     3 percent oxygen
                               psia).                for combustion
                                                     devices using
                                                     supplemental
                                                     combustion air, by
                                                     venting emissions
                                                     through a closed
                                                     vent system to any
                                                     combination of
                                                     control devices
                                                     meeting the
                                                     applicable
                                                     requirements of 40
                                                     CFR part 63,
                                                     subpart SS and Sec.
                                                       63.2346(m); OR
                                                    ii. Comply with the
                                                     work practice
                                                     standards specified
                                                     in Table 4 to this
                                                     subpart, items 1.a,
                                                     1.b, or 1.c for
                                                     tanks storing
                                                     liquids described
                                                     in that table.
                              b. The stored         i. See the
                               organic liquid is     requirement in item
                               crude oil or          1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
                               condensate.           this table.
2. A storage tank at an       a. The stored         i. See the
 existing affected source      organic liquid is     requirement in item
 with a capacity >=189.3       not crude oil or      1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
 cubic meters (50,000          condensate and if     this table.
 gallons).                     the annual average
                               true vapor pressure
                               of the total Table
                               1 organic HAP in
                               the stored organic
                               liquid is <76.6
                               kilopascals (11.1
                               psia)..
                              b. The stored         i. See the
                               organic liquid is     requirement in item
                               crude oil or          1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
                               condensate.           this table.
3. A storage tank at a        a. The stored         i. See the
 reconstructed or new          organic liquid is     requirement in item
 affected source with a        not crude oil or      1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
 capacity >=18.9 cubic         condensate and if     this table.
 meters (5,000 gallons) and    the annual average
 <37.9 cubic meters (10,000    true vapor pressure
 gallons).                     of the total Table
                               1 organic HAP in
                               the stored organic
                               liquid is >=27.6
                               kilopascals (4.0
                               psia) and <76.6
                               kilopascals (11.1
                               psia).
                              b. The stored         i. See the
                               organic liquid is     requirement in item
                               crude oil or          1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
                               condensate.           this table.
4. A storage tank at a        a. The stored         i. See the
 reconstructed or new          organic liquid is     requirement in item
 affected source with a        not crude oil or      1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
 capacity >=37.9 cubic         condensate and if     this table.
 meters (10,000 gallons) and   the annual average
 <189.3 cubic meters (50,000   true vapor pressure
 gallons).                     of the total Table
                               1 organic HAP in
                               the stored organic
                               liquid is >=0.7
                               kilopascals (0.1
                               psia) and <76.6
                               kilopascals (11.1
                               psia).
                              b. The stored         i. See the
                               organic liquid is     requirement in item
                               crude oil or          1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
                               condensate.           this table.
5. A storage tank at a        a. The stored         i. See the
 reconstructed or new          organic liquid is     requirement in item
 affected source with a        not crude oil or      1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
 capacity >=189.3 cubic        condensate and if     this table.
 meters (50,000 gallons).      the annual average
                               true vapor pressure
                               of the total Table
                               1 organic HAP in