National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review, 40740-40791 [2020-05900]
Download as PDF
40740
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0074; FRL–10006–88–
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) source category regulated under
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments
to the storage tank requirements as a
result of the RTR. In addition, we are
taking final action to 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
amendments will reduce emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
this source category by 186 tons per year
(tpy), which represents an approximate
8 percent reduction of HAP emissions
from the source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
7, 2020. The incorporation by reference
(IBR) of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of July 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: 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 on
the https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
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
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday
through Friday. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Mr. Neil Feinberg, 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–
2214; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and
email address: feinberg.stephen@
epa.gov. For specific information
regarding the risk assessment, contact
Ms. Darcie Smith, 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) 541–2076; fax number:
(919) 541–0840; and email address:
smith.darcie@epa.gov. For information
about the applicability of the NESHAP
to a particular entity, contact Mr. Jon
Cox, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, WJC
South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–1395; and email
address: cox.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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:
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CF Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HON National Emission Standards for
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry, also known as the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
LEL lower explosive limit
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
MDL method detection limit
MIR maximum individual risk
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
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
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
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality
Management District
SDS safety data sheet(s)
SOCMI synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TAC Texas Administrative Code
The Court United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VPX vapor pressure
Background information. On October
21, 2019, the EPA proposed revisions to
the OLD NESHAP based on our RTR. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions
and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline), Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2018–0074. A ‘‘track
changes’’ version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes
in this action is available in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the OLD source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the
OLD source category in our October 21,
2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the significant changes since
proposal?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the OLD
source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
OLD source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments
pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and
(3) for the OLD source category?
E. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
F. What other changes have been made to
the NESHAP?
G. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the OLD
source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the OLD Source
Category
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section
112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD Source
Category
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions
During Periods of SSM
E. Technical Amendments to the MACT
Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
40741
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations 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
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP and source category
NAICS 1 code(s)
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) ............................................
3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259, 3261, 3361, 3362, 3399, 4247, 4861,
4869, 4931, 5622.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
1 North
American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. The
final standards are directly applicable to
the affected sources. Federal, state,
local, and tribal government entities are
not affected by this final 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 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 OLD 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.
To determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 final
action will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/organic-liquids-distributionnational-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical
documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on
the RTR website at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. This information includes
an overview of the RTR program, and
links to project websites for the RTR
source categories.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40742
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this
final action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
September 8, 2020. Under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements established
by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
for public comment or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must
identify categories of sources emitting
one or more of the HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b) and then promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those
sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that
emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy or more,
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards
are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions
of HAP achievable (after considering
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
the EPA to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or
treat HAP when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or
any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 56288, October
21, 2019.
B. What is the OLD source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the OLD
NESHAP on February 3, 2004 (69 FR
5038). The standards are codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. The OLD
industry consists of facilities that store
and distribute organic liquids. The
source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes 177
facilities. 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 and transfers
into or out of the tanks from or to cargo
tanks, containers, and pipelines that are
not subject to other 40 CFR part 63
standards. 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 to 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
1 The Court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 either
have 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 that have the potential to
leak such as valves, pumps, and
sampling connections. Table 2 to
subpart EEEE of 40 CFR 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 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 40
CFR 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 98percent 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 EPA Method 21 of
appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60 (‘‘EPA
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 (PRDs) 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 OLD 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 changes did we propose for the
OLD source category in our October 21,
2019, RTR proposal?
On October 21, 2019, the EPA
published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the OLD NESHAP,
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, that took
into consideration the RTR analyses. We
proposed to find that the risks from the
source category are acceptable, the
current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
and more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In the proposed
rule, we proposed under CAA section
112(d)(6) to amend the requirements for
storage tanks and equipment leaks and
also provided an alternative fenceline
monitoring program in the OLD source
category as follows:
• Revise the average true vapor
pressure thresholds of the OLD storage
tanks for existing sources requiring
control to align with those of the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40743
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (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;
• add a requirement for leak detection
and repair (LDAR), using EPA Method
21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for
fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g.,
access hatches) that are not subject to
the 95 percent by weight control
requirements;
• revise the equipment leak
requirements to add 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
• add an optional implementation of
a fenceline monitoring program in lieu
of the proposed technology review
amendments for storage tanks and
equipment leaks discussed above.
In the proposed rule, we proposed
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to
amend the operating and monitoring
requirements for flares used as air
pollution control devices (APCDs) in the
OLD source category as follows:
• We proposed to add requirements at
40 CFR 63.2380 to directly apply the
Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule (PRSR)
flare definitions and requirements in 40
CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in the
OLD source category, with certain
clarifications and exemptions;
• we proposed to amend
requirements that flares used as APCDs
in the OLD source category operate pilot
flame systems continuously when
organic HAP emissions are routed to the
flare. Specifically, we proposed to
remove the cross-reference to the
General Provisions and instead crossreference 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 also proposed 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;
• we proposed to amend
requirements 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.
Specifically, we proposed to remove the
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40744
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
cross-reference to the General
Provisions and instead cross-reference
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include
the limitation on visible emissions. We
also proposed 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 proposed daily visible
emissions monitoring for whenever
regulated material is routed to the flare.
On days the flare receives regulated
material, we proposed that owners or
operators of flares monitor visible
emissions at a minimum of once per day
using an observation period of 5
minutes and EPA Method 22.
Additionally, whenever regulated
material is routed to the flare and there
are visible emissions from the flare, we
proposed that another 5-minute visible
emissions observation period be
performed using EPA 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 EPA
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 EPA
Method 22, we proposed that owners or
operators be allowed to use video
surveillance cameras. We also proposed
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;
• we proposed the consolidation of
provisions related to flare tip velocity.
Specifically, we proposed 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., steamassisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted).
We also proposed 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;
• in lieu of requiring compliance with
the operating limits for net heating
value of the flare vent gas in the General
Provisions, we proposed to crossreference 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 British thermal units
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
per standard cubic foot during any 15minute period for steam-assisted, airassisted, and non-assisted flares used as
APCDs in the OLD source category. We
also proposed to allow engineering
estimates to characterize the amount of
gas flared and the amount of assist gas
(if applicable) introduced into the
system. Finally, we proposed 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; and
• except for the visible emissions
operating limits, we proposed 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.
In addition to the amendments
proposed for flares used as APCDs, the
EPA proposed 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 also proposed to:
• Revise 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);
• add the requirement that owners or
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 the Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI);
• add requirements for 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;
• add requirements 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) should be tested
every 5 years, or with a change of
commodity in the tank’s contents,
whichever occurs first, to confirm that
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the tank is not storing ‘‘Organic liquids’’
and, therefore, is not subject to the rule;
• 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
proposed 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).’’ Other
monitoring method clarifications and
incorporations by references were also
proposed; and
• 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.
In addition to the revisions proposed
above, we also proposed several
editorial clarification and minor
corrections to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the
OLD source category and amends the
OLD NESHAP based on those
determinations. This action also
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP,
including adding requirements and
clarifications for periods of SSM and
bypasses, revising the operating and
monitoring requirements for flares used
as APCDs; adding provisions for
electronic reporting of performance test
results and reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports,
and NOCS reports; and other minor
editorial and technical changes. This
action also reflects several changes to
the October 21, 2019, RTR proposal in
consideration of comments received
during the public comment period as
described in section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the significant changes
since proposal?
This section introduces the significant
changes to the OLD NESHAP
amendments made since proposal being
promulgated. These changes are
discussed in further detail in section IV
of this preamble.
• We are not finalizing the proposed
requirements for LDAR using EPA
Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
definition for fittings on fixed roof
storage tanks (e.g., access hatches) that
are not subject to the 95 percent by
weight control requirements in the final
rule;
• we are not finalizing the proposal to
add 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);
• we are not finalizing the option of
allowing for a fenceline monitoring
program in lieu of other requirements;
• we are finalizing standards for
storage tank degassing emission points
during periods of SSM to ensure a CAA
section 112 standard applies ‘‘at all
times;’’ and
• we are not finalizing the proposed
required testing and recordkeeping for
emission sources not requiring control
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. Further, we are not
finalizing, as proposed, 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) 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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the OLD
source category?
This section introduces the final
amendments to the OLD NESHAP being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section
112(f). The EPA proposed no changes to
the MACT standards based on the risk
review conducted pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). In this action, we are
finalizing our proposed determination
that risks from this source category are
acceptable, the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health, and that more stringent
standards are not necessary to prevent
an adverse environmental effect. See
section 3 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk
and Technology Review for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline),
available in the docket for this action for
comments we received regarding risk
review and our responses.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
C. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
OLD source category?
We determined that there are
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Therefore, to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6),
we are revising the MACT standards to
include revised average true vapor
pressure thresholds of the OLD storage
tanks for existing sources, requiring
control to align with those of the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR
part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds
are lower.
Section IV.B.3 of this preamble
provides a summary of key comments
we received on the technology review
and our responses.
D. What are the final rule amendments
pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and
(3) for the OLD source category?
The EPA is finalizing the changes
proposed pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). Consistent with the
October 21, 2019, RTR proposal, we are
revising monitoring and operational
requirements for flares to ensure that
OLD facilities that use flares as APCDs
meet the MACT standards at all times
when controlling HAP emissions. In
addition, we are adding provisions and
clarifications for periods of SSM and
bypasses, including PRD releases,
bypass lines on closed vent systems,
maintenance activities, and certain
gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas
system to ensure that CAA section 112
standards apply continuously,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Based on
comments received on the proposed
rulemaking, we are also adding a
standard for storage tank degassing for
storage tanks subject to the control
requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
Detailed changes and associated
rationale regarding flares and PRDs are
set forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR
56302 through 56306, October 21, 2019.
Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides
a summary of key comments we
received on the CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3) provisions and our responses.
E. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
We are finalizing the proposed
amendments to the OLD NESHAP to
remove and revise provisions related to
SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40745
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 (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. As
detailed in section IV.E.1 of the
proposal preamble (84 FR 56318,
October 21, 2019), the OLD NESHAP
requires that the standards apply at all
times (see 40 CFR 63.2350(a)),
consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). We determined that facilities
in this source category can generally
meet the applicable OLD NESHAP
standards at all times, including periods
of startup and shutdown. Where
appropriate, and as discussed in section
III.C of this preamble, we are also
finalizing alternative standards in this
preamble for storage tank degassing
emission points during periods of SSM
to ensure a CAA section 112 standard
applies ‘‘at all times.’’ Other than the
storage tank degassing emission point
discussed in section III.C of this
preamble, the EPA determined that no
additional standards are needed to
address emissions during these periods.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing
standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in the proposal preamble (84
FR 56318, October 21, 2019), 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, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible. Refer to
section IV.E.1 of the proposal preamble
(84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019) for
further discussion of the EPA’s rationale
for the decision not to set standards for
malfunctions, as well as a discussion of
the actions a source could take in the
unlikely event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
112(d) standards as a result of a
malfunction event, given that
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.
As is explained in more detail below,
we are finalizing revisions to the
General Provisions table to 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE, to eliminate
requirements that include rule language
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40746
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
providing an exemption for periods of
SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our
proposal to eliminate language related
to SSM that treats periods of startup and
shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction, as explained further
below. As discussed in the proposal
preamble, these revisions are consistent
with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.2350(a) that the standards apply at
all times.
Also, based on comments received
during the public comment period, we
are revising the proposed requirements
of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for periods of
planned routine maintenance of the
control device to allow tank breathing
losses to be consistent with our intent
at proposal (see 84 FR 56323, October
21, 2019), and we are revising 40 CFR
63.2346(l) to sufficiently address the
SSM exemption provisions from
subparts referenced by the OLD
NESHAP standards (such as 40 CFR part
63, subparts SS, TT, and UU) that are no
longer applicable. Finally, we are
extending the compliance date of
removing the portion of the ‘‘deviation’’
definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that
addresses SSM periods as being
applicable to 3 years after publication of
the final rule instead of 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register to provide a consistent
compliance date for all final rule SSM
provisions due to the addition of the
tank degassing requirements discussed
in section IV.C of this preamble. See
section 10.1 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk
and Technology Review for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline),
available in the docket for this action,
for a summary of the significant
comments we received on the SSM
provisions and our responses.
F. What other changes have been made
to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed,
revisions to several other NESHAP
requirements. To increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing a
requirement that owners or operators of
facilities in the OLD source category
submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports,
and NOCS reports through the EPA’s
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 final rule requires
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 2 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 emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) 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
final rule requires that NOCS reports be
submitted as a PDF upload in CEDRI.
For compliance reports, the final rule
requires that owners or operators use
the appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. The final
version of the template for these reports
will be located on the CEDRI website.3
We also are finalizing, as proposed,
provisions that allow facility operators
the ability to seek extensions for
submitting electronic reports for
circumstances beyond the control of the
facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the
CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure
event in the time just prior to a report’s
due date, as well as the process to assert
such a claim.
We are finalizing the revision of 40
CFR 63.2354(c) to add ASTM 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 for the determination of HAP
content of an organic liquid. We are also
finalizing the replacement of method
ASTM D2879 with method ASTM
D6378–18a as an acceptable method for
determination of whether a total vapor
pressure (and, therefore, the sum total of
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE
HAP) is below the threshold level
requiring control for a storage tank.
Finally, we are finalizing all of the
revisions that we proposed for clarifying
text or correcting typographical errors,
grammatical errors, and cross-reference
errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are summarized in 84 FR
56323 through 56324 and Table 9 of the
proposal. Section IV.E.3 of this
2 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
3 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
preamble provides a summary of key
comments we received on these
provisions and our responses.
G. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the OLD NESHAP
standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 7, 2020.
From our assessment of the timeframe
needed for implementing the entirety of
the revised requirements (see 84 FR
56324 and 56325, October 21, 2019), the
EPA proposed a period of 3 years to be
the most expeditious compliance period
practicable. No opposing comments
were received during the public
comment period on the length of the
compliance period and we are finalizing
the 3-year period as proposed. Thus, the
compliance date of the final
amendments for all existing affected
sources and all new affected sources
that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before October 21,
2019, is no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule.
Furthermore, as discussed in sections
III.C and D of this preamble, we are
adding a standard for storage tank
degassing for storage tanks subject to the
control requirements in Tables 2 and 2b
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE since
degassing is considered a SSM event for
storage tanks. The provisions being
finalized are similar to the requirements
promulgated in the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP. As we discovered during the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP
rulemaking, the challenges faced by
affected sources in complying with
these requirements necessitated
additional compliance time from what
was promulgated, eventually having to
move the original compliance date of
these provisions from February 1, 2016,
to August 1, 2018, an additional 2 and
a half years.4 Therefore, the 3-year
compliance date that was proposed for
the OLD NESHAP provides a consistent
time allowance to OLD sources as was
needed for petroleum refineries to fully
implement the final amendments to this
rule. We have also revised the effective
date of removing the portion of the
‘‘deviation’’ definition in 40 CFR
63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as
being applicable 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register to provide a consistent
compliance date due to the addition of
the tank degassing requirements. For all
new affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after
October 21, 2019, the effective date is
4 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2018-07/documents/petrefinery_compliance_ext_
factsheet.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
July 7, 2020, or upon initial startup,
whichever is later.
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the OLD
source category?
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
comment summary and response
document available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the OLD source
category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the
EPA conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results of this review,
along with our proposed decisions
40747
regarding risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety, in the October 21,
2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE (84 FR 56288). The results
of the risk assessment for the proposal
are presented briefly below and in more
detail in the document, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category in Support of the 2020 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
TABLE 2—ORGANIC LIQUIDS DISTRIBUTION (NON–GASOLINE) INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS AS PROPOSED
Number of facilities 1
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million) 2
157 ....................
Population at
increased
risk of cancer
≥1-in-1 million
Annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
350,000
0.03
20
Maximum
chronic
noncancer
TOSHI 3
0.4
Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 4
HQREL = 1 (toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform).
1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. This number is less than the 173 existing facilities identified in the source category because OLD emission points could not be identified at all facilities. This is explained in the Data Quality memorandum. For this category, allowable emissions are assumed to equal actual emissions.
2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
3 Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (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 hazard
quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level
(REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
The results of the proposed inhalation
risk assessment, as shown in Table 2 of
this preamble, indicate the estimated
cancer maximum individual risk (MIR)
is 20-in-1 million, with 1,3-butadiene
from equipment leaks as the major
contributor to the risk. At proposal, the
total estimated cancer incidence from
this source category was estimated to be
0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one
excess case every 33 years.
Approximately 350,000 people were
estimated to face an increased cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to
inhalation exposure to actual HAP
emissions from this source category. At
proposal, the estimated maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI from
inhalation exposure for this source
category was 0.4. The screening
assessment of worst-case inhalation
impacts indicated a worst-case
maximum acute HQ of 1 for toluene,
formaldehyde, and chloroform based on
the 1-hour REL for each pollutant.
At proposal, potential multipathway
human health risks were estimated
using a three-tier screening assessment
of the HAP known to be persistent and
bio-accumulative in the environment
emitted by facilities in this source
category. The only pollutants with
elevated Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening
values were polycyclic organic matter
(POM) (cancer). The Tier 2 screening
value for POM was 6, which means that
we were confident that the cancer risk
is lower than 6-in-1 million. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value
for both cadmium and mercury was less
than 1. There were no exceedances of
the lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
The ecological risk screening
assessment indicated all modeled points
were below the Tier 1 screening
thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of arsenic,
cadmium, mercury, hydrochloric acid,
and hydrofluoric acid. For POM
emissions, one facility did have a Tier
1 exceedance for a sediment community
no-effect level by a maximum screening
value of 6. There were no exceedances
of the secondary lead NAAQS.
The EPA considered all health risk
factors, including those shown in Table
2 of this preamble, in our risk
acceptability determination and
proposed that the risks posed by the
OLD source category are acceptable
(section IV.C.1 of proposal preamble, 84
FR 56309, October 21, 2019).
We then considered whether the
existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health and whether, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, standards are
required to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In considering
whether the standards are required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, we used the same
risk factors that we considered for our
acceptability determination and also
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
considered the costs, technological
feasibility, and other relevant factors
related to emissions control options that
might reduce risk associated with
emissions from the source category. We
proposed that additional emissions
controls for the OLD source category are
not necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health
(section IV.C.2 of proposal preamble, 84
FR 56310, October 21, 2019).
At proposal, we also evaluated the
risk from whole facility emissions in
order to put the risks from the source
category in context. The maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk based on
whole facility emissions was estimated
to be 2,000-in-1 million at proposal,
with ethylene oxide from a non-category
source driving the risk. At proposal, the
maximum chronic noncancer hazard
index based on whole facility emissions
was estimated to be 10 (for the kidney)
driven by emissions of trichloroethylene
from equipment leaks in the solvent
recovery operations at a plastic parts
manufacturing facility, which are noncategory sources.
2. How did the risk review change for
the OLD source category?
We have not changed any aspect of
the risk assessment since the October
21, 2019 RTR proposal (84 FR 56288) for
the OLD source category.5
5 We note that, due to comments, there are four
fewer existing OLD affected sources now than at
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
Continued
07JYR2
40748
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review, and what are our
responses?
We received comments in support of
and against the proposed residual risk
review and our determination that no
revisions were necessary under CAA
section 112(f)(2) for the OLD source
category. Generally, the comments that
were not supportive of the
determination from the risk reviews
suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. For example,
some commenters stated that the EPA
should lower the acceptability
benchmark so that risks below 100-in-1
million are unacceptable, include
emissions outside of the source
categories in question in the risk
assessment and assume that HAP
without dose-response values should be
included in the risk assessment. After
review of all the comments received, we
determined that no changes were
necessary. The comments and our
specific responses can be found in the
document, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk
and Technology Review for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline),
available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the risk
review?
As noted in our proposal, the EPA
sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standardsetting 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’’ (see 54 FR 38045, September
14, 1989). We weigh all health risk
factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer
MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute
noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer
risks, the distribution of cancer and
noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties.
Since proposal, neither the risk
assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For
the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, we determined that the risks from
the OLD source category are acceptable,
the current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
and more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not making any revisions to the existing
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).
B. Technology Review for the OLD
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OLD
source category?
We proposed, as part of our
technology review for storage tanks, 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
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR
part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds
are lower; and (2) in addition to
requirements specified in option 1,
requiring LDAR using EPA Method 21
with a 500 ppm leak definition for
fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g.,
access hatches) that are not subject to
the 95 percent by weight control
requirements.
We proposed option 1 (lower average
vapor pressure thresholds for control) as
a development in practices, processes,
and control technologies for storage
tanks because it reflects requirements
and applicability thresholds that are
widely applicable to existing tanks that
are often collocated with OLD sources
and that have been found to be cost
effective for organic liquid storage tanks.
We did not propose revisions to the
OLD NESHAP applicability thresholds
for new sources, as they were already
more stringent than other similar rules.
Table 3 of this preamble lists the
proposed capacity and average true
vapor pressure thresholds for control.
As shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
we also proposed 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
the October 21, 2019, proposal (84 FR
56288) for more details on this
clarification).
TABLE 3—NESHAP STORAGE TANK CAPACITY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS FOR
CONTROL UNDER PROPOSED CONTROL OPTION 1
Existing/new source and tank capacity
Tank contents and average true vapor pressure of total Table 1 to
subpart EEEE of 40 CFR 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.
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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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).
proposal (i.e., four sources we identified as subject
to the OLD NESHAP are not in fact subject to that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
rule). However, this change does not warrant an
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
update to this analysis since proposal and has,
therefore, not been updated.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
40749
TABLE 3—NESHAP STORAGE TANK CAPACITY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE TRUE VAPOR PRESSURE THRESHOLDS FOR
CONTROL UNDER PROPOSED CONTROL OPTION 1—Continued
Existing/new source and tank capacity
Tank contents and average true vapor pressure of total Table 1 to
subpart EEEE of 40 CFR part 63 organic HAP
Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons).
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).
Reconstructed or new affected source with a capacity ≥189.3 cubic
meters (50,000 gallons).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Existing, reconstructed, or new affected source meeting any of the capacity criteria specified above.
We further proposed option 2 (LDAR)
as an improvement in practices for
storage tanks 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. As we noted at proposal, we
have observed leaks on roof deck fittings
through monitoring with EPA Method
21 that could not be found with visual
observation techniques (see 84 FR
56311, October 21, 2019).
Proposed option 2 applied 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
applied 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.
Based on our review of the costs and
emission reductions for each of the
storage tank options, we proposed that
control options 1 and 2 were costeffective strategies for further reducing
emissions from storage tanks at OLD
facilities and proposed to revise the
OLD NESHAP requirements for storage
tanks pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). Other storage tank control
options beyond these two, including
installation of geodesic domes on
external floating roof tanks, were
considered during our technology
review but were not found to be
generally cost effective were not
proposed. Details on the assumptions
and methodologies for all options
evaluated at proposal 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:23 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
At proposal, our technology review
for equipment leaks identified two
potential 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
practices and processes were 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 found that
several OLD sources were permitted
using various state LDAR regulations
that incorporate equipment leak
provisions at the 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UU requirement level or above
and that also require connector
monitoring as part of the facility’s air
permit requirements.
For equipment leaks control option 1,
we considered that the baseline was that
connectors were not controlled using a
LDAR program, since the current OLD
NESHAP does not include them as
equipment to be monitored. For
equipment leaks control option 2, we
considered 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 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) to 500 ppmv,
and pumps would drop from 10,000
ppmv to 1,000 ppmv.
Based on our review of the costs and
emission reductions for each of the
equipment leak options, we proposed
that control option 1 was a cost-effective
strategy for further reducing emissions
from equipment leaks at OLD facilities,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
especially when evaluated based on the
expected reductions attributed to the
emission inventory for fugitive HAP
emissions, and we determined that
option 2 was not cost effective for this
source category. We proposed, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6), revising the
OLD NESHAP for equipment leaks to
reflect option 1. Details on the
assumptions and methodologies for all
options that were evaluated at proposal
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.
As part of the technology review, we
also considered options to reduce
emissions from transfer racks. We
evaluated the thresholds for control in
the current rule against the 2012
proposed uniform standards for storage
tanks and transfer operations (see
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–2010–0871) and
found that the current thresholds for
controls are equivalent to or more
stringent than those 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.
Considering the costs of control and the
HAP emissions for these racks, this
option was not found to be cost
effective. Therefore, we did not propose
any changes to 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.
Also, as part of the technology review,
we evaluated developments in
processes, practices, and control
technologies for measuring and
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40750
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
controlling fugitive emissions from
individual emission points at OLD
sources. We proposed a fenceline
monitoring program, available to
existing and new OLD facilities, in lieu
of implementing the proposed
technology review requirements
discussed above for storage tanks and
equipment leaks. Provisions of the
proposed fenceline monitoring program
compliance alternative were described
in detail in section IV.D.4 of the
proposal preamble (see 84 FR 56313
through 56318, October 21, 2019).
The EPA proposed this option for
fenceline monitoring for several reasons:
(1) There was concern that because of
the uncertainty surrounding estimated
fugitive emissions from OLD operations,
sources may be underestimating actual
fugitive emissions from OLD operations;
(2) the proposed fenceline monitoring
program would provide owners or
operators a flexible alternative to
appropriately manage fugitive emissions
of HAP from OLD operations if they
were 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 or 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 was not subject to
equipment leak monitoring in the
proposed rule.
The EPA proposed the fenceline
monitoring alternative and considered it
to be equivalent to the proposed
technology review revisions it would
replace. Therefore, we proposed the
fenceline monitoring alternative under
CAA section 112(d)(6) as an alternative
equivalent requirement to address
fugitive emissions from OLD sources.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
2. How did the technology review
change for the OLD source category?
After consideration of comments and
reevaluation of our analyses at proposal,
we are not finalizing the following:
Requiring LDAR using EPA Method 21
with a 500 ppm leak definition for
fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g.,
access hatches) that are not subject to
the 95 percent by weight control
requirements in the final rule; 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); or allowing the
option for a fenceline monitoring
program. Summaries of comments on
these proposed provisions and our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
responses are provided below in section
IV.B.3 of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
Comment: Multiple commenters
opposed the proposed LDAR
requirements for storage tanks that are
not required to have emissions controls
and are not currently subject to
equipment standards that require they
be enclosed and leak tight. Several
commenters asserted that the EPA’s
estimated emission reductions for the
proposed storage tank leak detection
monitoring requirements overestimate
emission reductions that may be
attributed to these requirements. Many
commenters observed that the EPA’s
estimated volatile organic compound
(VOC) reduction of 1.1 tpy includes
emissions from the conservation vent,
emergency pressure relief vent, and
other valves/instruments that were
estimated using equipment leak
emission factors from the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing
industry (SOCMI) from the EPA’s
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates. The commenters stated that
the SOCMI emission factors were
developed for process equipment
containing material at pressures several
times greater than an atmospheric
storage tank, making their application to
such tanks invalid. Commenters also
stated that the costs for the proposed
tank leak detection monitoring
requirements are underestimated. These
commenters argued that the EPA did not
consider operational and safety issues
that these requirements present. Several
commenters noted that the language
effectively requires a technician to
climb up to the roof of a tank and check
the entire surface, stressing that these
small tanks were not built with the
intention of regular roof inspections and
do not have the same structural integrity
as tanks that were designed with the
intention of applying emission controls.
One commenter generally supported the
proposed revisions related to storage
tanks to incorporate developments that
the EPA has deemed cost effective and
advocated that the EPA require further
revisions to satisfy 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).
Response: We have reviewed
commenters’ concerns and reevaluated
the analyses for developing the
proposed fixed roof tank LDAR
requirements and agree that the
emission reduction estimates serving as
the basis for the proposed LDAR
requirements were likely inaccurate for
the smaller volume tanks and provide
an overestimate of emission reductions
for this control option. Coupled with
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
concerns about additional costs that
may be incurred to address safety and
operational concerns, the EPA has
determined that the proposed LDAR for
fixed roof tanks not requiring control
does not appear to be a cost-effective
control option for this source category.
Without appropriate data to better
assess the emissions reductions and
costs of this option, and given the fact
that uncontrolled fixed roof tanks are
allowed to breathe and would not
necessarily be vapor-tight, we now
recognize that the proposed
requirements could potentially trigger
leak protocols that we did not intend
when we proposed the change.
Therefore, we are not finalizing the
proposed requirements that require
LDAR for tanks that are currently
beneath the volumetric and vapor
pressure thresholds for controlling
emissions under the OLD standards.
Comment: Several commenters
contended that the EPA costeffectiveness analysis for connectors
was flawed, and based on the EPA’s
backup document, connector
monitoring is not cost effective for OLD
facilities and should not be finalized.
The commenters stated that the backup
document for the EPA’s equipment leak
analysis does not support the preamble
conclusions. One commenter contended
that the EPA overestimated the emission
reductions achievable from connector
monitoring by applying emissions from
all equipment leaks to connectors and,
thus, overestimating the emission
reductions achievable. The commenter
also alleged an error in the modeling file
for one facility that accounted for half
of the equipment leak emissions yet
submitted a correction that stated there
is no OLD-affected equipment at the
facility. Commenters also claimed the
EPA underestimated the compliance
costs for connector monitoring. One
commenter stated that the EPA’s cost
estimates failed to take into account that
connectors at OLD sources tend to be
more difficult to access than at
refineries or other sources. The
commenter further stated that for OLD
facilities, for a high percentage of
connectors, equipment such as a
wheeled scissor-lift or hydraulic
scaffold is required for monitoring
access as well as a second technician for
safety reasons; and additional time is
required to move the equipment. Some
commenters asserted that the EPA also
underestimated costs by
underestimating the monitoring
frequency allowed under 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU, stating that the
frequency should be every 4 years
instead of 8 years that were used in the
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
cost estimates. One commenter further
contended that the EPA underestimated
the administrative costs (e.g., training
and reporting costs) for the program by
incorrectly assuming no additional
administrative costs for OLD facilities
that are collocated with processes that
already have an LDAR regulatory
program. A couple of commenters also
added that the industry finds and
repairs leaks based on sensory methods,
so requiring EPA Method 21 may not
result in the level of emissions
reductions that the EPA estimates.
Response: We revised our cost and
emission reduction estimates and are
not finalizing connector monitoring
because we no longer find it to be as
cost effective for this source category as
originally determined. We reviewed
commenters’ concerns and reevaluated
the analyses of emission reductions and
cost for connector LDAR requirements
and agree that the estimates of emission
reductions that were not based on the
model plant analysis that served as the
basis for this proposed requirement
were likely inaccurate and
underestimated the cost per ton
removed for this control option. Using
the model plant emission reductions
and costs (see EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–
0074–0015), as well as updating
measurement frequency, we estimate a
cost effectiveness of $10,063/ton HAP.
Coupled with unquantified additional
costs that may be incurred to address
safety concerns specific to OLD
facilities, the EPA has determined that
connector monitoring is not a costeffective option for OLD sources. This
determination also considers additional
uncertainty, such as with the HAP
content of the liquid. As a result, we are
not finalizing the proposed
requirements that require LDAR for
connectors.
Comment: No commenters supported
the fenceline provisions as proposed.
Two commenters advocated that the
fenceline monitoring option not be
adopted in the rule. These commenters
stated that because public health risks
are not reduced due to the proposed
enhancements to the control
requirements for storage tanks and
equipment leaks, the fenceline
monitoring measures are unnecessary.
The commenters also objected to the
EPA’s characterization of the fenceline
monitoring program being an alternative
standard since, as the commenters
argued, the analytes and action levels
are set based on the proposed, more
stringent, control requirements and,
therefore, facilities would have to install
the proposed new controls anyway.
These commenters also advocated that a
refinery with collocated OLD sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
should be allowed to incorporate OLD
sources into their Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)
fenceline program, because the benzene
fenceline monitoring is also appropriate
for collocated OLD sources. These
commenters also objected to many of
the provisions for implementing the
monitoring, including that the
compliance timeline for commencing
fenceline monitoring could be difficult
to meet, that the timeline for approving
and monitoring new analytes is too
short, that OLD sources should be able
to use analyte uptake rates that are
published by national and international
scientific organizations rather than
going through EPA validation methods,
that the action level determination be
revised from 5 times the method
detection limit (MDL) to 3 times the
MDL to be consistent with previous EPA
actions, that the EPA’s modeling
guidance for OLD sources contains some
inconsistencies with the Human
Exposure Model (HEM–3) User’s Guide,
and that a 45-day timeline for corrective
action is too short in some cases.
From an alternate perspective, a
public health advocate stated that
fenceline monitoring should be required
in addition to the proposed new
emission control requirements for
storage tanks and equipment leaks. The
commenter stated that because fenceline
monitors are a technological
development that can reduce emissions,
then the CAA requires that both the
enhanced emission controls and
fenceline monitoring requirements must
be adopted. The commenter also
advocated for the EPA to require realtime monitoring, like Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy, which has been
demonstrated to be technically feasible
and has been implemented in the South
Coast Air Quality Management District’s
Rule 1180.
Response: We are not finalizing the
fenceline monitoring alternative. The
fenceline monitoring alternative was
proposed as an optional control
requirement to complying with the
proposed control requirements for
storage tanks and equipment leaks that
we are not finalizing as explained
above. Without the final requirements
for which fenceline monitoring was an
alternative compliance approach,
fenceline monitoring is no longer
necessary.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
Based on our review and
consideration of information provided
in comments, the proposed requirement
for revising the average true vapor
pressure thresholds of the OLD storage
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40751
tanks for existing sources requiring
control to align with those of the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR
part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds
are lower is generally acknowledged to
be cost effective. However, the other
proposed technology review
requirements of fixed roof tank LDAR
and adding connectors to the LDAR
program at OLD sources have been
reevaluated in light of commenters’
concerns and have not been found to be
cost-effective options for the OLD
source category at this time. Since the
pool of emission reduction requirements
is smaller in the final rule than
proposed, we find it highly unlikely that
OLD sources would have opted to
utilize the proposed fenceline
monitoring program. Therefore, we are
also not finalizing the fenceline
monitoring alternative in the final rule.
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA
Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the
OLD source category?
Under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),
we proposed to amend the operating
and monitoring requirements for flares
used as APCDs in the OLD source
category to ensure that OLD facilities
that use flares as APCDs meet the MACT
standards at all times when controlling
HAP emissions. We proposed at 40 CFR
63.2380 to directly apply the petroleum
refinery flare rule requirements in 40
CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in the
OLD source category with certain
clarifications and exemptions. We
proposed to retain the General
Provisions requirements of 40 CFR
63.11(b) that flares used as APCDs in the
OLD source category operate pilot flame
systems continuously and that flares
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. We also proposed to
consolidate measures related to flare tip
velocity and new operational and
monitoring requirements related to the
combustion zone gas. We proposed to
eliminate the cross-references to the
General Provisions and instead crossreference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
The EPA also proposed 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 requested
comment on several issues related to
PRDs, including whether work practices
should be adopted for PRDs that are not
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40752
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
part of a vapor balancing system,
whether work practices similar to those
promulgated for petroleum refineries in
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC are
necessary and appropriate for OLD
operations, information on the nature of
non-vapor balancing system PRDs, and
whether monitoring devices should be
required to be installed and operated to
ensure continuous compliance with the
standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv) that
no PRD shall open during loading or as
a result of diurnal temperature changes.
More information regarding our
proposal to address CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) can be found in the
proposed rule (84 FR 56302, October 21,
2019). Further details regarding
comments received and the EPA’s
responses are discussed below.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
2. How did the revisions pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) change
since proposal?
We are finalizing some clarifying edits
to the overlap provisions of 40 CFR 63,
subpart EEEE to address commenter
concerns with overlap for flare
provisions in the OLD source category
with other regulations. Further,
commenters noted some clarifying edits
to the simplified requirements allowed
in 40 CFR 63.670(j). We have revised the
proposed requirements to address these
concerns, which are discussed in
section 8.0 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and
Technology Review for Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action.
We received comments that owners or
operators have historically considered
degassing emissions from shutdown of
storage tanks to be covered by their SSM
plans per the definition of ‘‘Shutdown’’
included at 40 CFR 63.2406 and that
there are several OLD affected sources
that are subject to standards for tank
degassing in their air permits. We
assessed the MACT floor level of control
and, as a result, are adding a standard
for storage tank degassing for storage
tanks subject to the control
requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
We are also finalizing the PRD
provisions as proposed. Comments on
the PRD provisions and our responses
are discussed in section 9.0 of the
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline), available in the docket
for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
3. What key comments did we receive
on the proposal revisions pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and
what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the
proposal to eliminate the SSM
provisions makes it unclear as to what
the OLD NESHAP compliance
obligations are related to fixed roof tank
degassing. The commenters added that
because tank degassing is included in
the shutdown definition, facilities have
historically considered fixed roof tank
degassing activities to be covered by
their SSM plan, which includes
procedures for minimizing emissions
during shutdown activities. The
commenters stated that the EPA is
proposing to remove the requirement to
implement and follow an SSM plan and
adding a new general duty clause at 40
CFR 63.2350(d) that would require
facilities to operate and maintain any
affected source, including air pollution
control device and monitoring
equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions. Commenters further asserted
that at some point it is no longer
reasonable or even technically feasible
to continue to try to control the dilute
vapors using the normal control device
or by routing to a fuel gas system or to
a process. The commenters noted that
some facilities are subject to standards
for fixed roof tank degassing in their
permits. The commenters supported the
Texas requirements for fixed roof tank
degassing to represent what the average
of the best performers are doing to
minimize emissions from fixed roof tank
degassing. The commenters concluded
that these requirements state that fixed
roof storage tanks otherwise required to
be controlled must be degassed to a
control device or controlled recovery
system until the VOC concentration is
less than 10,000 ppmv or 10 percent of
the lower explosive level (LEL). One
commenter also requested that the EPA
clarify that once the atmospheric release
criterion is met, vapors may also be
released after tank entry. The
commenter stated that for many tanks,
there are sludges in the bottom of the
tank or on the walls that may release
some hydrocarbon vapors as they are
shoveled or hydroblasted off the tank
floor and/or walls.
Response: We agree that a standard is
reasonable for tank degassing and have
included it in the final rule. With the
removal of SSM requirements, a
standard specific to storage tank
degassing did not exist. We agree with
the commenters that storage tank
degassing is similar to maintenance
vents (e.g., equipment openings) found
in other rules, and that there must be a
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
point in time when the storage tank can
be opened and any emissions vented to
the atmosphere. As such, we reviewed
available data to determine how the best
performers are controlling storage tank
degassing emissions.
We, and commenters, are aware of
three state or air quality management
district provisions regarding storage
tank degassing, two in the state of Texas
and the third for the South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) in California. Texas has
degassing provisions in the Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) (30 TAC
Chapter 115, Subchapter F, Division 3)
and through permit conditions (as noted
by commenters), and SCAQMD has
provisions in Rule 1149. The TAC
requirements are the least stringent
(35,000 ppmv as methane or 50 percent
of the LEL), and the Texas permit
conditions (10,000 ppmv or 10-percent
LEL) and SCAQMD Rule 1149 (5,000
ppmv as methane) are equivalent. The
Texas permit conditions and SCAQMD
Rule 1149 are considered equivalent
because 5,000 ppmv as methane equals
10 percent of the LEL for methane. OLD
facilities located in Texas are subject to
the permit conditions, and 3 OLD
facilities are subject to the SCAQMD
rule. Of the 173 currently operating (i.e.,
existing) OLD facilities, 44 are in Texas.
The Texas and California requirements
are the most stringent we are aware of
and; therefore, we conclude that those
requirements reflect what the best
performers in the OLD source category
have implemented for storage tank
degassing. Commenters also confirm
this conclusion.
We reviewed the Texas permit
conditions for key information that
could be implemented into the form of
a standard for storage tank degassing.
The conditions require control of
degassing emissions until the VOC
concentration of the vapor is less than
10,000 ppmv or 10 percent of the LEL.
We have used the 10 percent of the LEL
in similar requirements in the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (see 40
CFR 63.643(c) for example) and have,
therefore, finalized these 10-percent LEL
requirements for tanks requiring control
at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6).
We calculated the impacts due to
controlling storage tank degassing
emissions by evaluating the population
of estimated storage tanks subject to
control according to the requirements in
Tables 2 and 2b of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE that are not located in
Texas or in SCAQMD. Storage tanks in
the OLD source category in Texas and
SCAQMD would already be subject to
the degassing requirements being
finalized, and there would not be
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
additional costs or emissions reductions
for these facilities. Based on commenter
statements, tanks are degassed for
inspection typically every 10 years.
Based on this average and the
population of storage tanks that are not
in Texas or in SCAQMD, we estimate 89
storage tank degassing events would be
subject to control each year. Controlling
storage tank degassing would reduce
HAP emissions by 74 tpy, with a total
national annual cost of $418,656. See
the technical memorandum titled Tank
Degassing Analysis for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
Source Category Final Rule, which is
available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2018–0074 for details on the
assumptions and methodologies used in
this analysis.
We considered whether there are
technically feasible options more
stringent than the MACT floor
requirements but are not aware of
storage tank degassing provisions
beyond those discussed above for Texas
and SCAQMD. Therefore, no options
more stringent than the MACT floor
were evaluated. We also confirm that
once the 10-percent LEL criterion is
met, tank vapors may be vented to the
atmosphere even after tank entry.
Comment: Several commenters
contended that the assumptions the EPA
used in developing the flare control cost
and emission reduction estimates are
not realistic. The commenters indicated
that several of the EPA’s assumptions
laid out in the proposal preamble are
incorrect for most OLD NESHAP flares.
The commenters argued that the EPA’s
basis for the flare cost estimates is that
OLD NESHAP operations are steady
enough that compositions and flow rates
do not change, so continuous
instrumentation is not needed for
compliance (except for continuous
temperature and pressure monitoring),
and that composition sampling and
engineering estimates are sufficient. The
commenters insisted this basis is
incorrect. One commenter made the
following points:
• Although some organic liquids have
relatively constant composition as the
EPA states, most OLD NESHAP flares
will be receiving vapors from multiple
OLD sources simultaneously, including
tank vapors, loading vapors and likely
small amounts from equipment leak
vapors. The commenter asserted that in
order to estimate the composition of the
flare waste gas and the net heating value
of the flare vent gas (NHVvg), facilities
would need accurate flow information
on each stream and composition
information for those streams that have
variable compositions;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
• transfer operations generate vapors
from tank cars, trucks, or containers
loading (unloading emissions show up
as tank emissions and barge and ship
loading are not regulated by the OLD
NESHAP though these may be routed to
the same flare as OLD regulated
emissions). The commenter noted the
composition of those vapors will vary if
the tank car, truck, or container is filled
with vapors of another type (e.g., air,
nitrogen, other organics);
• storage tank emission rates vary
significantly as a function of stored
liquid temperature and changes in tank
levels. The commenter pointed out that
if the tank level is increasing due to
material entering the tank, the emission
rate will be much higher than the rate
due to temperature changes; if the
stored material temperature or level is
dropping, air or inert gas will be drawn
into the tank;
• loading emission rates vary as the
backpressure varies as the receiving
volume fills with liquid and/or the
backpressure from the vapor collection
system changes;
• the commenter urged that
reasonably good flow measurements for
each of these flows would be needed to
estimate the total waste gas flow to an
OLD NESHAP flare and would be
required for every source going to that
flare, not just the OLD NESHAP sources.
The commenter noted that because of
the impossibility of obtaining all the
required individual flow information,
the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP
provisions focus only on measuring the
total flow at the flare. The commenter
insisted that because of the range of
flows, this requires a sophisticated wide
range meter such as a sonic flow meter;
and
• the commenter stressed that assist
steam and supplemental fuel demands
vary widely as flare conditions change,
and, thus, would not be amenable to
estimation or using engineering
estimates even though the gas molecular
weight is known.
The commenter stated that due to the
above, facilities must have at least
continuous flow rate monitoring of the
waste gas, supplemental fuel, and assist
steam in order to allow control on a 15minute basis, and stressed that, in most
cases, continuous monitoring of waste
gas composition is also needed. The
commenter also urged that due to the
broad range of potential flow rates,
additional controls (typically split range
controllers) would be needed to rapidly
adjust assist gas and supplemental fuel
to meet the NHVcz requirements on a
15-minute basis. The commenter
contended that the EPA’s engineering
estimate approach using temperature
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40753
and pressure is, therefore, untenable,
and flare cost basis must consider that
OLD flares will have to install the full
range of continuous monitoring and
control instrumentation that was
required for the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP flares, with perhaps a few
limited exceptions. One commenter also
affirmed that although the
compositional variability of flared gas
streams is less than that of refineries,
facilities will opt to conduct continuous
monitoring to reduce incremental
supplemental fuel costs, and are likely
to install flow meters instead of relying
on pressure and temperature monitoring
systems and engineering calculations.
One commenter added that because of
the typically remote location of OLD
NESHAP-only flares, there are likely to
be large additional costs compared to
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP to add
new utilities, analyzer houses, data
systems, and control room
instrumentation. The commenter,
therefore, concluded that even if the
EPA’s assumption of only continuous
temperature and pressure monitoring
were correct, a $190,000 investment
would unlikely be enough to instrument
one flare, much less 27. The commenter
remarked that use of the Petroleum
Refineries NESHAP cost estimate
prorated to the EPA’s estimated 27 OLD
NESHAP flares would yield an
annualized OLD cost of $2.4 million and
a cost effectiveness of $3,673/ton of
VOC reduced and $37,182/ton of HAP
reduced.
Another commenter provided a
summary of information collected from
member facilities on approximately 80
flares on the estimated cost impacts of
flare requirements in the EPA’s
proposed revisions to the Ethylene
MACT standards, which the commenter
contended are essentially the same as
the proposed revisions in the OLD
NESHAP. The commenter asserted that
for the Ethylene MACT, member
companies indicated they would need
to install at least two new flares due to
the potential for existing flares to exceed
the number of visible emissions events
allowed by the emergency flaring
provisions during upset conditions; at
least one gas chromatograph in order to
comply with the proposed monitoring
requirements; upgraded natural gas
controls for at least 23 flares (to meet the
more stringent minimum flare gas net
heating value) and flow monitoring; and
additional costs based on the estimated
amount of supplemental fuel firing. The
commenter estimated that, based on this
information, the average capital and
annual costs to implement the changes
applicable to OLD flares (i.e., excluding
the emergency flaring management work
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40754
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
practices) are $509,000 and $725,000
per flare, with an estimated annual
average cost of incremental
supplemental fuel of $655,000 per flare.
The commenter concluded that with
their estimated costs and the EPA’s
estimate of 64 tpy of HAP reductions,
the cost effectiveness of the proposed
amendments would be approximately
$306,000/ton of HAP reduced. The
commenter also questioned the validity
of the EPA’s proposed HAP reductions,
stating that the EPA’s basis for its 64 tpy
estimate of reduced HAP emissions is
simply an assumption that all OLD
flares are operating with a 90-percent
combustion efficiency, and that the
Agency has not provided data to
support this assumption.
One commenter estimated that the
cost to install all required
instrumentation is in the $600,000 to
$800,000 range for a single flare.
Several commenters stated that,
because costs for the OLD NESHAP flare
instrumentation and controls will likely
greatly exceed the proposed costs, the
proposed revised flare requirements are
not cost effective and should not be
finalized.
Response: We do not agree with the
comments that the proposed revisions to
the flare requirements should not be
finalized. We proposed the flare
amendments under the authority of
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure
that flares used to control OLD emission
sources are meeting the combustion
efficiency requirements that are the
basis for our original rule. In proposing
these amendments, we did not use the
authority of CAA 112(d)(6) and did not
consider costs. Since the revisions
ensure continuous compliance with the
MACT standard under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), costs are not a factor
considered for these revisions. We
determined the flare operating and
monitoring requirements were not
adequate to ensure that 98-percent
control efficiency can be met for a flare
at all times. Regarding the commenter’s
arguments that the emission reductions
assumed to be a result of the proposed
flaring provisions are overstated, the 90percent assumption was illustrative of
potential emissions in worst case
situations, but since cost and, thus, cost
effectiveness are not considerations
when determining the MACT floor, we
did not rely on estimated HAP emission
reductions in making our decision to
propose or finalize these requirements.
We did estimate costs in order to
provide the resulting impacts, but we
are not revising the costs as a result of
this comment, especially as the costs
presented by the commenter appear to
have been developed with Ethylene
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
MACT flares in mind. As acknowledged
by several commenters, OLD flare
operation and monitoring are likely
simpler than ethylene flares, and some
commenters’ three 1-hour test run
suggestion for demonstrating
compliance are essentially equivalent to
the grab sampling requirements in 40
CFR 63.670(j)(6) and they could be
further refined to facilitate easier use of
simplified monitoring provisions. We
have revised those requirements to
address concerns of petitioning to use
the grab sample approach, which further
streamlines these requirements. If, as
the commenter suggests, their facilities
opt to use more sophisticated
continuous monitoring instrumentation
instead of the proposed grab sample/
worst case approach, they have the
flexibility to do so. However, we
disagree that cost estimates based on
Ethylene Production source category
flares are appropriate for OLD. We also
note that the commenter applies a
supplemental natural gas cost
approximately 18 times higher than our
estimate (if supplemental natural gas is
needed to meet NHVcz limits for the
flare) for their OLD flare cost
assessment. This natural gas cost seems
excessive, especially considering that
commenters did not discuss adjusting
other flare parameters instead of using
such a large amount of natural gas.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
As we discussed above, we proposed
the flare amendments under the
authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) to ensure flares used to control OLD
emission sources are meeting the
combustion efficiency requirements that
are the basis for our original rule and
necessary to ensure sources are
complying with the MACT level of
control. For this reason, we did not
consider costs in proposing these
requirements and are generally
finalizing these amendments as
proposed. We did, however, make some
revisions to the proposed requirements
at 40 CFR 63.2380 to further streamline
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.670(j) to
facilitate the ability of sources to use the
grab sample approach for determining
net heating value. In addition, and as
discussed earlier, we also amended the
overlap provisions of 40 CFR 63.2396 to
clarify applicability for flares subject to
the requirements of the OLD NESHAP
and to other NESHAP requirements.
Tank degassing is considered a
shutdown activity and historically has
been considered by OLD sources to be
covered under their SSM plan and
permit conditions. With the removal of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
SSM provisions that are not consistent
with the requirement that the standards
apply at all times, the EPA assessed the
level of control the best performing OLD
sources are using for tank degassing
events. During this assessment and
based on comments, air permit
requirements for OLD sources in Texas
require degassing to a 10-percent LEL or
10,000 ppm prior to opening the tank to
the atmosphere, and these requirements
represent the best level of control for
tank degassing events for OLD sources
and those in California and Texas are
already complying with.
In this action, we are including
provisions at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6) that
require tanks that are subject to control
to continue to route degassing vapors to
a device equivalent to the control (i.e.,
95-percent organic HAP reduction, back
to process or fuel gas system) until the
vapor within the storage tank has
reached 10 percent of the LEL.
The PRD definition and provisions
that were proposed are being finalized.
No additional work practice provisions
or requirements are being added to the
PRD requirements as a result of
commenter suggestions, and the
clarifications proposed in 40 CFR
63.2346(a)(iv) and the definition in 40
CFR 63.2406 are being made final. We
note that we received several comments
on these provisions and clarification on
what constitutes a deviation for these
types of devices within the OLD
NESHAP. We have responded to these
comments in section 9.0 of the
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline), available in the docket
for this action.
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions
During Periods of SSM
1. What amendments did we propose to
address emissions during periods of
SSM?
We proposed amendments to the OLD
NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning the elimination
of SSM provisions is in the preamble to
the proposed rule (84 FR 56318–56322,
October 21, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change
since proposal?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions
proposed (84 FR 56318, October 21,
2019) with some modifications,
including: Revisions to the proposed
provisions of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for
periods of planned routine maintenance
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of the control device to allow tank
breathing losses to be consistent with
our intent at proposal (see 84 FR 56323,
October 21, 2019); revisions to 40 CFR
63.2346(l) to further clarify the SSM
requirements in referenced subparts
(such as 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS,
TT, and UU) that are no longer
applicable; and we have extended the
effective date of removing the portion of
the ‘‘deviation’’ definition in 40 CFR
63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as
being applicable 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register to provide a consistent
compliance date due to the addition of
the tank degassing requirements
discussed in section IV.C of this
preamble.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM revisions and what are our
responses?
We received several comments related
to our proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions. Commenters discussed
issues related to the removal of the 240hour exemption for planned
maintenance of control devices, the
need for tank degassing requirements
with the revision of SSM provisions (as
discussed in more detail in section IV.C
of this preamble), and other
miscellaneous issues pertaining to the
SSM provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subparts SS, TT, and UU requirements
referred to within 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE. These comments and our
responses are available in section 10.1
of the Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline), available in the docket
for this action. As discussed above, we
have made some changes to the
revisions to the SSM requirements in
the final rule to address the significant
issues brought forth by commenters.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions to address
emissions during periods of SSM?
We evaluated all comments on the
EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments
remove and revise provisions related to
SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at
all times. More information concerning
the amendments we are finalizing for
SSM is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 56318–56322, October 21,
2019). Additional revisions to these
amendments based on comments
received are discussed in further detail
in section 10.1 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Technology Review for Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action.
E. Technical Amendments to the MACT
Standards
1. What other amendments did we
propose for the OLD source category?
We proposed that owners or 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 CDX using CEDRI.
Performance test results must be
collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on
the ERT website 6 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 PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT. Similarly,
performance evaluation results of CEMS
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. We also proposed that NOCS
reports must be submitted as a PDF
upload in CEDRI.
For compliance reports and fenceline
monitoring reports, we proposed that
owners or operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI.
Additionally, we proposed two broad
circumstances in which we may provide
extension to these requirements. We
proposed that an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA’s
CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner
or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports. We
also proposed that an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event,
such as an act of nature, act of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the
facility.
Additionally, we proposed required
testing and recordkeeping for emission
sources not requiring control 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.
Further, we proposed a requirement that
the contents of tanks that are claimed to
6 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40755
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) 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 proposed the revision of 40 CFR
63.2354(c) to add 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 for the determination of HAP
content of an organic liquid. We are also
finalizing the replacement of method
ASTM D2879 with method ASTM
D6378–18a as one of the acceptable
methods for the determination of vapor
pressure.
Finally, we proposed several revisions
to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and crossreference errors in 84 FR 56323 through
56324 and Table 9 of the proposal.
2. How did the other amendments for
the OLD source category change since
proposal?
We are not finalizing the proposed
requirements for periodic testing and
recordkeeping for the annual average
true vapor pressure for those tanks not
subject to the 95 percent control
requirements of the regulation. Further,
we are not finalizing, as proposed, 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)
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, however,
finalizing the revision of 40 CFR
63.2354(c) to add ASTM 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 for the determination of HAP
content of an organic liquid. We are also
finalizing the replacement of method
ASTM D2879 with method ASTM
D6378–18a as an acceptable method for
determination of whether a total vapor
pressure (and, therefore, the sum total of
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40756
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
HAP) is below the threshold level
requiring control for a storage tank.
The proposed electronic reporting
requirements and the technical and
editorial corrections in Table 9 of the
proposal (see 84 FR 56324, October 21,
2019) have not changed, aside from
some additional editorial changes based
on comments and the removal of the
fenceline monitoring alternative
electronic reporting. Aside from these
noted differences from proposal, we are
finalizing the electronic reporting
requirements and technical and
editorial corrections.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the other amendments for the OLD
source category and what are our
responses?
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the proposed requirement in
40 CFR 63.2343(b)(5) and (6) that
facilities conduct periodic vapor
pressure testing or obtain vapor pressure
data from the organic liquid supplier to
demonstrate that the annual average
true vapor pressure of the organic liquid
in each storage tank is below control
thresholds. Commenters argued that the
addition of these two testing
requirements is burdensome and
unnecessary, results in no HAP
emissions reductions, goes beyond what
other NESHAP require for storage tanks,
and should not be finalized. Several
commenters further objected to the
proposed requirement to use test
method ASTM D6378–18a for storage
tank vapor pressure analyses.
Commenters stated that the requirement
that test method ASTM D6378–18a must
be used is impracticable and conflicts
with the wording of the control
thresholds that are based on the annual
average true vapor pressure of the total
Table 1 HAP, not the total annual
average true vapor pressure of the
liquid, which is the measured result of
ASTM D6378–18a. One commenter
stated that periodic testing is not
needed, since inbound organic liquids
HAP contents, and, thus, calculated
HAP partial pressures, are available
from vendor and in-house analyses and
outbound materials are tested in
developing the required safety data
sheet (SDS) for that material. Several
commenters also noted that other
NESHAP have storage tank vapor
pressure thresholds for control but do
not require regular testing to confirm
vapor pressure (e.g., 40 CFR part 63,
subparts YY, GGG, and OOO). Another
commenter further argued that the
requirement to conduct periodic
negative applicability determinations is
precedent setting and is not warranted.
The commenter stated that the EPA has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
not provided justification for the added
requirement or provided an indication
with supporting data of the ‘‘problem’’
the Agency is trying to resolve. The
commenter further argued that facilities
already have general obligations under
title V 5-year renewals to ensure permits
include all requirements applicable to a
facility.
Response: The EPA acknowledges
ASTM D6378–18a measures total vapor
pressure and not HAP vapor pressure,
therefore, we are not finalizing the
periodic vapor pressure testing
requirements due to lack of an
appropriate method to measure only
HAP vapor pressure. However, facilities
may still use ASTM D6378–18a as a
method for excluding tanks from control
due to the fact that if the total vapor
pressure of the liquid is less than the
threshold for control, then the HAP
vapor pressure (which is a subset of the
total vapor pressure) would also be
under the threshold. The EPA also
acknowledges that the periodic 5percent HAP content testing
requirement creates a potential scenario
of requiring sources to perform regular
non-applicability determinations for all
tanks at major sources that could be
duplicative, considering the provisions
of the OLD NESHAP are applied
through a title V permit requirement,
and that there are 5-year renewal
obligations for title V permits. To be in
compliance with their title V permit,
OLD affected sources have an ongoing
obligation to ensure that tanks storing
organic liquids with greater than 5
percent HAP are meeting the OLD
NESHAP requirements. Therefore, we
are not finalizing periodic HAP content
testing. Facilities will still be able to use
Method 311, voluntary consensus
standards, SDS, and certified product
data sheets, and calculations as a means
of determining applicability.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the
other amendments for the OLD source
category?
After evaluating the comments on the
proposed periodic HAP and vapor
pressure testing requirements that were
proposed, we are not finalizing these
requirements. As discussed above, we
agree that there are not any methods
suitable to determine the organic HAP
partial pressure of a liquid, and that
these requirements could create a
duplicative requirement scenario
requiring sources to establish nonapplicability although a similar
obligation already exists in their title V
permit. As we also explain, we have
included ASTM 6378–18a in the final
rule as a method suitable for use for
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
excluding tanks from control. If the total
vapor pressure of the liquid measured
using ASTM 6378–18a is less than the
vapor pressure threshold for control,
then the liquid being stored would,
therefore, also be below the threshold
for control.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are 173 facilities currently
operating OLD equipment subject to the
OLD NESHAP and four new facilities
under construction. A complete list of
facilities that are currently subject to the
OLD NESHAP is available in appendix
A of the memorandum, National
Impacts of the 2020 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule for the
Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.
The 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 of
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 tertbutyl 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 2020 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
action. This final action would reduce
HAP emissions from OLD NESHAP
sources. The EPA estimates HAP
emission reductions of approximately
186 tpy based on our analysis of the
actions described in sections IV.B and C
of this preamble. More information
about the estimated emission reductions
of this final action can be found in the
document, National Impacts of the 2020
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule
for the Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) Source Category, which
is available in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate the total capital costs of
these final amendments to be
approximately $2.5 million and the total
annualized costs (including recovery
credits) to be $1.8 million per year
(2016$). We also estimate the present
value of the costs is $8.5 million at a
discount rate of 3 percent and $7.1
million at 7 percent (2016$). Calculated
as an equivalent annualized value,
which is consistent with the present
value of the costs, the costs are $1.1
million at a discount rate of 3 percent
and $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7
percent (2016$). The annualized costs
include those for operating and
maintenance, and recovery credits of
approximately $170,000 per year from
the reduction in evaporative emissions
from storage tanks. To estimate savings
in chemicals not being emitted (i.e., lost)
due to the reduction in evaporative
emissions, we applied a recovery credit
of $900 per ton of VOC to the VOC
emission reductions in the analyses.
The $900 per ton recovery credit has
historically been used by the EPA to
represent the variety of chemicals that
are used as reactants and produced at
synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing facilities.7 At proposal,
we solicited comment on the
availability of more recent information
to potentially update the value used in
this analysis to estimate the recovery
credits, but received none. We used an
40757
interest rate of 5 percent to annualize
the total capital costs. These estimated
costs are associated with amendments of
the requirements for storage tanks,
LDAR, flares, and transfer racks. Table
4 of this preamble shows the estimated
costs for each of the equipment types.
Detailed information about how we
estimated these costs are described in
the following documents available in
the docket for this action: National
Impacts of the 2020 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule for the
Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline) Source Category, and
Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis for the Final Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (OLD) Risk
and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF COSTS OF FINAL AMENDMENTS BY EQUIPMENT TYPE, IN MILLIONS
[2016$]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Equipment type
Capital cost
Total
annualized cost
(without annual
recovery credits)
Annual
recovery
credits
Total
annualized cost
(with annual
recovery credits)
Storage tanks ...................................................................................
Tank Degassing ...............................................................................
Flares ...............................................................................................
Deletion of 240-hr exemption for control device maintenance during transfers (Transfer racks) .......................................................
2.28
0.00
0.19
0.29
0.42
0.36
0.17
N/A
N/A
0.12
0.42
0.36
0.00
0.88
N/A
0.88
Total ..........................................................................................
2.47
1.95
0.17
1.78
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact
analyses for the amendments to the final
rule, as detailed in the memorandum
titled Economic Impact and Small
Business Analysis for the Final Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) Risk and Technology Review
(RTR) NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this action. The economic
impacts of the amendments to the final
rule are calculated as the percentage of
total annualized costs incurred by
affected parent owners to their annual
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
final action will incur total annualized
costs of 0.4 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 final action, and there will not
be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs 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.
7 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/E713203/standards-of-performance-for-equipmentleaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicals-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not monetize the
benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of 186 tpy of HAP associated
with this action. However, we expect
this action will result in benefits
associated with HAP emission
reductions and lower risk of adverse
health effects in communities near OLD
sources.
While not explicitly calculated, we
expect reductions in MIR, population
exposed to a cancer risk of greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million, and in other
risks metrics such as incidence, acute
risk, multipathway risks, and ecological
risks from the estimated emission
reductions.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
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 risks to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 kilometers
(km) and within 50 km of the facilities.
In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the OLD source
category across different demographic
manufacturing). Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2006–0699.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40758
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
groups within the populations living
near facilities.
At proposal, we noted that 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 final rule revisions will benefit
these groups the most.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis 8 are
presented in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review—Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category Operations, that is available in
the docket for this action.
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
The EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This
action’s health and risk assessments are
summarized in section IV.A of this
preamble and are further documented in
the risk report, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category in Support of the 2020 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule,
available in the docket for this action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
VI. 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 Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
8 We note that, based on public comments, there
are four fewer existing OLD affected sources now
than at proposal. However, this change does not
warrant an update to this analysis since proposal
and has, therefore, not been updated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 1963.09.
You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing amendments that
change the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for OLD operations. The
amendments also require electronic
reporting of performance test results and
reports and compliance reports. The
information will be collected to ensure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE. The total estimated
burden and cost for reporting and
recordkeeping due to these amendments
are presented below and are not
intended to be cumulative estimates that
include the burden associated with the
requirements of the existing 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE.
Respondents/affected entities:
Owners or operators of OLD operations
at major sources of HAP are affected by
these 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:
177 facilities.
Frequency of response: Once or twice
per year.
Total estimated burden: 4,111 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $570,132 (per
year), which includes $154,000
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. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this 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. Of the 90 ultimate
parent companies that are subject to this
action, ten of them are small according
to the Small Business Administration’s
small business size standards. None of
the affected small parent companies are
expected to have compliance costs of
more than 0.4 percent of their sales. For
more information on the analysis, see
the Economic Impact and Small
Business Analysis for the Final Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) Risk and Technology Review
(RTR) NESHAP, 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 OLD facilities
that have been identified as being
affected by this final 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, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections
IV.A of this preamble.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. As discussed in the preamble
of the proposal, 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA Method 3B manual portion only
and not the instrumental portion.
Therefore, we are adding this standard
as a footnote to item 1.a.i.(3) of Table 5
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE and
incorporate this standard by reference at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
40 CFR 63.14(e)(1). ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10–1981 Part 10 specifies methods,
apparatus, and calculations that are
used in conjunction with Performance
Test Codes to quantify the gaseous
constituents of exhausts from stationary
combustion sources. The gases covered
include oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide,
sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons.
(2) The VCS ASTM D6420–18, ‘‘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 EPA Method 18 only
when the target compounds are all
known, and the target compounds are
all listed in ASTM D6420 as
measurable. ASTM D6420–18 uses a
direct interface gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer to identify and quantify 36
VOC (or a subset of these compounds),
however, ASTM D6420–18 should not
be specified as a total VOC method.
Therefore, we are adding 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 updating
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 removing reference to the old
version of this standard at 40 CFR
63.14(e)(90) for use in the OLD
NESHAP.
(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 EPA Method
26 or EPA 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
decision 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. This
standard is not being incorporated by
reference.
(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 EPA Method 311.
However, we are not specifying use of
this method in the OLD NESHAP
because CARB Method 310 is designed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40759
to measure the contents of aerosol cans
and would not be well suited for organic
liquid samples regulated under the OLD
NESHAP. This standard is not being
incorporated by reference.
(5) The VCS ASTM D6348–12e1,
‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier
Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
320. In the September 22, 2008, NTTAA
summary, ASTM D6348–03(2010) was
determined equivalent to EPA Method
320 with caveats. 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 spike gas
cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we
placed on the ASTM D6348–03(2010)
version. The VCS ASTM D6348–12e1,
‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier
Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
320 at this time with caveats requiring
inclusion of selected annexes to the
standard as mandatory. This field test
method uses an extractive sampling
system to direct stationary source
effluent to an FTIR spectrometer to
identify and quantify gaseous
compounds with results as a
concentration. We are allowing the use
of this VCS as an alternative to EPA
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 incorporating this method at
40 CFR 63.14(e)(85) for use in the OLD
NESHAP.
(6) The VCS ISO 16017–2:2003
(R2014), ‘‘Indoor, Ambient and
Workplace Air Sampling and Analysis
of Volatile Organic Compounds by
Sorbent Tube/Thermal Desorption/
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40760
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Capillary Gas Chromatography—Part 2:
Diffusive Sampling,’’ is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 325B. This
VCS is already incorporated by
reference in EPA 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 EPA
Methods 325A and 325B. This VCS is
already incorporated by reference in
EPA Method 325B.
Additionally, the EPA is using ASTM
D6886–18, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Weight Percent
Individual Volatile Organic Compounds
in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas
Chromatography.’’ ASTM D6886–18 is
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., EPA Method
311).
The ASTM standards newly
incorporated by reference in this rule
are available to the public for free
viewing online in the Reading Room
section on ASTM’s website at https://
www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. In
addition to this free online viewing
availability on ASTM’s website, hard
copies and printable versions are
available for purchase from ASTM.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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).
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and in the technical report,
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category Operations, available in the
docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 12, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA amends 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—General Provisions
2. Section 63.14 is amended:
a. By revising paragraphs (a) and
(e)(1);
■ b. In paragraphs (h)(31) and (32), by
removing ‘‘63.2406,’’;
■ c. By revising paragraphs (h)(83) and
(85);
■ d. By redesignating paragraphs
(h)(101) through (113) as paragraphs
(h)(104) through (115), respectively;
■ e. By revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (h)(91) and (93); and
■ f. By adding new paragraph (h)(103).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 63.14 September 5, 2020 Incorporations
by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
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 notice of change
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) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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), 63.997(e), 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, table 3 to subpart
YYYY, 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) * * *
(31) ASTM D2879–83, Standard
Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope,
Approved 1983, IBR approved for
§§ 63.111, 63.1402, and 63.12005.
(32) ASTM D2879–96, Test Method
for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope,
Approved 1996, IBR approved for
§§ 63.111, and 63.12005.
*
*
*
*
*
(83) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes
A1 through A8, Approved October 1,
2003, IBR approved for §§ 63.457(b),
63.997(e), and 63.1349, table 4 to
subpart DDDD, table 5 to subpart EEEE,
table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 4 subpart
ZZZZ, and table 8 to subpart
HHHHHHH.
*
*
*
*
*
(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
§§ 63.997(e), 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b),
table 5 to subpart EEEE, and table 4 to
subpart UUUU.
*
*
*
*
*
(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), 63.772(a),
63.772(e), 63.1282(a) and (d), and table
8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(93) ASTM D6420–18, Test Method
for Determination of Gaseous Organic
Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,
(Approved November 1, 2018), IBR
approved for §§ 63.987(b), 63.997(e),
63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
*
*
*
*
*
(103) 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).
*
*
*
*
*
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,
adding paragraph (b) introductory text,
revising paragraph (d), and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 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 §§ 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
(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 (5) of this section upon initial
startup or July 7, 2023, 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 (5) of this section upon initial
startup or July 7, 2020, whichever is
later.
(1) The requirements for storage tanks
not requiring control specified in
§ 63.2343(b)(4).
(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), footnote
(2) to Table 2 to this subpart, and Table
2b to this subpart.
(3) The flare requirements specified in
§§ 63.2346(k), 63.2382(d)(2)(ix),
63.2386(d)(5), 63.2390(h), footnote (1) to
Table 2 to this subpart, item 7.d, to
Table 3 to this subpart, items 1.a.iii and
2.a.iii of Table 8 to this subpart, and
item 7.e of Table 9 to this subpart.
(4) The requirements specified in
§§ 63.2346(l), 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), footnote (1) to Table 9 to
this subpart, and items 1.a.i and 2.a.ii of
Table 10 to this subpart.
(5) The performance testing
requirements specified in
§ 63.2354(b)(6).
■ 5. Section 63.2343 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the introductory text,
paragraph (a), and paragraph (b)
introductory text;
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(4); and
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 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 (d)
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)
and for each transfer rack subject to this
subpart that only unloads organic
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40761
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 this paragraph (a) 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 this paragraph (a) on
a plant site plan or process and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID).
(b) Except as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) 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 (3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), the requirements specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section apply to the following storage
tanks:
(i) 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 to this subpart, items 1 through
3.
(ii) 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.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If you are already submitting a
Notification of Compliance Status or a
first Compliance report under
§ 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 this paragraph
(c) (i.e., a single Notification of
Compliance Status or first Compliance
report should be submitted).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.2346 is amended by:
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40762
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
a. Revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(1) and (2), (a)(4)(ii)
and (iv), (a)(4)(v) introductory text, and
(a)(4)(v)(A);
■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5) and (6);
■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2),
(c), (d)(2), (e), (f), and (i); and
■ b. Adding paragraphs (k) and (l).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 63.2346 What emission limitations,
operating limits, and work practice
standards must I meet?
(a) Storage tanks. Except as specified
in paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) and (l) 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 (l) of this
section and the applicable requirements
specified in subpart SS of this part, 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 subpart SS of this part. If
you comply with this paragraph, then
you must also comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (l)
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, subparts E (for cargo
tanks) and 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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) 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) and paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(6) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), tank emissions during
storage tank shutdown operations (i.e.,
emptying and degassing of a storage
tank) for each storage tank at an affected
source storing organic liquids that meets
the tank capacity and liquid vapor
pressure criteria for control in items 3
through 6 of Table 2 to this subpart, or
items 1 through 3 of Table 2b to this
subpart, you must comply with
paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this
section during tank emptying and
degassing until the vapor space
concentration in the tank is less than 10
percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL). The owner or operator must
determine the LEL using process
instrumentation or portable
measurement devices and follow
procedures for calibration and
maintenance according to
manufacturer’s specifications.
(i) Remove organic liquids from the
storage tank as much as practicable;
(ii) Comply with either of the
following:
(A) The requirements of Table 2 or 2b
to this subpart, item 1.a.i. as applicable;
OR,
(B) The requirements of Table 4 to
this subpart, item 1.b.
(iii) Comply with the requirements in
§ 63.2350(d) for each storage tank
shutdown event and maintain records
necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements in § 63.2350(d)
including, if appropriate, records of
existing standard site procedures used
to empty and degas (deinventory)
equipment for safety purposes.
(b) * * *
(1) Meet the emission limits specified
in Table 2 to this subpart and comply
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with paragraph (l) of this section and
the applicable requirements for transfer
racks specified in subpart SS of this
part, for meeting emission limits.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas
systems or back into a process as
specified in subpart SS of this part. If
you comply with this paragraph, then
you must also comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (l)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Equipment leak components. 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
(l) of this section and the applicable
requirements under subpart TT of this
part (control level 1), subpart UU of this
part (control level 2), or subpart H of
this part. 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 (l) of this section and the
requirements for monitored parameters
as specified in subpart SS of this part,
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
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,
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 July
7, 2023, 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 that is
subject to control based on the criteria
specified in Tables 2 or 2b to this
subpart, 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) Startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), the referenced provisions
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through
(20) of this section do not apply when
demonstrating compliance with subpart
H of this part, subpart SS of this part,
subpart TT of this part, and subpart UU
of this part.
(1) The second sentence of
§ 63.181(d)(5)(i).
(2) The second sentence of
§ 63.983(a)(5).
(3) The phrase ‘‘except during periods
of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction
as specified in the referencing subpart’’
in § 63.984(a).
(4) The phrase ‘‘except during periods
of start-up, shutdown and malfunction
as specified in the referencing subpart’’
in § 63.985(a).
(5) The phrase ‘‘other than start-ups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions’’ in
§ 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D).
(6) § 63.996(c)(2)(ii).
(7) The last sentence of
§ 63.997(e)(1)(i).
(8) § 63.998(b)(2)(iii).
(9) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of
start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions’’
from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A).
(10) The phrase ‘‘other than a start-up,
shutdown or malfunction’’ from
§ 63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3).
(11) The phrase ‘‘other than periods of
start-ups, shutdowns or malfunctions’’
from § 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
(12) The phrase ‘‘other than a start-up,
shutdown or malfunction’’ from
§ 63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C).
(13) The phrase ‘‘, except as provided
in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section’’ from § 63.998(b)(6)(i).
(14) The second sentence of
§ 63.998(b)(6)(ii).
(15) § 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and
(G).
(16) § 63.998(d)(3).
(17) The phrase ‘‘may be included as
part of the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, as required by the
referencing subpart for the source, or’’
from § 63.1005(e)(4)(i).
(18) The phrase ‘‘may be included as
part of the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, as required by the
referencing subpart for the source, or’’
from § 63.1024(f)(4)(i).
(19) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’
from § 63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A).
(20) The phrase ‘‘(except periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction)’’
from § 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A).
■ 7. Section 63.2350 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 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 § 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
July 7, 2023, this paragraph no longer
applies; however, for historical
compliance purposes, a copy of the plan
must be retained and available
according to the requirements in
§ 63.2394(c) for five years after July 7,
2023.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40763
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.
■ 8. Section 63.2354 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3)
and (b)(1), (3), (4), and (5);
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
■ c. Revising paragraph (c); and
■ d. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 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 subpart SS of this part. You
must also comply with the requirements
specified in § 63.2346(l).
(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
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7), to
determine compliance with the TOC
emission limit, you may use Method 18
(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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40764
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 (40 CFR 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 (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 of appendix A to
this part, Method 320 of appendix A to
this part, 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
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)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(i) 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(l).
(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
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 311of
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 in appendix B to part 60
of this chapter: Performance
Specification 8, Performance
Specification 8A, Performance
Specification 9, or Performance
Specification 15. You must also comply
with the requirements of procedure 1 of
appendix F to part 60 of this chapter, for
CEMS using Performance Specification
8 or 8A.
(1) For CEMS using Performance
Specification 9 or 15 (40 CFR part 60,
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
appendix B), determine the target
analyte(s) for calibration using either
process knowledge or the screening
procedures of Method 18 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A–6).
(2) For CEMS using Performance
Specification 8A (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B), conduct the relative
accuracy test audits required under
Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
F) in accordance with Sections 8 and 11
of Performance Specification 8 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B). The relative
accuracy must meet the criteria of
Section 13.2 of Performance Speciation
8 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).
(3) For CEMS using Performance
Specification 8 or 8A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B, 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 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix B), to certify your
oxygen CEMS, and you must comply
with procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix F). Use Method 3A (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2), as the reference
method when conducting a relative
accuracy test audit.
■ 9. 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?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) For storage tanks 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 July 7, 2023,
whichever is later, except as provided in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (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 July 7,
2030.
(ii) For storage tanks complying with
item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b to this subpart
and item 1.b. or 1.c. in Table 4 to this
subpart, you must comply within 180
days after July 7, 2023.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
10. Section 63.2362 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.2362 When must I conduct
subsequent performance tests?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(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,
subparts E (cargo tanks) and F (tank
cars).
■ 11. 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
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(l) and the
applicable requirements for CPMS in
subpart SS of this part and § 63.671, 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 subpart SS of this
part, for monitoring plans. You must
also comply with the requirements
specified in § 63.2346(l).
(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:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40765
(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) and (3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8);
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and
reporting procedures in accordance with
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).
■ 12. 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.
■ 13. Section 63.2374 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40766
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 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 subpart SS of this part, and
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
You must also comply with the
requirements specified in § 63.2346(l).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Section 63.2378 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory
text, (b)(2), (c), and (d), and adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 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
subpart SS of this part, and in Tables 8
through 10 to this subpart, as
applicable. You must also comply with
the requirements specified in
§ 63.2346(l).
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
subpart must be incorporated into the
SSM plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(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 and must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section, as
applicable. 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).
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs
(e)(3) through (5) of this section, 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.
(2) If you are subject to the bypass
monitoring requirements of
§ 63.983(a)(3), then you must continue
to comply with the requirements in
§ 63.983(a)(3) and the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in
§§ 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and 63.999(c)(2), in
addition to § 63.2346(l), the
recordkeeping requirements specified in
§ 63.2390(g), and the reporting
requirements specified in
§ 63.2386(c)(12).
(3) Periods of planned routine
maintenance of a control device used to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
control storage tank breathing loss
emissions, during which the control
device does not meet the emission
limits in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart,
must not exceed 240 hours per year. The
level of material in the storage vessel
shall not be increased during periods
that the closed-vent system or control
device is bypassed to perform routine
maintenance.
(4) If you elect to route emissions
from storage tanks to a fuel gas system
or to a process, as allowed by
§ 63.982(d), to comply with the
emission limits in Table 2 or 2b to this
subpart, the total aggregate amount of
time during which the breathing loss
emissions bypass the fuel gas system or
process during the calendar year
without being routed to a control
device, for all reasons (except product
changeovers of flexible operation units
and periods when a storage tank has
been emptied and degassed), must not
exceed 240 hours. The level of material
in the storage vessel shall not be
increased during periods that the fuel
gas system or process is bypassed to
perform routine maintenance.
(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.
■ 15. Section 63.2380 is added before
the undesignated center heading
‘‘Notifications, Reports, and Records’’ 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 that is subject
to control based on the criteria specified
in Tables 2 or 2b to this subpart, then
the flare requirements specified in
§ 63.11(b); subpart SS of this part; the
provisions specified in items 7.a
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
§ 63.670(d) through (f), as applicable.
However, instead of complying with
§ 63.670(r)(3)(iii), 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.
(j) 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 (j)(1) through (7) of this
section.
(1) You must meet the requirements
in § 63.671(e)(2). You may augment the
minimum list of calibration gas
components found in § 63.671(e)(2) 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.
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument
response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
reporting requirements specified in
§ 63.2382(d)(2)(ix) and § 63.2386(d)(5).
(l) Instead of complying with
§ 63.670(p), you must keep the flare
monitoring records specified in
§ 63.2390(h).
(m) Instead of complying with
§ 63.670(q), you must comply with the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
16. Section 63.2382 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (d)(1), (d)(2)
introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (vi), and
(vii), and adding paragraphs (d)(2)(ix)
and (d)(3) to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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
Specification (PS) 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) 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 of PS 9 and performing
the periodic calibration requirements
listed for gas chromatographs in Table
13 to subpart CC of this part, for the
process mass spectrometer. You may
use the alternative sampling line
temperature allowed under Net Heating
Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table
13 to subpart CC of this part.
(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)
(k) 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 compoundspecific 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:
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
ER07JY20.000
through 7.d of Table 3 to this subpart;
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, including the
provisions in Tables 12 and 13 to
subpart CC of this part, except as
specified in paragraphs (b) through (m)
of this section. For purposes of
compliance with this paragraph, the
following terms are defined in § 63.641:
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) do not apply:
(1) ‘‘Specify the smokeless design
capacity of each flare and’’; and
(2) ‘‘And 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
§ 63.670(d) does not apply.
(d) Section 63.670(j)(6)(ii) does not
apply. Instead submit the information
required by § 63.670(j)(6)(ii) with the
Notification of Compliance Status
according to § 63.2382(d)(2)(ix).
(e) Section 63.670(o) does not apply.
(f) Substitute ‘‘pilot flame or flare
flame’’ or each occurrence of ‘‘pilot
flame.’’
(g) Substitute ‘‘affected source’’ for
each occurrence of ‘‘petroleum
refinery.’’
(h) Each occurrence of ‘‘refinery’’ does
not apply.
(i) You may elect to comply with the
alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in
§ 63.670(r)in lieu of the requirements in
40767
ER07JY20.001
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40768
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
section. You must also comply with the
requirements specified in § 63.2346(l).
*
*
*
*
*
(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) Notification of Compliance Status
requirements. 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.
(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), the Notification of
Compliance Status must include flare
design (e.g., steam-assisted, air-assisted,
or non-assisted); all visible emission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
readings, heat content determinations
(including information required by
§ 63.670(j)(6)(i), as applicable), flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the initial
visible emissions demonstration
required by § 63.670(h), as applicable;
and all periods during the compliance
determination when the pilot flame or
flare flame is absent.
(3) Submitting Notification of
Compliance Status. 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
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.
■ 17. Section 63.2386 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, (c) introductory text,
(c)(2), (3), (5), and (9);
■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(11) and (12);
■ c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text, (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(i)
through (d)(1)(vii), (ix), and (x);
■ d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(xiii)
through (xv);
■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i);
■ f. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iv);
■ g. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
■ h. Adding paragraph (d)(5);
■ i. Revising paragraph (e); and
■ j. Adding paragraphs (f) through (j).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paragraphs (c) through (j) of this section
that applies to you. You must also
comply with the requirements specified
in § 63.2346(l).
(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
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).
*
*
*
*
*
(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), for bypass lines subject to
the requirements § 63.2378(e)(1) and (2),
the compliance report must include the
start date, start time, duration in hours,
estimate of the volume of gas in
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
(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
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. Instead for
each storage tank subject to control
requirements, include the start date,
start time, end date and end time of any
planned routine maintenance during
which the control device used to control
storage tank breathing losses did not
comply with the applicable emission
limits in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40769
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.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), for each flare subject to the
requirements in § 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 § 63.999(c)(3).
(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 or
flare flame is present. Include the start
and stop time and date of each 15minute 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) 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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40770
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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. Unless the
Administrator or delegated state agency
or other authority has approved a
different schedule for submission of
reports under §§ 63.9(i) and 63.10(a), 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
§ 63.2342(e), you must start submitting
performance test reports in accordance
with this paragraph. Unless otherwise
specified in this subpart, 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/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
(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. Unless
otherwise specified in this subpart,
within 60 days after the date of
completing each CEMS 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 CEMS
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 CEMS
measuring RATA pollutants that are not
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting
must occur as soon as possible after the
force majeure event occurs.
■ 18. Section 63.2390 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(2) and (3), and (d);
and
■ d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (h).
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(l).
(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(l).
(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
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 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40771
part 60, appendix A–8 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)(1) and (2), 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 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
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40772
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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).
(1) Retain records of the output of the
monitoring device used to detect the
presence of a pilot flame or flare flame
as required in § 63.670(b) 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 or flare flame is present
when regulated material is routed to a
flare for a minimum of 5 years. You may
reduce the collected minute-by-minute
data to a 15-minute block basis with an
indication of whether there was at least
one minute where no pilot flame or flare
flame was present.
(2) Retain records of daily visible
emissions observations or video
surveillance images required in
§ 63.670(h) 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 of 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), 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 15minute 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). 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), as applicable.
(6) All periods during which
operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in
§ 63.670(d) through (f) 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).
(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
§ 63.671(b).
(10) Records described in
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi).
■ 19. Section 63.2396 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) and (2);
■ d. Adding paragraph (d); and
■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
The revisions and additions 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 63.2342(e), the applicability criteria
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.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) After the compliance dates
specified in § 63.2342, if you have
pumps, valves, or sampling connections
that are subject to a 40 CFR part 60
subpart, and those 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
pumps, valves, or sampling connections
subject to subpart GGG of this part, and
those 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.
(d) Overlap of subpart EEEE with
other regulations for flares for the OLD
source category. (1) Beginning no later
than the compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to
§ 60.18 of this chapter or § 63.11 and
used as a control device for an emission
point subject to the requirements in
Tables 2 or 2b to of this subpart are
required to comply only with § 63.2380.
At any time before the compliance dates
specified in § 63.2342(e), flares that are
subject to § 60.18 or § 63.11 and elect to
comply with § 63.2380 are required to
comply only with § 63.2380.
(2) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to
§ 63.987 and used as a control device for
an emission point subject to the
requirements in Tables 2 or 2b to this
subpart are required to comply only
with § 63.2380. At any time before the
compliance dates specified in
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to
§§ 63.987 and elect to comply with
§ 63.2380 are required to comply only
with § 63.2380.
(3) Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
§ 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to the
requirements of subpart CC of this part
and used as a control device for an
emission point subject to the
requirements in Tables 2 or 2b to this
subpart are required to comply only
with the flare requirements in subpart
CC of this part.
(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 subpart of this
part to the 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 subpart of this part,
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 § 63.2382(d).
■ 20. Section 63.2402 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 63.2402 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority for this subpart to
a State, local, or eligible tribal agency
under subpart E of this part, the
authorities contained in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) 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.
■ 21. Section 63.2406 is amended by:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
a. Revising the definition of ‘‘Annual
average true vapor pressure’’;
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Condensate’’;
■ c. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Deviation’’ and ‘‘Equipment leak
component’’;
■ d. Adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ‘‘Force majeure event’’;
■ e. Revising the definition of ‘‘Organic
liquid’’;
■ f. Adding definitions in alphabetical
order for ‘‘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 organic HAP in
Table 1 to this subpart 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 to this subpart, items
1 through 6, or Table 2b to this subpart,
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
40773
(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 July 7, 2023, fails to meet
any emission limitation (including any
operating limit) or work practice
standard in this subpart during SSM. On
and after July 7, 2023, 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.
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
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).
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40774
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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
inches of water). This capability must be
demonstrated annually using the
procedures specified in Method 27 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8. For all
other transport vehicles, vapor tightness
is demonstrated by performing the U.S.
DOT pressure test procedures for tank
cars and cargo tanks.
*
*
*
*
*
22. 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 weightpercent 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 subpart SS of
this part and § 63.2346(l); 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).
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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
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 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
40775
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 to 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 weightpercent 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 subpart SS of
this part and § 63.2346(l); OR
ii. Comply with the work practice standards
specified in Table 4 to this subpart, item 2.a
or 2.b, 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 subpart SS of this part and
§ 63.2346(l), achieving at least 98 weightpercent 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;
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;
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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 to this subpart, item 1 no longer apply. Instead, you must comply with
the requirements as specified in § 63.2346(a)(5) and Table 2b to this subpart.
23. Subpart EEEE of Part 63 is
amended by adding Table 2b to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements in this Table 2b to this
subpart apply to storage tanks at an
existing affected source in lieu of the
requirements in Table 2 to this subpart,
item 1 for storage tanks at an existing
affected source.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40776
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 weightpercent 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 subpart SS
of this part and § 63.2346(l); 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 ii of this
table.
i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or 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).
24. Table 3 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is revised to read as follows:
■
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.
Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—
Operating Limits—High Throughput
Transfer Racks
i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or ii of this
table.
i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or ii of this
table.
i. See the requirement in item 1.a.i or ii of this
table.
existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources as follows:
As stated in § 63.2346(e), you must
comply with the operating limits for
For each existing, each reconstructed, and each new affected source
using . . .
You must . . .
1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this
subpart.
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
2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this
subpart.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
25. Table 4 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is revised to read as follows:
■
You must . . .
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.
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.
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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40777
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40778
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each . . .
You must . . .
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.
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.
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.
26. Table 5 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is revised to read as follows:
■
b. Comply with the requirements in §§ 63.2346(l) 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(l) 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.
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(l) 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(l) 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.
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.
Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—
Requirements for Performance Tests
and Design Evaluations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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 . . .
According to . . .
Using . . .
To determine . . .
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
determine the organic
HAP (or, upon a
pproval, TOC) control
efficiency of each
nonflare control device, OR the exhaust
concentration of each
combustion device;
OR
i. § 63.985(b)(1)(ii),
§ 63.988(b), § 63.990(b), or
§ 63.995(b).
(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.
(A) Stack gas velocity
and volumetric flow
rate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(A) Concentration of
CO2 and O2 and dry
molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(A) Moisture content of
the stack gas.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
According to the
following
requirements . . .
(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.
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.
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For . . .
You must conduct . . .
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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.
According to . . .
Using . . .
To determine . . .
(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 this part 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) TOC and formaldehyde emissions, from
any control device.
(6) Method 18 3 in appendix A–6 of 40 CFR
part 60 or Method
320 2 4 of appendix A
to this part, as appropriate. Method 316,
Method 320 2 4, or
Method 323 in appendix A of this part for
measuring formaldehyde. You may not
use Methods 320 or
323 if the gas stream
contains entrained
water droplets.
(A) Total organic HAP
and formaldehyde
emissions, from noncombustion control
devices.
§ 63.985(b)(1)(i) ....................
A performance test to
determine the vapor
tightness of the tank
and then repair as
needed until it passes
the test.
Method 27 of appendix
A of 40 CFR part 60.
Vapor tightness .............
40779
According to the
following
requirements . . .
(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.
(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.
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.
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 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PTC 19.10–1981-Part 10 (2010) (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 of 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 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–6 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40780
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
27. Table 6 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is amended by revising the rows for
items 1 and 2 to read as follows:
■
Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—
Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
compliance with the emission limits for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources as follows:
As stated in §§ 63.2370(a) and
63.2382(b), you must show initial
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.
28. Table 7 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is amended by revising the rows for
items 1, 3, and 4 to read as follows:
■
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
40781
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART EEEE OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued
For each . . .
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.
29. Table 8 to subpart EEEE of Part 63
is revised to read as follows:
■
If you . . .
You have demonstrated initial compliance
if . . .
b. Install and, during the loading of organic
liquids, operate a vapor balancing system.
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.
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.
Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—
Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limits
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.
compliance with the emission limits for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources according to the following table:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and
63.2390(b), you must show continuous
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.
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, 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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40782
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
30. 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
compliance with the operating limits for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources according to the following table:
As stated in §§ 63.2378(a) and (b) and
63.2390(b), you must show continuous
For each existing, reconstructed, and each new
affected source using . . .
For the following operating limit . . .
1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
a. Maintain the daily average fire box or com- i. Continuously monitoring and recording fire
bustion zone, as applicable, temperature
box or combustion zone, as applicable,
greater than or equal to the reference temtemperature every 15 minutes and mainperature established during the design evaltaining the daily average fire box temperauation or performance test that demture greater than or equal to the reference
onstrated compliance with the emission limit.
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
a. Replace the existing catalyst bed before i. Replacing the existing catalyst bed before
the age of the bed exceeds the maximum
the age of the bed exceeds the maximum
allowable age established during the design
allowable age established during the design
evaluation or performance test that demevaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission
onstrated compliance with the emission
limit; AND
limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
b. Maintain the daily average temperature at i. Continuously monitoring and recording the
the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or
temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed
equal to the reference temperature estabat least every 15 minutes and maintaining
lished during the design evaluation or perthe daily average temperature at the inlet of
formance test that demonstrated complithe catalyst bed greater than or equal to the
ance with the emission limit; AND.
reference temperature established during
the design evaluation or performance test
that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
c. Maintain the daily average temperature dif- i. Continuously monitoring and recording the
ference across the catalyst bed greater
temperature at the outlet of the catalyst bed
than or equal to the minimum temperature
every 15 minutes and maintaining the daily
difference established during the design
average temperature difference across the
evaluation or performance test that demcatalyst bed greater than or equal to the
onstrated compliance with the emission limit.
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
a. Maintain the daily average concentration i. Continuously monitoring the organic conlevel of organic compounds in the absorber
centration in the absorber exhaust and
exhaust less than or equal to the reference
maintaining the daily average concentration
concentration established during the design
less than or equal to the reference conevaluation or performance test that demcentration established during the design
onstrated compliance with the emission
evaluation or performance test that demlimit; OR
onstrated compliance with the emission
limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
3. An absorber to comply with an emission limit
in Table 2 to this subpart.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
5. An adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emission limit in
Table 2 to this subpart.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
For the following operating limit . . .
40783
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing liquid i. Continuously monitoring the scrubbing liquid
temperature less than or equal to the reftemperature and maintaining the daily avererence temperature established during the
age temperature less than or equal to the
design evaluation or performance test that
reference temperature established during
demonstrated compliance with the emission
the design evaluation or performance test
limit; AND
that demonstrated compliance with the
Maintain the difference between the specific
emission limit; AND
gravities of the saturated and fresh scrub- ii. Maintaining the difference between the spebing fluids greater than or equal to the difcific gravities greater than or equal to the
ference established during the design evaldifference established during the design
uation or performance test that demevaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit.
onstrated compliance with the emission
limit; AND
iii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
a. Maintain the daily average concentration i. Continuously monitoring the organic conlevel of organic compounds at the exit of
centration at the condenser exit and mainthe condenser less than or equal to the reftaining the daily average concentration less
erence concentration established during the
than or equal to the reference concentration
design evaluation or performance test that
established during the design evaluation or
demonstrated compliance with the emission
performance test that demonstrated complilimit; OR
ance with the emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
b. Maintain the daily average condenser exit i. Continuously monitoring and recording the
temperature less than or equal to the reftemperature at the exit of the condenser at
erence temperature established during the
least every 15 minutes and maintaining the
design evaluation or performance test that
daily average temperature less than or
demonstrated compliance with the emission
equal to the reference temperature establimit.
lished 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 i. Continuously monitoring the daily average
level of organic compounds in the adsorber
organic concentration in the adsorber exexhaust less than or equal to the reference
haust and maintaining the concentration
concentration established during the design
less than or equal to the reference conevaluation or performance test that demcentration established during the design
onstrated compliance with the emission
evaluation or performance test that demlimit; OR
onstrated compliance with the emission
limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
b. Maintain the total regeneration stream i. Maintaining the total regeneration stream
mass flow during the adsorption bed regenmass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the
eration cycle greater than or equal to the
reference stream mass flow established
reference stream mass flow established
during the design evaluation or performduring the design evaluation or performance test that demonstrated compliance
ance test that demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit; AND
with the emission limit; AND
Before the adsorption cycle commences, ii. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorpachieve and maintain the temperature of
tion bed after regeneration less than or
the adsorption bed after regeneration less
equal to the reference temperature estabthan or equal to the reference temperature
lished during the design evaluation or perestablished during the design evaluation or
formance test that demonstrated compliperformance test; AND
ance with the emission limit; AND
Achieve greater than or equal to the pressure iii. Achieving greater than or equal to the
reduction during the adsorption bed regenpressure reduction during the regeneration
eration cycle established during the design
cycle established during the design evaluaevaluation or performance test that demtion or performance test that demonstrated
onstrated compliance with the emission limit.
compliance with the emission limit; AND
iv. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40784
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each existing, reconstructed, and each new
affected source using . . .
For the following operating limit . . .
6. An adsorption system without 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
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.
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
b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each i. Replacing the existing adsorbent in each
segment of the bed before the age of the
segment of the bed with an adsorbent that
adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable
meets the replacement specifications estabage established during the design evalualished during the design evaluation or pertion or performance test that demonstrated
formance test before the age of the adsorbcompliance with the emission limit; AND
ent exceeds the maximum allowable age
Maintain the temperature of the adsorption
established during the design evaluation or
bed less than or equal to the reference
performance test that demonstrated complitemperature established during the design
ance with the emission limit; AND
evaluation or performance test that dem- ii. Maintaining the temperature of the adsorponstrated compliance with the emission limit.
tion 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
a. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, i. Continuously operating a device that detects
maintain a pilot flame or flare flame in the
the presence of the pilot flame or flare
flare at all times that vapors may be vented
flame; AND
to the flare (§ 63.11(b)(5)); AND
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
b. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, i. Maintaining a flare flame at all times that
maintain a flare flame at all times that vavapors are being vented to the flare; AND
pors are being vented to the flare ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
(§ 63.11(b)(5)); AND
§ 63.998.1
c. Except as specified in item 7.e of this table, i. Operating the flare with no visible emissions
operate the flare with no visible emissions,
exceeding the amount allowed; AND
except for up to 5 minutes in any 2 con- ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
secutive hours (§ 63.11(b)(4)); AND EI§ 63.998.1
THER
d.1. Except as specified in item 7.e of this i. Operating the flare within the applicable exit
table, operate the flare with an exit velocity
velocity limits; AND
that is within the applicable limits in ii. Operating the flare with the gas heating
§ 63.11(b)(7) and (8) and with a net heating
value greater than the applicable minimum
value of the gas being combusted greater
value; AND
than the applicable minimum value in iii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.11(b)(6)(ii); OR
§ 63.998.1
d.2. Except as specified in item 7.e of this i. Operating the flare within the applicable limtable, adhere to the requirements in
its in 63.11(b)(6)(i); AND
§ 63.11(b)(6)(i).
ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
§ 63.998.1
e. Beginning no later than the compliance i. Operating the flare with the applicable limits
dates specified in § 63.2342(e), comply with
in § 63.2380; AND
the requirements in § 63.2380 instead of the ii. Keeping the applicable records required in
requirements in § 63.11(b).
§ 63.2390(h).
Submit a monitoring plan as specified in Submitting a monitoring plan and monitoring
§§ 63.995(c) and 63.2366(b) and monitor
the control device according to that plan.
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(l) do not apply.
31. Table 10 to subpart EEEE of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
continuous compliance with the work
practice standards for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources
according to the following table:
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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).
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.
a. Repair the conditions causing storage tank
inspection failures (§ 63.1063(e)).
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. Continuing to meet the requirements specified in § 63.984(b)
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40785
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
c. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or
back to a process.
a. Comply with § 63.2346(l) and the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, UU,
or H.
a. Route emissions to a fuel gas system or
back to the process.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40786
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each . . .
32. Table 11 to subpart EEEE of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
For the following standard . . .
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
by . . .
b. Install and, during the filling of the storage
tank with organic liquids, operate a vapor
balancing system.
i. Except for pressure relief devices, monitoring each potential source of vapor leakage in the system, including, but not limited
to 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. 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
Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63—
Requirements for Reports
and startup, shutdown, and malfunction
reports according to the following table:
As stated in § 63.2386(a), (b), and (f),
you must submit compliance reports
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
pumps, valves, and sampling connections;
AND.
c. The information required by § 63.999(c);
AND.
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)
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.
33. 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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
■
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.
General Provisions requirements as
follows:
As stated in §§ 63.2382 and 63.2398,
you must comply with the applicable
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.1 .......................
Applicability .................
Initial applicability determination; Applicability
after standard established; Permit requirements; Extensions, Notifications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Applies to subpart EEEE
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.2 .......................
§ 63.3 .......................
Definitions ...................
Units and Abbreviations.
Prohibited Activities
and Circumvention.
Construction/Reconstruction.
Compliance with
Standards/O&M Applicability.
Compliance Dates for
New and Reconstructed Sources.
Definitions for part 63 standards ......................
Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards
Yes.
Yes.
Prohibited activities; Circumvention, Severability.
Applicability; Applications; Approvals ...............
Yes.
GP apply unless compliance extension; GP
apply to area sources that become major.
Yes.
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.
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 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 July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. See
§ 63.2350(d) for general duty requirement.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Yes.
§ 63.4 .......................
§ 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.
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ........
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ........
§ 63.6(c)(5) ..............
§ 63.6(d) ..................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...........
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..........
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) .........
[Reserved].
Compliance Dates for
Existing Area
Sources That Become Major.
[Reserved].
Operation and Maintenance.
Operation and Maintenance.
Operation and Maintenance.
§ 63.6(e)(2) ..............
§ 63.6(e)(3) ..............
[Reserved].
SSM Plan ....................
§ 63.6(f)(1) ...............
Compliance Except
During SSM.
Methods for Determining Compliance.
§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ........
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40787
§ 63.6(g)(1)–(3) .......
§ 63.6(h)(1) ..............
Alternative Standard ...
Opacity/Visible Emission Standards.
§ 63.6(h)(2)–(9) .......
Opacity/Visible Emission Standards.
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .......
Compliance Extension
§ 63.6(j) ...................
Presidential Compliance Exemption.
Performance Test
Dates.
§ 63.7(a)(2) ..............
§ 63.7(a)(3) ..............
Section 114 Authority ..
§ 63.7(b)(1) ..............
Notification of Performance Test.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Applies to subpart EEEE
Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable ...
Operation and maintenance requirements
independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation
and maintenance requirements were met.
Requirement for SSM plan; content of SSM
plan; actions during SSM.
You must comply with emission standards at
all times except during SSM.
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.
Requirements for compliance with opacity and
visible emission standards.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023; however, (1) the 2day 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 July 7, 2023.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40788
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Citation
Subject
§ 63.7(b)(2) ..............
Notification of Rescheduling.
§ 63.7(c) ..................
Quality Assurance
(QA)/Test Plan.
§ 63.7(d) ..................
§ 63.7(e)(1) ..............
Testing Facilities .........
Conditions for Conducting Performance
Tests.
Conditions for Conducting Performance
Tests.
Test Run Duration .......
§ 63.7(e)(2) ..............
§ 63.7(e)(3) ..............
§ 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) ..............
§ 63.8(a)(3) ..............
§ 63.8(a)(4) ..............
Applicability of Monitoring Requirements.
Performance Specifications.
[Reserved].
Monitoring of Flares ....
§ 63.8(b)(1) ..............
Monitoring ...................
§ 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(a)(2) ..............
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...........
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ..........
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Brief description
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .........
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
CMS malfunction not in
SSM plan.
Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements.
Monitoring System Installation.
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Applies to subpart EEEE
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.
Performance Specifications in appendix B of
40 CFR part 60 apply.
Monitoring requirements for flares in § 63.11 ...
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.
Keep the necessary parts for routine repairs if
CMS malfunctions.
Develop a written SSM plan for CMS ..............
Must install to get representative emission or
parameter measurements; must verify operational status before or at performance test.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. 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.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023; however, flare monitoring requirements in § 63.987(c) also apply
before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. See
§ 63.2380.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.8(c)(4) ..............
CMS Requirements .....
Yes; however, COMS are not applicable.
§ 63.8(c)(5) ..............
§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ........
COMS Minimum Procedures.
CMS Requirements .....
CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out-of-control, repair, maintenance,
and high-level calibration drifts; COMS must
have a minimum of one cycle of sampling
and analysis for each successive 10-second
period and one cycle of data recording for
each successive 6-minute period; CEMS
must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
COMS minimum procedures ............................
§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) .......
CMS Quality Control ...
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.
Alternative to Relative
Accuracy Test.
Data Reduction ...........
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 four
equally spaced data points; data that cannot
be used in average.
Applicability and State delegation ....................
Yes, but only applies for CEMS. Subpart SS of
this part provides requirements for CPMS.
Yes, but only applies for CEMS. Subpart SS of
this part provides requirements for CPMS.
Yes, before July 7, 2023, but only applies for
CEMS. Subpart SS of this part provides requirements for CPMS.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. 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 subpart SS of this part also provides
procedures for approval of CPMS.
Yes.
§ 63.8(f)(6) ...............
§ 63.8(g) ..................
§ 63.9(a) ..................
§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2), (4)–
(5).
Notification Requirements.
Initial Notifications .......
§ 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) ..................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40789
§ 63.9(h)(1)–(6) .......
Notification of Compliance Status.
§ 63.9(i) ...................
Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines.
§ 63.9(j) ...................
Change in Previous Information.
Recordkeeping/Reporting.
§ 63.10(a) ................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Applies to subpart EEEE
No.
Yes; however, COMS are not applicable.
Yes.
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.
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.
Yes.
Notify Administrator 60 days prior ....................
Yes.
Notify Administrator 30 days prior ....................
No.
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.
Yes; however, there are no opacity standards.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
40790
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Citation
Subject
Brief description
§ 63.10(b)(1) ............
General requirements; keep all records readily
available; keep for 5 years.
Occurrence of each for operations (process
equipment).
Yes.
Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution
equipment.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. See
§ 63.2390(f).
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xi)
Recordkeeping/Reporting.
Records Related to
Startup and Shutdown.
Recordkeeping Relevant to Malfunction
Periods and CMS.
Recordkeeping Relevant to Maintenance of Air Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment.
Recordkeeping Relevant to SSM Periods and CMS.
Recordkeeping Relevant to SSM Periods and CMS.
CMS Records ..............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ......
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .....
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.
§ 63.10(e)(3)(i)–(iii) ..
Reports ........................
§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v)
Excess Emissions Reports.
§ 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.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .......
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) .......
§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) ........
§ 63.10(d)(2) ............
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
§ 63.10(d)(3) ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Applies to subpart EEEE
Maintenance on air pollution control equipment
Yes, July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Actions during SSM ..........................................
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Actions during SSM ..........................................
No.
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 ..............................
Yes.
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; two-three copies of COMS performance
evaluation.
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 .............
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023.
Yes.
No. This subpart specifies how and when the
performance test results are reported.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. 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.
Yes; however, note that the title of the report
is the compliance report; deviations include
excess
emissions
and
parameter
exceedances.
Yes.
No. This subpart specifies the reported information for deviations within the compliance
reports.
No.
Yes.
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Citation
Subject
Brief description
Applies to subpart EEEE
§ 63.11(b) ................
Flares ..........................
Requirements for flares ....................................
§ 63.11(c), (d), and
(e).
§ 63.12 .....................
§ 63.13 .....................
Control and work practice requirements.
Delegation ...................
Addresses ...................
Alternative work practice for equipment leaks
Yes, before July 7, 2023; § 63.987 requirements apply, and the section references
§ 63.11(b).
No, beginning on and after July 7, 2023. See
§ 63.2380.
Yes.
§ 63.14 .....................
Incorporation by Reference.
Availability of Information.
§ 63.15 .....................
State authority to enforce standards ................
Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent.
Test methods incorporated by reference .........
Yes.
Yes.
Public and confidential information ...................
Yes.
Yes.
[FR Doc. 2020–05900 Filed 7–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
40791
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:51 Jul 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\07JYR2.SGM
07JYR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40740-40791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05900]
[[Page 40739]]
Vol. 85
Tuesday,
No. 130
July 7, 2020
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 40740]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074; FRL-10006-88-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) source category regulated under National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the storage tank requirements
as a result of the RTR. In addition, we are taking final action to
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 amendments will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from this source category by 186 tons per year (tpy), which
represents an approximate 8 percent reduction of HAP emissions from the
source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 7, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: 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 on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information 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
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Neil Feinberg, 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) 541-2214; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding
the risk assessment, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, 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) 541-2076; fax
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. Jon Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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:
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CF Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
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
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
LEL lower explosive limit
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDL method detection limit
MIR maximum individual risk
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
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
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
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDS safety data sheet(s)
SOCMI synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TAC Texas Administrative Code
The Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VPX vapor pressure
Background information. On October 21, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the OLD NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. A ``track changes''
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in
this action is available in the docket.
[[Page 40741]]
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?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the OLD source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the OLD source category in
our October 21, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the significant changes since proposal?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the OLD source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the OLD source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA Section
112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD source category?
E. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OLD source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD Source Category
B. Technology Review for the OLD Source Category
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the
OLD Source Category
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
E. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations 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
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non- 3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259,
Gasoline). 3261, 3361, 3362, 3399, 4247,
4861, 4869, 4931, 5622.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. The final
standards are directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal,
state, local, and tribal government entities are not affected by this
final 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 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 OLD 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.
To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final 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 and key technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program, and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.
[[Page 40742]]
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy or
more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources,
these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 56288, October 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the OLD source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the OLD NESHAP on February 3, 2004 (69 FR
5038). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. The
OLD industry consists of facilities that store and distribute organic
liquids. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently
includes 177 facilities. 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 and transfers
into or out of the tanks from or to cargo tanks, containers, and
pipelines that are not subject to other 40 CFR part 63 standards.
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 to
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
[[Page 40743]]
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 either have 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 that have the potential to leak such as valves, pumps, and
sampling connections. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of 40 CFR 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 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 40 CFR 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 EPA Method 21 of appendix A-
7 to 40 CFR part 60 (``EPA 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 (PRDs) 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 OLD 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 changes did we propose for the OLD source category in our
October 21, 2019, RTR proposal?
On October 21, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the OLD NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, that
took into consideration the RTR analyses. We proposed to find that the
risks from the source category are acceptable, the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In the proposed rule, we proposed under CAA
section 112(d)(6) to amend the requirements for storage tanks and
equipment leaks and also provided an alternative fenceline monitoring
program in the OLD source category as follows:
Revise the average true vapor pressure thresholds of the
OLD storage tanks for existing sources requiring control to align with
those of the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (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;
add a requirement for leak detection and repair (LDAR),
using EPA Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on
fixed roof storage tanks (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to
the 95 percent by weight control requirements;
revise the equipment leak requirements to add 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
add an optional implementation of a fenceline monitoring
program in lieu of the proposed technology review amendments for
storage tanks and equipment leaks discussed above.
In the proposed rule, we proposed under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) to amend the operating and monitoring requirements for flares used
as air pollution control devices (APCDs) in the OLD source category as
follows:
We proposed to add requirements at 40 CFR 63.2380 to
directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule (PRSR) flare
definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in
the OLD source category, with certain clarifications and exemptions;
we proposed to amend requirements that flares used as
APCDs in the OLD source category operate pilot flame systems
continuously when organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare.
Specifically, we proposed 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
also proposed 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;
we proposed to amend requirements 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.
Specifically, we proposed to remove the
[[Page 40744]]
cross-reference to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include the limitation on visible
emissions. We also proposed 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 proposed daily visible
emissions monitoring for whenever regulated material is routed to the
flare. On days the flare receives regulated material, we proposed that
owners or operators of flares monitor visible emissions at a minimum of
once per day using an observation period of 5 minutes and EPA Method
22. Additionally, whenever regulated material is routed to the flare
and there are visible emissions from the flare, we proposed that
another 5-minute visible emissions observation period be performed
using EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA Method 22, we
proposed that owners or operators be allowed to use video surveillance
cameras. We also proposed 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;
we proposed the consolidation of provisions related to
flare tip velocity. Specifically, we proposed 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). We
also proposed 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;
in lieu of requiring compliance with the operating limits
for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the General Provisions,
we proposed 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 British thermal units
per standard cubic foot during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted,
air-assisted, and non-assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source
category. We also proposed to allow engineering estimates to
characterize the amount of gas flared and the amount of assist gas (if
applicable) introduced into the system. Finally, we proposed 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; and
except for the visible emissions operating limits, we
proposed 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.
In addition to the amendments proposed for flares used as APCDs,
the EPA proposed 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 also proposed to:
Revise 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);
add the requirement that owners or 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 the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI);
add requirements for 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;
add requirements 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) 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;
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 proposed 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).'' Other monitoring method clarifications and
incorporations by references were also proposed; and
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.
In addition to the revisions proposed above, we also proposed
several editorial clarification and minor corrections to 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the OLD source category and amends
the OLD NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including adding requirements
and clarifications for periods of SSM and bypasses, revising the
operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs; adding
provisions for electronic reporting of performance test results and
reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS
reports; and other minor editorial and technical changes. This action
also reflects several changes to the October 21, 2019, RTR proposal in
consideration of comments received during the public comment period as
described in section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the significant changes since proposal?
This section introduces the significant changes to the OLD NESHAP
amendments made since proposal being promulgated. These changes are
discussed in further detail in section IV of this preamble.
We are not finalizing the proposed requirements for LDAR
using EPA Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak
[[Page 40745]]
definition for fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g., access
hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent by weight control
requirements in the final rule;
we are not finalizing the proposal to add 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);
we are not finalizing the option of allowing for a
fenceline monitoring program in lieu of other requirements;
we are finalizing standards for storage tank degassing
emission points during periods of SSM to ensure a CAA section 112
standard applies ``at all times;'' and
we are not finalizing the proposed required testing and
recordkeeping for emission sources not requiring control 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.
Further, we are not finalizing, as proposed, 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)
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.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
OLD source category?
This section introduces the final amendments to the OLD NESHAP
being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no
changes to the MACT standards based on the risk review conducted
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our
proposed determination that risks from this source category are
acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, and that more stringent standards are not necessary to
prevent an adverse environmental effect. See section 3 of the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the docket
for this action for comments we received regarding risk review and our
responses.
C. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the OLD source category?
We determined that there are developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards
for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT standards to include
revised average true vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks
for existing sources, requiring control to align with those of the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40
CFR part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds are lower.
Section IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the technology review and our responses.
D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2)
and (3) for the OLD source category?
The EPA is finalizing the changes proposed pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). Consistent with the October 21, 2019, RTR proposal,
we are revising monitoring and operational requirements for flares to
ensure that OLD facilities that use flares as APCDs meet the MACT
standards at all times when controlling HAP emissions. In addition, we
are adding provisions and clarifications for periods of SSM and
bypasses, including PRD releases, bypass lines on closed vent systems,
maintenance activities, and certain gaseous streams routed to a fuel
gas system to ensure that CAA section 112 standards apply continuously,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are also
adding a standard for storage tank degassing for storage tanks subject
to the control requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE.
Detailed changes and associated rationale regarding flares and PRDs
are set forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR 56302 through 56306,
October 21, 2019. Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides a summary of
key comments we received on the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
provisions and our responses.
E. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the OLD NESHAP to
remove and revise provisions related to SSM. 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
(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. As detailed in section IV.E.1 of the
proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019), the OLD NESHAP
requires that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.2350(a)),
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We determined that facilities in this source
category can generally meet the applicable OLD NESHAP standards at all
times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Where appropriate,
and as discussed in section III.C of this preamble, we are also
finalizing alternative standards in this preamble for storage tank
degassing emission points during periods of SSM to ensure a CAA section
112 standard applies ``at all times.'' Other than the storage tank
degassing emission point discussed in section III.C of this preamble,
the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed to address
emissions during these periods.
Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in the proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019), 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, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. Refer to section IV.E.1 of
the proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019) for further
discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards
for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given that 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.
As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, to
eliminate requirements that include rule language
[[Page 40746]]
providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are
finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that
treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction, as explained further below. As discussed in the proposal
preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.2350(a) that the standards apply at all times.
Also, based on comments received during the public comment period,
we are revising the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for
periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device to allow
tank breathing losses to be consistent with our intent at proposal (see
84 FR 56323, October 21, 2019), and we are revising 40 CFR 63.2346(l)
to sufficiently address the SSM exemption provisions from subparts
referenced by the OLD NESHAP standards (such as 40 CFR part 63,
subparts SS, TT, and UU) that are no longer applicable. Finally, we are
extending the compliance date of removing the portion of the
``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that addresses SSM periods
as being applicable to 3 years after publication of the final rule
instead of 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register to provide a consistent compliance date for all final rule SSM
provisions due to the addition of the tank degassing requirements
discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. See section 10.1 of the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action, for a summary of the significant comments
we received on the SSM provisions and our responses.
F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. To increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that
owners or operators of facilities in the OLD source category submit
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the
EPA's 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 final 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 \2\ 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 emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) 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 final rule requires
that NOCS reports be submitted as a PDF upload in CEDRI. For compliance
reports, the final rule requires that owners or operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The
final version of the template for these reports will be located on the
CEDRI website.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility
operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in
the time just prior to a report's due date, as well as the process to
assert such a claim.
We are finalizing the revision of 40 CFR 63.2354(c) to add ASTM
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 for the
determination of HAP content of an organic liquid. We are also
finalizing the replacement of method ASTM D2879 with method ASTM D6378-
18a as an acceptable method for determination of whether a total vapor
pressure (and, therefore, the sum total of Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE HAP) is below the threshold level requiring control for a
storage tank.
Finally, we are finalizing all of the revisions that we proposed
for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical
errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are summarized in 84 FR 56323 through 56324 and Table 9
of the proposal. Section IV.E.3 of this preamble provides a summary of
key comments we received on these provisions and our responses.
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the OLD NESHAP standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 7, 2020. From our assessment of the
timeframe needed for implementing the entirety of the revised
requirements (see 84 FR 56324 and 56325, October 21, 2019), the EPA
proposed a period of 3 years to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable. No opposing comments were received during the
public comment period on the length of the compliance period and we are
finalizing the 3-year period as proposed. Thus, the compliance date of
the final amendments for all existing affected sources and all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or
before October 21, 2019, is no later than 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule. Furthermore, as discussed in sections III.C and
D of this preamble, we are adding a standard for storage tank degassing
for storage tanks subject to the control requirements in Tables 2 and
2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE since degassing is considered a SSM
event for storage tanks. The provisions being finalized are similar to
the requirements promulgated in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. As we
discovered during the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP rulemaking, the
challenges faced by affected sources in complying with these
requirements necessitated additional compliance time from what was
promulgated, eventually having to move the original compliance date of
these provisions from February 1, 2016, to August 1, 2018, an
additional 2 and a half years.\4\ Therefore, the 3-year compliance date
that was proposed for the OLD NESHAP provides a consistent time
allowance to OLD sources as was needed for petroleum refineries to
fully implement the final amendments to this rule. We have also revised
the effective date of removing the portion of the ``deviation''
definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as being
applicable 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register to provide a consistent compliance date due to the addition of
the tank degassing requirements. For all new affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, the
effective date is
[[Page 40747]]
July 7, 2020, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/petrefinery_compliance_ext_factsheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OLD source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the OLD
source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the October 21, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE (84 FR 56288). The results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented briefly below and in more detail in the
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Table 2--Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results as Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
individual Population at Annual cancer Maximum Maximum screening
Number of facilities \1\ cancer risk increased risk incidence (cases chronic acute noncancer HQ
(in 1 million) of cancer >=1- per year) noncancer \4\
\2\ in-1 million TOSHI \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157...................... 20 350,000 0.03 0.4 HQREL = 1 (toluene,
formaldehyde, and
chloroform).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. This number is less than the 173 existing facilities
identified in the source category because OLD emission points could not be identified at all facilities. This
is explained in the Data Quality memorandum. For this category, allowable emissions are assumed to equal
actual emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (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 hazard quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold
value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment, as shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the estimated cancer maximum
individual risk (MIR) is 20-in-1 million, with 1,3-butadiene from
equipment leaks as the major contributor to the risk. At proposal, the
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category was
estimated to be 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case
every 33 years. Approximately 350,000 people were estimated to face an
increased cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation
exposure to actual HAP emissions from this source category. At
proposal, the estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation
exposure for this source category was 0.4. The screening assessment of
worst-case inhalation impacts indicated a worst-case maximum acute HQ
of 1 for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform based on the 1-hour REL
for each pollutant.
At proposal, potential multipathway human health risks were
estimated using a three-tier screening assessment of the HAP known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment emitted by
facilities in this source category. The only pollutants with elevated
Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening values were polycyclic organic matter (POM)
(cancer). The Tier 2 screening value for POM was 6, which means that we
were confident that the cancer risk is lower than 6-in-1 million. For
noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value for both cadmium and mercury was
less than 1. There were no exceedances of the lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, hydrochloric acid,
and hydrofluoric acid. For POM emissions, one facility did have a Tier
1 exceedance for a sediment community no-effect level by a maximum
screening value of 6. There were no exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS.
The EPA considered all health risk factors, including those shown
in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination
and proposed that the risks posed by the OLD source category are
acceptable (section IV.C.1 of proposal preamble, 84 FR 56309, October
21, 2019).
We then considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In
considering whether the standards are required to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we used the same risk
factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also
considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant
factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk
associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed that
additional emissions controls for the OLD source category are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
(section IV.C.2 of proposal preamble, 84 FR 56310, October 21, 2019).
At proposal, we also evaluated the risk from whole facility
emissions in order to put the risks from the source category in
context. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk based on whole
facility emissions was estimated to be 2,000-in-1 million at proposal,
with ethylene oxide from a non-category source driving the risk. At
proposal, the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index based on whole
facility emissions was estimated to be 10 (for the kidney) driven by
emissions of trichloroethylene from equipment leaks in the solvent
recovery operations at a plastic parts manufacturing facility, which
are non-category sources.
2. How did the risk review change for the OLD source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the
October 21, 2019 RTR proposal (84 FR 56288) for the OLD source
category.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We note that, due to comments, there are four fewer existing
OLD affected sources now than at proposal (i.e., four sources we
identified as subject to the OLD NESHAP are not in fact subject to
that rule). However, this change does not warrant an update to this
analysis since proposal and has, therefore, not been updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40748]]
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
necessary under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the OLD source category.
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the determination
from the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. For example, some commenters stated that the
EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-
in-1 million are unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source
categories in question in the risk assessment and assume that HAP
without dose-response values should be included in the risk assessment.
After review of all the comments received, we determined that no
changes were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the
Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
As noted in our proposal, 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''
(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors
in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR,
cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer
HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and
noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties.
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the OLD source
category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we
are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA
section 112(f)(2).
B. Technology Review for the OLD Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OLD
source category?
We proposed, as part of our technology review for storage tanks,
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 Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G)
where the thresholds are lower; and (2) in addition to requirements
specified in option 1, requiring LDAR using EPA Method 21 with a 500
ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g.,
access hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent by weight
control requirements.
We proposed option 1 (lower average vapor pressure thresholds for
control) as a development in practices, processes, and control
technologies for storage tanks because it reflects requirements and
applicability thresholds that are widely applicable to existing tanks
that are often collocated with OLD sources and that have been found to
be cost effective for organic liquid storage tanks. We did not propose
revisions to the OLD NESHAP applicability thresholds for new sources,
as they were already more stringent than other similar rules. Table 3
of this preamble lists the proposed capacity and average true vapor
pressure thresholds for control. As shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
we also proposed 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 the October 21, 2019, proposal (84 FR 56288) for
more details on this clarification).
Table 3--NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Annual Average True Vapor
Pressure Thresholds for Control Under Proposed Control Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tank contents and average true
vapor pressure of total Table 1
Existing/new source and tank capacity to subpart EEEE of 40 CFR 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.
[[Page 40749]]
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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further proposed option 2 (LDAR) as an improvement in practices
for storage tanks 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. As we noted at proposal, we have
observed leaks on roof deck fittings through monitoring with EPA Method
21 that could not be found with visual observation techniques (see 84
FR 56311, October 21, 2019).
Proposed option 2 applied 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 applied 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.
Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the storage tank options, we proposed that control options 1 and 2
were cost-effective strategies for further reducing emissions from
storage tanks at OLD facilities and proposed to revise the OLD NESHAP
requirements for storage tanks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Other
storage tank control options beyond these two, including installation
of geodesic domes on external floating roof tanks, were considered
during our technology review but were not found to be generally cost
effective were not proposed. Details on the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated at proposal 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.
At proposal, our technology review for equipment leaks identified
two potential 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 practices and processes were 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
found that several OLD sources were permitted using various state LDAR
regulations that incorporate equipment leak provisions at the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU requirement level or above and that also require
connector monitoring as part of the facility's air permit requirements.
For equipment leaks control option 1, we considered that the
baseline was that connectors were not controlled using a LDAR program,
since the current OLD NESHAP does not include them as equipment to be
monitored. For equipment leaks control option 2, we considered 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 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) to 500 ppmv, and pumps would drop from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000
ppmv.
Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the equipment leak options, we proposed that control option 1 was a
cost-effective strategy for further reducing emissions from equipment
leaks at OLD facilities, especially when evaluated based on the
expected reductions attributed to the emission inventory for fugitive
HAP emissions, and we determined that option 2 was not cost effective
for this source category. We proposed, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), revising the OLD NESHAP for equipment leaks to reflect
option 1. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all options
that were evaluated at proposal 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.
As part of the technology review, we also considered options to
reduce emissions from transfer racks. We evaluated the thresholds for
control in the current rule against the 2012 proposed uniform standards
for storage tanks and transfer operations (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2010-0871) and found that the current thresholds for controls are
equivalent to or more stringent than those 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.
Considering the costs of control and the HAP emissions for these racks,
this option was not found to be cost effective. Therefore, we did not
propose any changes to 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.
Also, as part of the technology review, we evaluated developments
in processes, practices, and control technologies for measuring and
[[Page 40750]]
controlling fugitive emissions from individual emission points at OLD
sources. We proposed a fenceline monitoring program, available to
existing and new OLD facilities, in lieu of implementing the proposed
technology review requirements discussed above for storage tanks and
equipment leaks. Provisions of the proposed fenceline monitoring
program compliance alternative were described in detail in section
IV.D.4 of the proposal preamble (see 84 FR 56313 through 56318, October
21, 2019).
The EPA proposed this option for fenceline monitoring for several
reasons: (1) There was concern that because of the uncertainty
surrounding estimated fugitive emissions from OLD operations, sources
may be underestimating actual fugitive emissions from OLD operations;
(2) the proposed fenceline monitoring program would provide owners or
operators a flexible alternative to appropriately manage fugitive
emissions of HAP from OLD operations if they were 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 or 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 was not subject to equipment leak monitoring in the
proposed rule.
The EPA proposed the fenceline monitoring alternative and
considered it to be equivalent to the proposed technology review
revisions it would replace. Therefore, we proposed the fenceline
monitoring alternative under CAA section 112(d)(6) as an alternative
equivalent requirement to address fugitive emissions from OLD sources.
2. How did the technology review change for the OLD source category?
After consideration of comments and reevaluation of our analyses at
proposal, we are not finalizing the following: Requiring LDAR using EPA
Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof
storage tanks (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to the 95
percent by weight control requirements in the final rule; 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); or allowing the option for a
fenceline monitoring program. Summaries of comments on these proposed
provisions and our responses are provided below in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the proposed LDAR requirements
for storage tanks that are not required to have emissions controls and
are not currently subject to equipment standards that require they be
enclosed and leak tight. Several commenters asserted that the EPA's
estimated emission reductions for the proposed storage tank leak
detection monitoring requirements overestimate emission reductions that
may be attributed to these requirements. Many commenters observed that
the EPA's estimated volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction of 1.1
tpy includes emissions from the conservation vent, emergency pressure
relief vent, and other valves/instruments that were estimated using
equipment leak emission factors from the synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) from the EPA's Protocol for Equipment
Leak Emission Estimates. The commenters stated that the SOCMI emission
factors were developed for process equipment containing material at
pressures several times greater than an atmospheric storage tank,
making their application to such tanks invalid. Commenters also stated
that the costs for the proposed tank leak detection monitoring
requirements are underestimated. These commenters argued that the EPA
did not consider operational and safety issues that these requirements
present. Several commenters noted that the language effectively
requires a technician to climb up to the roof of a tank and check the
entire surface, stressing that these small tanks were not built with
the intention of regular roof inspections and do not have the same
structural integrity as tanks that were designed with the intention of
applying emission controls. One commenter generally supported the
proposed revisions related to storage tanks to incorporate developments
that the EPA has deemed cost effective and advocated that the EPA
require further revisions to satisfy 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).
Response: We have reviewed commenters' concerns and reevaluated the
analyses for developing the proposed fixed roof tank LDAR requirements
and agree that the emission reduction estimates serving as the basis
for the proposed LDAR requirements were likely inaccurate for the
smaller volume tanks and provide an overestimate of emission reductions
for this control option. Coupled with concerns about additional costs
that may be incurred to address safety and operational concerns, the
EPA has determined that the proposed LDAR for fixed roof tanks not
requiring control does not appear to be a cost-effective control option
for this source category. Without appropriate data to better assess the
emissions reductions and costs of this option, and given the fact that
uncontrolled fixed roof tanks are allowed to breathe and would not
necessarily be vapor-tight, we now recognize that the proposed
requirements could potentially trigger leak protocols that we did not
intend when we proposed the change. Therefore, we are not finalizing
the proposed requirements that require LDAR for tanks that are
currently beneath the volumetric and vapor pressure thresholds for
controlling emissions under the OLD standards.
Comment: Several commenters contended that the EPA cost-
effectiveness analysis for connectors was flawed, and based on the
EPA's backup document, connector monitoring is not cost effective for
OLD facilities and should not be finalized. The commenters stated that
the backup document for the EPA's equipment leak analysis does not
support the preamble conclusions. One commenter contended that the EPA
overestimated the emission reductions achievable from connector
monitoring by applying emissions from all equipment leaks to connectors
and, thus, overestimating the emission reductions achievable. The
commenter also alleged an error in the modeling file for one facility
that accounted for half of the equipment leak emissions yet submitted a
correction that stated there is no OLD-affected equipment at the
facility. Commenters also claimed the EPA underestimated the compliance
costs for connector monitoring. One commenter stated that the EPA's
cost estimates failed to take into account that connectors at OLD
sources tend to be more difficult to access than at refineries or other
sources. The commenter further stated that for OLD facilities, for a
high percentage of connectors, equipment such as a wheeled scissor-lift
or hydraulic scaffold is required for monitoring access as well as a
second technician for safety reasons; and additional time is required
to move the equipment. Some commenters asserted that the EPA also
underestimated costs by underestimating the monitoring frequency
allowed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, stating that the frequency
should be every 4 years instead of 8 years that were used in the
[[Page 40751]]
cost estimates. One commenter further contended that the EPA
underestimated the administrative costs (e.g., training and reporting
costs) for the program by incorrectly assuming no additional
administrative costs for OLD facilities that are collocated with
processes that already have an LDAR regulatory program. A couple of
commenters also added that the industry finds and repairs leaks based
on sensory methods, so requiring EPA Method 21 may not result in the
level of emissions reductions that the EPA estimates.
Response: We revised our cost and emission reduction estimates and
are not finalizing connector monitoring because we no longer find it to
be as cost effective for this source category as originally determined.
We reviewed commenters' concerns and reevaluated the analyses of
emission reductions and cost for connector LDAR requirements and agree
that the estimates of emission reductions that were not based on the
model plant analysis that served as the basis for this proposed
requirement were likely inaccurate and underestimated the cost per ton
removed for this control option. Using the model plant emission
reductions and costs (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074-0015), as well as
updating measurement frequency, we estimate a cost effectiveness of
$10,063/ton HAP. Coupled with unquantified additional costs that may be
incurred to address safety concerns specific to OLD facilities, the EPA
has determined that connector monitoring is not a cost-effective option
for OLD sources. This determination also considers additional
uncertainty, such as with the HAP content of the liquid. As a result,
we are not finalizing the proposed requirements that require LDAR for
connectors.
Comment: No commenters supported the fenceline provisions as
proposed. Two commenters advocated that the fenceline monitoring option
not be adopted in the rule. These commenters stated that because public
health risks are not reduced due to the proposed enhancements to the
control requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks, the
fenceline monitoring measures are unnecessary. The commenters also
objected to the EPA's characterization of the fenceline monitoring
program being an alternative standard since, as the commenters argued,
the analytes and action levels are set based on the proposed, more
stringent, control requirements and, therefore, facilities would have
to install the proposed new controls anyway. These commenters also
advocated that a refinery with collocated OLD sources should be allowed
to incorporate OLD sources into their Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart CC) fenceline program, because the benzene
fenceline monitoring is also appropriate for collocated OLD sources.
These commenters also objected to many of the provisions for
implementing the monitoring, including that the compliance timeline for
commencing fenceline monitoring could be difficult to meet, that the
timeline for approving and monitoring new analytes is too short, that
OLD sources should be able to use analyte uptake rates that are
published by national and international scientific organizations rather
than going through EPA validation methods, that the action level
determination be revised from 5 times the method detection limit (MDL)
to 3 times the MDL to be consistent with previous EPA actions, that the
EPA's modeling guidance for OLD sources contains some inconsistencies
with the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) User's Guide, and that a 45-day
timeline for corrective action is too short in some cases.
From an alternate perspective, a public health advocate stated that
fenceline monitoring should be required in addition to the proposed new
emission control requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks.
The commenter stated that because fenceline monitors are a
technological development that can reduce emissions, then the CAA
requires that both the enhanced emission controls and fenceline
monitoring requirements must be adopted. The commenter also advocated
for the EPA to require real-time monitoring, like Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy, which has been demonstrated to be technically
feasible and has been implemented in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's Rule 1180.
Response: We are not finalizing the fenceline monitoring
alternative. The fenceline monitoring alternative was proposed as an
optional control requirement to complying with the proposed control
requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks that we are not
finalizing as explained above. Without the final requirements for which
fenceline monitoring was an alternative compliance approach, fenceline
monitoring is no longer necessary.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
Based on our review and consideration of information provided in
comments, the proposed requirement for revising the average true vapor
pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources
requiring control to align with those of the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G)
where the thresholds are lower is generally acknowledged to be cost
effective. However, the other proposed technology review requirements
of fixed roof tank LDAR and adding connectors to the LDAR program at
OLD sources have been reevaluated in light of commenters' concerns and
have not been found to be cost-effective options for the OLD source
category at this time. Since the pool of emission reduction
requirements is smaller in the final rule than proposed, we find it
highly unlikely that OLD sources would have opted to utilize the
proposed fenceline monitoring program. Therefore, we are also not
finalizing the fenceline monitoring alternative in the final rule.
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the OLD source category?
Under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed to amend the
operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs in the
OLD source category to ensure that OLD facilities that use flares as
APCDs meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling HAP
emissions. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.2380 to directly apply the
petroleum refinery flare rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC to flares in the OLD source category with certain clarifications and
exemptions. We proposed to retain the General Provisions requirements
of 40 CFR 63.11(b) that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category
operate pilot flame systems continuously and that flares 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. We also proposed to consolidate measures related
to flare tip velocity and new operational and monitoring requirements
related to the combustion zone gas. We proposed to eliminate the cross-
references to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC.
The EPA also proposed 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 requested comment on
several issues related to PRDs, including whether work practices should
be adopted for PRDs that are not
[[Page 40752]]
part of a vapor balancing system, whether work practices similar to
those promulgated for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC are necessary and appropriate for OLD operations, information on the
nature of non-vapor balancing system PRDs, and whether monitoring
devices should be required to be installed and operated to ensure
continuous compliance with the standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv)
that no PRD shall open during loading or as a result of diurnal
temperature changes.
More information regarding our proposal to address CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 56302,
October 21, 2019). Further details regarding comments received and the
EPA's responses are discussed below.
2. How did the revisions pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
change since proposal?
We are finalizing some clarifying edits to the overlap provisions
of 40 CFR 63, subpart EEEE to address commenter concerns with overlap
for flare provisions in the OLD source category with other regulations.
Further, commenters noted some clarifying edits to the simplified
requirements allowed in 40 CFR 63.670(j). We have revised the proposed
requirements to address these concerns, which are discussed in section
8.0 of the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and
Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline),
available in the docket for this action.
We received comments that owners or operators have historically
considered degassing emissions from shutdown of storage tanks to be
covered by their SSM plans per the definition of ``Shutdown'' included
at 40 CFR 63.2406 and that there are several OLD affected sources that
are subject to standards for tank degassing in their air permits. We
assessed the MACT floor level of control and, as a result, are adding a
standard for storage tank degassing for storage tanks subject to the
control requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE.
We are also finalizing the PRD provisions as proposed. Comments on
the PRD provisions and our responses are discussed in section 9.0 of
the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposal revisions pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposal to eliminate the SSM
provisions makes it unclear as to what the OLD NESHAP compliance
obligations are related to fixed roof tank degassing. The commenters
added that because tank degassing is included in the shutdown
definition, facilities have historically considered fixed roof tank
degassing activities to be covered by their SSM plan, which includes
procedures for minimizing emissions during shutdown activities. The
commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement
to implement and follow an SSM plan and adding a new general duty
clause at 40 CFR 63.2350(d) that would require facilities to operate
and maintain any affected source, including air pollution control
device and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions.
Commenters further asserted that at some point it is no longer
reasonable or even technically feasible to continue to try to control
the dilute vapors using the normal control device or by routing to a
fuel gas system or to a process. The commenters noted that some
facilities are subject to standards for fixed roof tank degassing in
their permits. The commenters supported the Texas requirements for
fixed roof tank degassing to represent what the average of the best
performers are doing to minimize emissions from fixed roof tank
degassing. The commenters concluded that these requirements state that
fixed roof storage tanks otherwise required to be controlled must be
degassed to a control device or controlled recovery system until the
VOC concentration is less than 10,000 ppmv or 10 percent of the lower
explosive level (LEL). One commenter also requested that the EPA
clarify that once the atmospheric release criterion is met, vapors may
also be released after tank entry. The commenter stated that for many
tanks, there are sludges in the bottom of the tank or on the walls that
may release some hydrocarbon vapors as they are shoveled or
hydroblasted off the tank floor and/or walls.
Response: We agree that a standard is reasonable for tank degassing
and have included it in the final rule. With the removal of SSM
requirements, a standard specific to storage tank degassing did not
exist. We agree with the commenters that storage tank degassing is
similar to maintenance vents (e.g., equipment openings) found in other
rules, and that there must be a point in time when the storage tank can
be opened and any emissions vented to the atmosphere. As such, we
reviewed available data to determine how the best performers are
controlling storage tank degassing emissions.
We, and commenters, are aware of three state or air quality
management district provisions regarding storage tank degassing, two in
the state of Texas and the third for the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) in California. Texas has degassing
provisions in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) (30 TAC Chapter 115,
Subchapter F, Division 3) and through permit conditions (as noted by
commenters), and SCAQMD has provisions in Rule 1149. The TAC
requirements are the least stringent (35,000 ppmv as methane or 50
percent of the LEL), and the Texas permit conditions (10,000 ppmv or
10-percent LEL) and SCAQMD Rule 1149 (5,000 ppmv as methane) are
equivalent. The Texas permit conditions and SCAQMD Rule 1149 are
considered equivalent because 5,000 ppmv as methane equals 10 percent
of the LEL for methane. OLD facilities located in Texas are subject to
the permit conditions, and 3 OLD facilities are subject to the SCAQMD
rule. Of the 173 currently operating (i.e., existing) OLD facilities,
44 are in Texas. The Texas and California requirements are the most
stringent we are aware of and; therefore, we conclude that those
requirements reflect what the best performers in the OLD source
category have implemented for storage tank degassing. Commenters also
confirm this conclusion.
We reviewed the Texas permit conditions for key information that
could be implemented into the form of a standard for storage tank
degassing. The conditions require control of degassing emissions until
the VOC concentration of the vapor is less than 10,000 ppmv or 10
percent of the LEL. We have used the 10 percent of the LEL in similar
requirements in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.643(c)
for example) and have, therefore, finalized these 10-percent LEL
requirements for tanks requiring control at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6).
We calculated the impacts due to controlling storage tank degassing
emissions by evaluating the population of estimated storage tanks
subject to control according to the requirements in Tables 2 and 2b of
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE that are not located in Texas or in
SCAQMD. Storage tanks in the OLD source category in Texas and SCAQMD
would already be subject to the degassing requirements being finalized,
and there would not be
[[Page 40753]]
additional costs or emissions reductions for these facilities. Based on
commenter statements, tanks are degassed for inspection typically every
10 years. Based on this average and the population of storage tanks
that are not in Texas or in SCAQMD, we estimate 89 storage tank
degassing events would be subject to control each year. Controlling
storage tank degassing would reduce HAP emissions by 74 tpy, with a
total national annual cost of $418,656. See the technical memorandum
titled Tank Degassing Analysis for the Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) Source Category Final Rule, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074 for details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in this analysis.
We considered whether there are technically feasible options more
stringent than the MACT floor requirements but are not aware of storage
tank degassing provisions beyond those discussed above for Texas and
SCAQMD. Therefore, no options more stringent than the MACT floor were
evaluated. We also confirm that once the 10-percent LEL criterion is
met, tank vapors may be vented to the atmosphere even after tank entry.
Comment: Several commenters contended that the assumptions the EPA
used in developing the flare control cost and emission reduction
estimates are not realistic. The commenters indicated that several of
the EPA's assumptions laid out in the proposal preamble are incorrect
for most OLD NESHAP flares. The commenters argued that the EPA's basis
for the flare cost estimates is that OLD NESHAP operations are steady
enough that compositions and flow rates do not change, so continuous
instrumentation is not needed for compliance (except for continuous
temperature and pressure monitoring), and that composition sampling and
engineering estimates are sufficient. The commenters insisted this
basis is incorrect. One commenter made the following points:
Although some organic liquids have relatively constant
composition as the EPA states, most OLD NESHAP flares will be receiving
vapors from multiple OLD sources simultaneously, including tank vapors,
loading vapors and likely small amounts from equipment leak vapors. The
commenter asserted that in order to estimate the composition of the
flare waste gas and the net heating value of the flare vent gas
(NHVvg), facilities would need accurate flow information on each stream
and composition information for those streams that have variable
compositions;
transfer operations generate vapors from tank cars,
trucks, or containers loading (unloading emissions show up as tank
emissions and barge and ship loading are not regulated by the OLD
NESHAP though these may be routed to the same flare as OLD regulated
emissions). The commenter noted the composition of those vapors will
vary if the tank car, truck, or container is filled with vapors of
another type (e.g., air, nitrogen, other organics);
storage tank emission rates vary significantly as a
function of stored liquid temperature and changes in tank levels. The
commenter pointed out that if the tank level is increasing due to
material entering the tank, the emission rate will be much higher than
the rate due to temperature changes; if the stored material temperature
or level is dropping, air or inert gas will be drawn into the tank;
loading emission rates vary as the backpressure varies as
the receiving volume fills with liquid and/or the backpressure from the
vapor collection system changes;
the commenter urged that reasonably good flow measurements
for each of these flows would be needed to estimate the total waste gas
flow to an OLD NESHAP flare and would be required for every source
going to that flare, not just the OLD NESHAP sources. The commenter
noted that because of the impossibility of obtaining all the required
individual flow information, the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP provisions
focus only on measuring the total flow at the flare. The commenter
insisted that because of the range of flows, this requires a
sophisticated wide range meter such as a sonic flow meter; and
the commenter stressed that assist steam and supplemental
fuel demands vary widely as flare conditions change, and, thus, would
not be amenable to estimation or using engineering estimates even
though the gas molecular weight is known.
The commenter stated that due to the above, facilities must have at
least continuous flow rate monitoring of the waste gas, supplemental
fuel, and assist steam in order to allow control on a 15-minute basis,
and stressed that, in most cases, continuous monitoring of waste gas
composition is also needed. The commenter also urged that due to the
broad range of potential flow rates, additional controls (typically
split range controllers) would be needed to rapidly adjust assist gas
and supplemental fuel to meet the NHVcz requirements on a 15-minute
basis. The commenter contended that the EPA's engineering estimate
approach using temperature and pressure is, therefore, untenable, and
flare cost basis must consider that OLD flares will have to install the
full range of continuous monitoring and control instrumentation that
was required for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP flares, with perhaps a
few limited exceptions. One commenter also affirmed that although the
compositional variability of flared gas streams is less than that of
refineries, facilities will opt to conduct continuous monitoring to
reduce incremental supplemental fuel costs, and are likely to install
flow meters instead of relying on pressure and temperature monitoring
systems and engineering calculations.
One commenter added that because of the typically remote location
of OLD NESHAP-only flares, there are likely to be large additional
costs compared to Petroleum Refineries NESHAP to add new utilities,
analyzer houses, data systems, and control room instrumentation. The
commenter, therefore, concluded that even if the EPA's assumption of
only continuous temperature and pressure monitoring were correct, a
$190,000 investment would unlikely be enough to instrument one flare,
much less 27. The commenter remarked that use of the Petroleum
Refineries NESHAP cost estimate prorated to the EPA's estimated 27 OLD
NESHAP flares would yield an annualized OLD cost of $2.4 million and a
cost effectiveness of $3,673/ton of VOC reduced and $37,182/ton of HAP
reduced.
Another commenter provided a summary of information collected from
member facilities on approximately 80 flares on the estimated cost
impacts of flare requirements in the EPA's proposed revisions to the
Ethylene MACT standards, which the commenter contended are essentially
the same as the proposed revisions in the OLD NESHAP. The commenter
asserted that for the Ethylene MACT, member companies indicated they
would need to install at least two new flares due to the potential for
existing flares to exceed the number of visible emissions events
allowed by the emergency flaring provisions during upset conditions; at
least one gas chromatograph in order to comply with the proposed
monitoring requirements; upgraded natural gas controls for at least 23
flares (to meet the more stringent minimum flare gas net heating value)
and flow monitoring; and additional costs based on the estimated amount
of supplemental fuel firing. The commenter estimated that, based on
this information, the average capital and annual costs to implement the
changes applicable to OLD flares (i.e., excluding the emergency flaring
management work
[[Page 40754]]
practices) are $509,000 and $725,000 per flare, with an estimated
annual average cost of incremental supplemental fuel of $655,000 per
flare. The commenter concluded that with their estimated costs and the
EPA's estimate of 64 tpy of HAP reductions, the cost effectiveness of
the proposed amendments would be approximately $306,000/ton of HAP
reduced. The commenter also questioned the validity of the EPA's
proposed HAP reductions, stating that the EPA's basis for its 64 tpy
estimate of reduced HAP emissions is simply an assumption that all OLD
flares are operating with a 90-percent combustion efficiency, and that
the Agency has not provided data to support this assumption.
One commenter estimated that the cost to install all required
instrumentation is in the $600,000 to $800,000 range for a single
flare.
Several commenters stated that, because costs for the OLD NESHAP
flare instrumentation and controls will likely greatly exceed the
proposed costs, the proposed revised flare requirements are not cost
effective and should not be finalized.
Response: We do not agree with the comments that the proposed
revisions to the flare requirements should not be finalized. We
proposed the flare amendments under the authority of CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure that flares used to control OLD emission
sources are meeting the combustion efficiency requirements that are the
basis for our original rule. In proposing these amendments, we did not
use the authority of CAA 112(d)(6) and did not consider costs. Since
the revisions ensure continuous compliance with the MACT standard under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), costs are not a factor considered for
these revisions. We determined the flare operating and monitoring
requirements were not adequate to ensure that 98-percent control
efficiency can be met for a flare at all times. Regarding the
commenter's arguments that the emission reductions assumed to be a
result of the proposed flaring provisions are overstated, the 90-
percent assumption was illustrative of potential emissions in worst
case situations, but since cost and, thus, cost effectiveness are not
considerations when determining the MACT floor, we did not rely on
estimated HAP emission reductions in making our decision to propose or
finalize these requirements. We did estimate costs in order to provide
the resulting impacts, but we are not revising the costs as a result of
this comment, especially as the costs presented by the commenter appear
to have been developed with Ethylene MACT flares in mind. As
acknowledged by several commenters, OLD flare operation and monitoring
are likely simpler than ethylene flares, and some commenters' three 1-
hour test run suggestion for demonstrating compliance are essentially
equivalent to the grab sampling requirements in 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6) and
they could be further refined to facilitate easier use of simplified
monitoring provisions. We have revised those requirements to address
concerns of petitioning to use the grab sample approach, which further
streamlines these requirements. If, as the commenter suggests, their
facilities opt to use more sophisticated continuous monitoring
instrumentation instead of the proposed grab sample/worst case
approach, they have the flexibility to do so. However, we disagree that
cost estimates based on Ethylene Production source category flares are
appropriate for OLD. We also note that the commenter applies a
supplemental natural gas cost approximately 18 times higher than our
estimate (if supplemental natural gas is needed to meet NHVcz limits
for the flare) for their OLD flare cost assessment. This natural gas
cost seems excessive, especially considering that commenters did not
discuss adjusting other flare parameters instead of using such a large
amount of natural gas.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
As we discussed above, we proposed the flare amendments under the
authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure flares used to
control OLD emission sources are meeting the combustion efficiency
requirements that are the basis for our original rule and necessary to
ensure sources are complying with the MACT level of control. For this
reason, we did not consider costs in proposing these requirements and
are generally finalizing these amendments as proposed. We did, however,
make some revisions to the proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.2380 to
further streamline the requirements of 40 CFR 63.670(j) to facilitate
the ability of sources to use the grab sample approach for determining
net heating value. In addition, and as discussed earlier, we also
amended the overlap provisions of 40 CFR 63.2396 to clarify
applicability for flares subject to the requirements of the OLD NESHAP
and to other NESHAP requirements.
Tank degassing is considered a shutdown activity and historically
has been considered by OLD sources to be covered under their SSM plan
and permit conditions. With the removal of SSM provisions that are not
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times,
the EPA assessed the level of control the best performing OLD sources
are using for tank degassing events. During this assessment and based
on comments, air permit requirements for OLD sources in Texas require
degassing to a 10-percent LEL or 10,000 ppm prior to opening the tank
to the atmosphere, and these requirements represent the best level of
control for tank degassing events for OLD sources and those in
California and Texas are already complying with.
In this action, we are including provisions at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6)
that require tanks that are subject to control to continue to route
degassing vapors to a device equivalent to the control (i.e., 95-
percent organic HAP reduction, back to process or fuel gas system)
until the vapor within the storage tank has reached 10 percent of the
LEL.
The PRD definition and provisions that were proposed are being
finalized. No additional work practice provisions or requirements are
being added to the PRD requirements as a result of commenter
suggestions, and the clarifications proposed in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(iv)
and the definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 are being made final. We note that
we received several comments on these provisions and clarification on
what constitutes a deviation for these types of devices within the OLD
NESHAP. We have responded to these comments in section 9.0 of the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review
for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the
docket for this action.
D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
We proposed amendments to the OLD NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 56318-56322, October 21, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions proposed (84 FR 56318, October
21, 2019) with some modifications, including: Revisions to the proposed
provisions of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for periods of planned routine
maintenance
[[Page 40755]]
of the control device to allow tank breathing losses to be consistent
with our intent at proposal (see 84 FR 56323, October 21, 2019);
revisions to 40 CFR 63.2346(l) to further clarify the SSM requirements
in referenced subparts (such as 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, and
UU) that are no longer applicable; and we have extended the effective
date of removing the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR
63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as being applicable 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to provide a
consistent compliance date due to the addition of the tank degassing
requirements discussed in section IV.C of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
We received several comments related to our proposed revisions to
the SSM provisions. Commenters discussed issues related to the removal
of the 240-hour exemption for planned maintenance of control devices,
the need for tank degassing requirements with the revision of SSM
provisions (as discussed in more detail in section IV.C of this
preamble), and other miscellaneous issues pertaining to the SSM
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, and UU requirements
referred to within 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. These comments and our
responses are available in section 10.1 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the docket for this
action. As discussed above, we have made some changes to the revisions
to the SSM requirements in the final rule to address the significant
issues brought forth by commenters.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
address emissions during periods of SSM?
We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions related
to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards
apply at all times. More information concerning the amendments we are
finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR
56318-56322, October 21, 2019). Additional revisions to these
amendments based on comments received are discussed in further detail
in section 10.1 of the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), available in the docket for this action.
E. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
1. What other amendments did we propose for the OLD source category?
We proposed that owners or 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 CDX using CEDRI. Performance test
results must be collected using test methods that are supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the ERT website \6\ 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 PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of CEMS
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. We
also proposed that NOCS reports must be submitted as a PDF upload in
CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For compliance reports and fenceline monitoring reports, we
proposed that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI.
Additionally, we proposed two broad circumstances in which we may
provide extension to these requirements. We proposed that an extension
may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that
precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting
required reports. We also proposed that an extension may be warranted
due to a force majeure event, such as an act of nature, act of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
Additionally, we proposed required testing and recordkeeping for
emission sources not requiring control 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. Further, we proposed
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) 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 proposed the revision of 40 CFR 63.2354(c) to
add 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 for the determination of
HAP content of an organic liquid. We are also finalizing the
replacement of method ASTM D2879 with method ASTM D6378-18a as one of
the acceptable methods for the determination of vapor pressure.
Finally, we proposed several revisions to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors in
84 FR 56323 through 56324 and Table 9 of the proposal.
2. How did the other amendments for the OLD source category change
since proposal?
We are not finalizing the proposed requirements for periodic
testing and recordkeeping for the annual average true vapor pressure
for those tanks not subject to the 95 percent control requirements of
the regulation. Further, we are not finalizing, as proposed, 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) 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, however, finalizing the revision of 40 CFR
63.2354(c) to add ASTM 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 for the determination of HAP content of an
organic liquid. We are also finalizing the replacement of method ASTM
D2879 with method ASTM D6378-18a as an acceptable method for
determination of whether a total vapor pressure (and, therefore, the
sum total of Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE
[[Page 40756]]
HAP) is below the threshold level requiring control for a storage tank.
The proposed electronic reporting requirements and the technical
and editorial corrections in Table 9 of the proposal (see 84 FR 56324,
October 21, 2019) have not changed, aside from some additional
editorial changes based on comments and the removal of the fenceline
monitoring alternative electronic reporting. Aside from these noted
differences from proposal, we are finalizing the electronic reporting
requirements and technical and editorial corrections.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the OLD
source category and what are our responses?
Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement in
40 CFR 63.2343(b)(5) and (6) that facilities conduct periodic vapor
pressure testing or obtain vapor pressure data from the organic liquid
supplier to demonstrate that the annual average true vapor pressure of
the organic liquid in each storage tank is below control thresholds.
Commenters argued that the addition of these two testing requirements
is burdensome and unnecessary, results in no HAP emissions reductions,
goes beyond what other NESHAP require for storage tanks, and should not
be finalized. Several commenters further objected to the proposed
requirement to use test method ASTM D6378-18a for storage tank vapor
pressure analyses. Commenters stated that the requirement that test
method ASTM D6378-18a must be used is impracticable and conflicts with
the wording of the control thresholds that are based on the annual
average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 HAP, not the total
annual average true vapor pressure of the liquid, which is the measured
result of ASTM D6378-18a. One commenter stated that periodic testing is
not needed, since inbound organic liquids HAP contents, and, thus,
calculated HAP partial pressures, are available from vendor and in-
house analyses and outbound materials are tested in developing the
required safety data sheet (SDS) for that material. Several commenters
also noted that other NESHAP have storage tank vapor pressure
thresholds for control but do not require regular testing to confirm
vapor pressure (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, GGG, and OOO).
Another commenter further argued that the requirement to conduct
periodic negative applicability determinations is precedent setting and
is not warranted. The commenter stated that the EPA has not provided
justification for the added requirement or provided an indication with
supporting data of the ``problem'' the Agency is trying to resolve. The
commenter further argued that facilities already have general
obligations under title V 5-year renewals to ensure permits include all
requirements applicable to a facility.
Response: The EPA acknowledges ASTM D6378-18a measures total vapor
pressure and not HAP vapor pressure, therefore, we are not finalizing
the periodic vapor pressure testing requirements due to lack of an
appropriate method to measure only HAP vapor pressure. However,
facilities may still use ASTM D6378-18a as a method for excluding tanks
from control due to the fact that if the total vapor pressure of the
liquid is less than the threshold for control, then the HAP vapor
pressure (which is a subset of the total vapor pressure) would also be
under the threshold. The EPA also acknowledges that the periodic 5-
percent HAP content testing requirement creates a potential scenario of
requiring sources to perform regular non-applicability determinations
for all tanks at major sources that could be duplicative, considering
the provisions of the OLD NESHAP are applied through a title V permit
requirement, and that there are 5-year renewal obligations for title V
permits. To be in compliance with their title V permit, OLD affected
sources have an ongoing obligation to ensure that tanks storing organic
liquids with greater than 5 percent HAP are meeting the OLD NESHAP
requirements. Therefore, we are not finalizing periodic HAP content
testing. Facilities will still be able to use Method 311, voluntary
consensus standards, SDS, and certified product data sheets, and
calculations as a means of determining applicability.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the other amendments for the OLD source category?
After evaluating the comments on the proposed periodic HAP and
vapor pressure testing requirements that were proposed, we are not
finalizing these requirements. As discussed above, we agree that there
are not any methods suitable to determine the organic HAP partial
pressure of a liquid, and that these requirements could create a
duplicative requirement scenario requiring sources to establish non-
applicability although a similar obligation already exists in their
title V permit. As we also explain, we have included ASTM 6378-18a in
the final rule as a method suitable for use for excluding tanks from
control. If the total vapor pressure of the liquid measured using ASTM
6378-18a is less than the vapor pressure threshold for control, then
the liquid being stored would, therefore, also be below the threshold
for control.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
There are 173 facilities currently operating OLD equipment subject
to the OLD NESHAP and four new facilities under construction. A
complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the OLD
NESHAP is available in appendix A of the memorandum, National Impacts
of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, which is available
in the docket for this action.
The 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 of 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 2020 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action. This final action would reduce HAP emissions from OLD
NESHAP sources. The EPA estimates HAP emission reductions of
approximately 186 tpy based on our analysis of the actions described in
sections IV.B and C of this preamble. More information about the
estimated emission reductions of this final action can be found in the
document, National Impacts of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.
[[Page 40757]]
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate the total capital costs of these final amendments to be
approximately $2.5 million and the total annualized costs (including
recovery credits) to be $1.8 million per year (2016$). We also estimate
the present value of the costs is $8.5 million at a discount rate of 3
percent and $7.1 million at 7 percent (2016$). Calculated as an
equivalent annualized value, which is consistent with the present value
of the costs, the costs are $1.1 million at a discount rate of 3
percent and $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent (2016$). The
annualized costs include those for operating and maintenance, and
recovery credits of approximately $170,000 per year from the reduction
in evaporative emissions from storage tanks. To estimate savings in
chemicals not being emitted (i.e., lost) due to the reduction in
evaporative emissions, we applied a recovery credit of $900 per ton of
VOC to the VOC emission reductions in the analyses. The $900 per ton
recovery credit has historically been used by the EPA to represent the
variety of chemicals that are used as reactants and produced at
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities.\7\ At proposal, we
solicited comment on the availability of more recent information to
potentially update the value used in this analysis to estimate the
recovery credits, but received none. We used an interest rate of 5
percent to annualize the total capital costs. These estimated costs are
associated with amendments of the requirements for storage tanks, LDAR,
flares, and transfer racks. Table 4 of this preamble shows the
estimated costs for each of the equipment types. Detailed information
about how we estimated these costs are described in the following
documents available in the docket for this action: National Impacts of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, and Economic Impact and
Small Business Analysis for the Final Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) (OLD) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA. 2007. Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks
of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry;
Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/E7-13203/standards-of-performance-for-equipment-leaks-of-voc-in-the-synthetic-organic-chemicals-manufacturing). Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0699.
Table 4--Summary of Costs of Final Amendments by Equipment Type, in Millions
[2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized
cost (without Annual Total annualized
Equipment type Capital cost annual recovery recovery cost (with annual
credits) credits recovery credits)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage tanks........................... 2.28 0.29 0.17 0.12
Tank Degassing.......................... 0.00 0.42 N/A 0.42
Flares.................................. 0.19 0.36 N/A 0.36
Deletion of 240-hr exemption for control 0.00 0.88 N/A 0.88
device maintenance during transfers
(Transfer racks).......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 2.47 1.95 0.17 1.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for the amendments to
the final rule, as detailed in the memorandum titled Economic Impact
and Small Business Analysis for the Final Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) (OLD) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this action. The economic impacts of the
amendments to the final rule are calculated as the percentage of total
annualized costs incurred by affected parent owners to their annual
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 final action will incur total annualized costs of 0.4
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 final action, and there will not be substantial
impacts on the markets for affected products. The costs 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 186 tpy of HAP associated with this action. However, we
expect this action will result in benefits associated with HAP emission
reductions and lower risk of adverse health effects in communities near
OLD sources.
While not explicitly calculated, we expect reductions in MIR,
population exposed to a cancer risk of greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million, and in other risks metrics such as incidence, acute risk,
multipathway risks, and ecological risks from the estimated emission
reductions.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
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 risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the OLD
source category across different demographic
[[Page 40758]]
groups within the populations living near facilities.
At proposal, we noted that 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 final rule revisions will benefit these groups the most.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis \8\ are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Operations, that is
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note that, based on public comments, there are four fewer
existing OLD affected sources now than at proposal. However, this
change does not warrant an update to this analysis since proposal
and has, therefore, not been updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in section
IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the risk report,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this action.
VI. 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 Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1963.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing amendments that change the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for OLD operations. The amendments also
require electronic reporting of performance test results and reports
and compliance reports. The information will be collected to ensure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. The total estimated
burden and cost for reporting and recordkeeping due to these amendments
are presented below and are not intended to be cumulative estimates
that include the burden associated with the requirements of the
existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of OLD
operations at major sources of HAP are affected by these 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: 177 facilities.
Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.
Total estimated burden: 4,111 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $570,132 (per year), which includes $154,000
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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this 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. Of the
90 ultimate parent companies that are subject to this action, ten of
them are small according to the Small Business Administration's small
business size standards. None of the affected small parent companies
are expected to have compliance costs of more than 0.4 percent of their
sales. For more information on the analysis, see the Economic Impact
and Small Business Analysis for the Final Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) (OLD) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, 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 OLD facilities that have been
identified as being affected by this final 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, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental
[[Page 40759]]
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in sections IV.A of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This rulemaking involves technical standards. As discussed in the
preamble of the proposal, 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA Method 3B manual
portion only and not the instrumental portion. Therefore, we are adding
this standard as a footnote to item 1.a.i.(3) of Table 5 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE and incorporate this standard by reference at 40 CFR
63.14(e)(1). ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 specifies methods,
apparatus, and calculations that are used in conjunction with
Performance Test Codes to quantify the gaseous constituents of exhausts
from stationary combustion sources. The gases covered include oxygen,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur
trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons.
(2) The VCS ASTM D6420-18, ``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 EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all
known, and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as
measurable. ASTM D6420-18 uses a direct interface gas chromatograph/
mass spectrometer to identify and quantify 36 VOC (or a subset of these
compounds), however, ASTM D6420-18 should not be specified as a total
VOC method. Therefore, we are adding 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 updating 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 removing
reference to the old version of this standard at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(90)
for use in the OLD NESHAP.
(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 EPA
Method 26 or EPA 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 decision 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. This standard is not being incorporated by reference.
(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 EPA Method 311. However, we are not
specifying 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.
This standard is not being incorporated by reference.
(5) The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds
by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,''
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320. In the September 22,
2008, NTTAA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to
EPA Method 320 with caveats. 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 spike gas cylinder, but still
lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. The VCS
ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive
Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this time with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
This field test method uses an extractive sampling system to direct
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer to identify and
quantify gaseous compounds with results as a concentration. We are
allowing the use of this VCS as an alternative to EPA 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 incorporating this method at 40 CFR 63.14(e)(85) for use in
the OLD NESHAP.
(6) The VCS ISO 16017-2:2003 (R2014), ``Indoor, Ambient and
Workplace Air Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds by
Sorbent Tube/Thermal Desorption/
[[Page 40760]]
Capillary Gas Chromatography--Part 2: Diffusive Sampling,'' is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 325B. This VCS is already
incorporated by reference in EPA 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
EPA Methods 325A and 325B. This VCS is already incorporated by
reference in EPA Method 325B.
Additionally, the EPA is using ASTM D6886-18, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas
Chromatography.'' ASTM D6886-18 is 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., EPA Method 311).
The ASTM standards newly incorporated by reference in this rule are
available to the public for free viewing online in the Reading Room
section on ASTM's website at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. In
addition to this free online viewing availability on ASTM's website,
hard copies and printable versions are available for purchase from
ASTM.
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).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and in the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 12, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 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--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(1);
0
b. In paragraphs (h)(31) and (32), by removing ``63.2406,'';
0
c. By revising paragraphs (h)(83) and (85);
0
d. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(101) through (113) as paragraphs
(h)(104) through (115), respectively;
0
e. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(91) and (93); and
0
f. By adding new paragraph (h)(103).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 September 5, 2020 Incorporations by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the 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 notice of change 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),
63.997(e), 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, table 3 to
subpart YYYY, 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) * * *
(31) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, Approved 1983, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.111,
63.1402, and 63.12005.
(32) ASTM D2879-96, Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, Approved 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.111, and
63.12005.
* * * * *
(83) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved
October 1, 2003, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.457(b), 63.997(e), and
63.1349, table 4 to subpart DDDD, table 5 to subpart EEEE, table 4 to
subpart UUUU, table 4 subpart ZZZZ, and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
(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. 63.997(e), 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), table 5 to subpart
EEEE, and table 4 to subpart UUUU.
* * * * *
(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), 63.772(a), 63.772(e), 63.1282(a) and
(d), and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
[[Page 40761]]
(93) ASTM D6420-18, Test Method for Determination of Gaseous
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry, (Approved November 1, 2018), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.987(b), 63.997(e), 63.2354(b), and table 5 to subpart EEEE.
* * * * *
(103) 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).
* * * * *
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, adding paragraph (b) introductory text, revising paragraph (d),
and adding paragraph (e) 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 (5) of this
section upon initial startup or July 7, 2023, 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 (5) of this section upon initial startup or
July 7, 2020, whichever is later.
(1) The requirements for storage tanks not requiring control
specified in Sec. 63.2343(b)(4).
(2) The requirements for storage tanks at an existing affected
source specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2346(a)(5) and (6),
63.2386(d)(3)(iii), 63.2396(a)(4), footnote (2) to Table 2 to this
subpart, and Table 2b to this subpart.
(3) The flare requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2346(k),
63.2382(d)(2)(ix), 63.2386(d)(5), 63.2390(h), footnote (1) to Table 2
to this subpart, item 7.d, to Table 3 to this subpart, items 1.a.iii
and 2.a.iii of Table 8 to this subpart, and item 7.e of Table 9 to this
subpart.
(4) The requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2346(l),
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), footnote (1) to
Table 9 to this subpart, and items 1.a.i and 2.a.ii of Table 10 to this
subpart.
(5) The performance testing requirements specified in Sec.
63.2354(b)(6).
0
5. Section 63.2343 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b)
introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(4); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii).
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 (d) 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) 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 this paragraph (a) 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 this
paragraph (a) on a plant site plan or process and instrumentation
diagram (P&ID).
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) 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 (3) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
of this section apply to the following storage tanks:
(i) 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 to this subpart, items 1 through 3.
(ii) 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.
(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 this paragraph (c) (i.e., a single Notification of
Compliance Status or first Compliance report should be submitted).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.2346 is amended by:
[[Page 40762]]
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1) and (2),
(a)(4)(ii) and (iv), (a)(4)(v) introductory text, and (a)(4)(v)(A);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5) and (6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), (c), (d)(2), (e), (f), and (i);
and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (k) and (l).
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 paragraphs (a)(5) and (6)
and (l) 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 (l) of this section and the
applicable requirements specified in subpart SS of this part, 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 subpart SS of this part. If you comply with this
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in
paragraph (l) 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,
subparts E (for cargo tanks) and 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) 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) and paragraph (a)(6) of
this section.
(6) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), tank emissions during storage tank shutdown operations
(i.e., emptying and degassing of a storage tank) for each storage tank
at an affected source storing organic liquids that meets the tank
capacity and liquid vapor pressure criteria for control in items 3
through 6 of Table 2 to this subpart, or items 1 through 3 of Table 2b
to this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through
(iii) of this section during tank emptying and degassing until the
vapor space concentration in the tank is less than 10 percent of the
lower explosive limit (LEL). The owner or operator must determine the
LEL using process instrumentation or portable measurement devices and
follow procedures for calibration and maintenance according to
manufacturer's specifications.
(i) Remove organic liquids from the storage tank as much as
practicable;
(ii) Comply with either of the following:
(A) The requirements of Table 2 or 2b to this subpart, item 1.a.i.
as applicable; OR,
(B) The requirements of Table 4 to this subpart, item 1.b.
(iii) Comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.2350(d) for each
storage tank shutdown event and maintain records necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Sec. 63.2350(d)
including, if appropriate, records of existing standard site procedures
used to empty and degas (deinventory) equipment for safety purposes.
(b) * * *
(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart
and comply with paragraph (l) of this section and the applicable
requirements for transfer racks specified in subpart SS of this part,
for meeting emission limits.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into a process as
specified in subpart SS of this part. If you comply with this
paragraph, then you must also comply with the requirements specified in
paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Equipment leak components. 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 (l) of this section and
the applicable requirements under subpart TT of this part (control
level 1), subpart UU of this part (control level 2), or subpart H of
this part. 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 (l) of this section and the requirements for
monitored parameters as specified in subpart SS of this part, 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 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,
[[Page 40763]]
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 July 7, 2023, 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 that is subject to control based on the criteria specified in
Tables 2 or 2b to this subpart, 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) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), the referenced
provisions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (20) of this section
do not apply when demonstrating compliance with subpart H of this part,
subpart SS of this part, subpart TT of this part, and subpart UU of
this part.
(1) The second sentence of Sec. 63.181(d)(5)(i).
(2) The second sentence of Sec. 63.983(a)(5).
(3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.984(a).
(4) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.985(a).
(5) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D).
(6) Sec. 63.996(c)(2)(ii).
(7) The last sentence of Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i).
(8) Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(iii).
(9) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A).
(10) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(B)(3).
(11) The phrase ``other than periods of start-ups, shutdowns or
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C).
(12) The phrase ``other than a start-up, shutdown or malfunction''
from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(ii)(C).
(13) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i).
(14) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii).
(15) Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G).
(16) Sec. 63.998(d)(3).
(17) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the
source, or'' from Sec. 63.1005(e)(4)(i).
(18) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the
source, or'' from Sec. 63.1024(f)(4)(i).
(19) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A).
(20) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A).
0
7. Section 63.2350 is revised to read as follows:
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 July 7, 2023, this paragraph
no longer applies; however, for historical compliance purposes, a copy
of the plan must be retained and available according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.2394(c) for five years after July 7, 2023.
(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
8. Section 63.2354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and (b)(1), (3), (4), and (5);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. 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 subpart SS of this part. You must also comply
with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(l).
(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 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7), to determine compliance with the TOC emission limit, you may use
Method 18 (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
[[Page 40764]]
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 (40 CFR 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 (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
of appendix A to this part, Method 320 of appendix A to this part, 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 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)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) 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.
(ii) Pursuant to paragraph (b)(6)(i) 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(l).
(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 311of
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 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter: Performance
Specification 8, Performance Specification 8A, Performance
Specification 9, or Performance Specification 15. You must also comply
with the requirements of procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this
chapter, for CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A.
(1) For CEMS using Performance Specification 9 or 15 (40 CFR part
60,
[[Page 40765]]
appendix B), determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using
either process knowledge or the screening procedures of Method 18 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-6).
(2) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8A (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B), conduct the relative accuracy test audits required under
Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F) in accordance with Sections 8
and 11 of Performance Specification 8 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). The
relative accuracy must meet the criteria of Section 13.2 of Performance
Speciation 8 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).
(3) For CEMS using Performance Specification 8 or 8A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix B, 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 (40
CFR part 60, appendix B), to certify your oxygen CEMS, and you must
comply with procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix F). Use Method 3A (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-2), as the reference method when conducting a
relative accuracy test audit.
0
9. 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 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 July 7, 2023, whichever is later, except as provided in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) and (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 July 7, 2030.
(ii) For storage tanks complying with item 1.a.ii. in Table 2b to
this subpart and item 1.b. or 1.c. in Table 4 to this subpart, you must
comply within 180 days after July 7, 2023.
* * * * *
0
10. 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) * * *
(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, subparts E (cargo tanks) and F (tank cars).
0
11. 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 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(l) and the applicable requirements for CPMS in subpart SS of
this part and Sec. 63.671, 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 subpart SS of this part, for monitoring plans.
You must also comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2346(l).
(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) and (3), (c)(4)(ii), and
(c)(7) and (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
12. 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
13. Section 63.2374 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[[Page 40766]]
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 subpart SS of
this part, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You must also
comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(l).
* * * * *
0
14. Section 63.2378 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, (b)(2), (c), and (d), and adding paragraphs (e) and
(f) 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 subpart SS of this part, and in Tables 8 through 10 to
this subpart, as applicable. You must also comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2346(l).
(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.
* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *
(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 and must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5)
of this section, as applicable. 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).
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(3) through (5) of this
section, 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.
(2) If you are subject to the bypass monitoring requirements of
Sec. 63.983(a)(3), then you must continue to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.983(a)(3) and the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) and 63.999(c)(2), in
addition to Sec. 63.2346(l), the recordkeeping requirements specified
in Sec. 63.2390(g), and the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
63.2386(c)(12).
(3) Periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device used
to control storage tank breathing loss emissions, during which the
control device does not meet the emission limits in Table 2 or 2b to
this subpart, must not exceed 240 hours per year. The level of material
in the storage vessel shall not be increased during periods that the
closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine
maintenance.
(4) If you elect to route emissions from storage tanks 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 or 2b to this subpart, the total
aggregate amount of time during which the breathing loss emissions
bypass the fuel gas system or process during the calendar year without
being routed to a control device, for all reasons (except product
changeovers of flexible operation units and periods when a storage tank
has been emptied and degassed), must not exceed 240 hours. The level of
material in the storage vessel shall not be increased during periods
that the fuel gas system or process is bypassed to perform routine
maintenance.
(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
15. Section 63.2380 is added before the undesignated center heading
``Notifications, Reports, and Records'' 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 that is subject to
control based on the criteria specified in Tables 2 or 2b to this
subpart, then the flare requirements specified in Sec. 63.11(b);
subpart SS of this part; the provisions specified in items 7.a
[[Page 40767]]
through 7.d of Table 3 to this subpart; 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, including the provisions in Tables 12 and
13 to subpart CC of this part, except as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (m) of this section. For purposes of compliance with this
paragraph, the following terms are defined in Sec. 63.641: 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) do not apply:
(1) ``Specify the smokeless design capacity of each flare and'';
and
(2) ``And 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) does not
apply.
(d) Section 63.670(j)(6)(ii) does not apply. Instead submit the
information required by Sec. 63.670(j)(6)(ii) with the Notification of
Compliance Status according to Sec. 63.2382(d)(2)(ix).
(e) Section 63.670(o) does not apply.
(f) Substitute ``pilot flame or flare flame'' or each occurrence of
``pilot flame.''
(g) Substitute ``affected source'' for each occurrence of
``petroleum refinery.''
(h) Each occurrence of ``refinery'' does not apply.
(i) You may elect to comply with the alternative means of emissions
limitation requirements specified in Sec. 63.670(r)in lieu of the
requirements in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f), as applicable. However,
instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(r)(3)(iii), 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].
(j) 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 (j)(1)
through (7) of this section.
(1) You must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.671(e)(2). You may
augment the minimum list of calibration gas components found in Sec.
63.671(e)(2) 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
Specification (PS) 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) 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 of PS 9 and performing the
periodic calibration requirements listed for gas chromatographs in
Table 13 to subpart CC of this part, for the process mass spectrometer.
You may use the alternative sampling line temperature allowed under Net
Heating Value by Gas Chromatograph in Table 13 to subpart CC of this
part.
(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] TR07JY20.001
Where:
Cm = Average instrument response (ppm)
Ca = Certified cylinder gas value (ppm)
(k) 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] TR07JY20.000
Where:
NHVmeasured = Average instrument response (Btu/scf)
NHVa = Certified cylinder gas value (Btu/scf)
(l) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(p), you must keep the
flare monitoring records specified in Sec. 63.2390(h).
(m) Instead of complying with Sec. 63.670(q), you must comply with
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.2382(d)(2)(ix) and
Sec. 63.2386(d)(5).
0
16. Section 63.2382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(1),
(d)(2) introductory text, (d)(2)(ii), (vi), and (vii), and adding
paragraphs (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
[[Page 40768]]
section. You must also comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.2346(l).
* * * * *
(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) Notification of Compliance Status requirements. 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.
(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), 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 (including information required by Sec.
63.670(j)(6)(i), as applicable), flow rate measurements, and exit
velocity determinations made during the initial visible emissions
demonstration required by Sec. 63.670(h), as applicable; and all
periods during the compliance determination when the pilot flame or
flare flame is absent.
(3) Submitting Notification of Compliance Status. 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
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
17. Section 63.2386 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (c) introductory
text, (c)(2), (3), (5), and (9);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(11) and (12);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, (d)(1) introductory text,
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(vii), (ix), and (x);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(xiii) through (xv);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i);
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iv);
0
g. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
0
h. Adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
i. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (f) through (j).
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 (j) of this section that applies to you. You must also comply
with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(l).
(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).
* * * * *
(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), for bypass lines subject to the requirements Sec.
63.2378(e)(1) and (2), the compliance report must include the start
date, start time, duration in hours, estimate of the volume of gas in
[[Page 40769]]
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 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. Instead for each storage tank subject to control requirements,
include the start date, start time, end date and end time of any
planned routine maintenance during which the control device used to
control storage tank breathing losses did not comply with the
applicable emission limits in Table 2 or 2b to this subpart.
(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.
* * * * *
(5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
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).
(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 or flare 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) 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
[[Page 40770]]
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. Unless the
Administrator or delegated state agency or other authority has approved
a different schedule for submission of reports under Sec. Sec. 63.9(i)
and 63.10(a), 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. Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, 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.
(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. Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
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 CEMS 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 CEMS 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
[[Page 40771]]
(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.
0
18. Section 63.2390 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2) and (3), and (d);
and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (f) through (h).
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(l).
(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(l).
(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 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-8 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)(1) and (2), 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 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
[[Page 40772]]
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).
(1) Retain records of the output of the monitoring device used to
detect the presence of a pilot flame or flare flame as required in
Sec. 63.670(b) 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 or flare flame is present when regulated material is routed to a
flare for a minimum of 5 years. You may reduce the collected minute-by-
minute data to a 15-minute block basis with an indication of whether
there was at least one minute where no pilot flame or flare flame was
present.
(2) Retain records of daily visible emissions observations or video
surveillance images required in Sec. 63.670(h) 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 of 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), 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). 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), as
applicable.
(6) All periods during which operating values are outside of the
applicable operating limits specified in Sec. 63.670(d) through (f)
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).
(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. 63.671(b).
(10) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi).
0
19. Section 63.2396 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) and (2);
0
d. Adding paragraph (d); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
The revisions and additions 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 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.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you
have pumps, valves, or sampling connections that are subject to a 40
CFR part 60 subpart, and those 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 pumps, valves, or sampling connections subject to subpart GGG of
this part, and those 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.
(d) Overlap of subpart EEEE with other regulations for flares for
the OLD source category. (1) Beginning no later than the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to Sec.
60.18 of this chapter or Sec. 63.11 and used as a control device for
an emission point subject to the requirements in Tables 2 or 2b to of
this subpart are required to comply only with Sec. 63.2380. At any
time before the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), flares
that are subject to Sec. 60.18 or Sec. 63.11 and elect to comply with
Sec. 63.2380 are required to comply only with Sec. 63.2380.
(2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), flares that are subject to Sec. 63.987 and used as a
control device for an emission point subject to the requirements in
Tables 2 or 2b to this subpart are required to comply only with Sec.
63.2380. At any time before the compliance dates specified in
[[Page 40773]]
Sec. 63.2342(e), flares that are subject to Sec. Sec. 63.987 and
elect to comply with Sec. 63.2380 are required to comply only with
Sec. 63.2380.
(3) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), flares that are subject to the requirements of subpart CC
of this part and used as a control device for an emission point subject
to the requirements in Tables 2 or 2b to this subpart are required to
comply only with the flare requirements in subpart CC of this part.
(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 subpart of this part to the 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 subpart of this part, 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(d).
0
20. Section 63.2402 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraph (b)(5) 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 subpart E of
this part, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
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.
0
21. Section 63.2406 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Annual average true vapor pressure'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Condensate'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``Deviation'' and ``Equipment leak
component'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Force majeure
event'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Organic liquid'';
0
f. Adding definitions in alphabetical order for ``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 organic HAP in Table 1 to this subpart 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 to this
subpart, items 1 through 6, or Table 2b to this subpart, 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 July 7, 2023, fails to meet any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard in this
subpart during SSM. On and after July 7, 2023, 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.
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
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).
* * * * *
[[Page 40774]]
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-8. 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
22. 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
subpart SS of this
part and Sec.
63.2346(l); OR
ii. Comply with the
work practice
standards specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart, items 1.a,
1.b, or 1.c for
tanks storing
liquids described
in that table.
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
2. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. See the
existing affected source organic liquid is requirement in item
with a capacity >=189.3 not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
cubic meters (50,000 condensate and if this table.
gallons). the annual average
true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
3. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=18.9 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (5,000 gallons) and the annual average
<37.9 cubic meters (10,000 true vapor pressure
gallons). of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=27.6
kilopascals (4.0
psia) and <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
4. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=37.9 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (10,000 gallons) and the annual average
<189.3 cubic meters (50,000 true vapor pressure
gallons). of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=0.7
kilopascals (0.1
psia) and <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
5. A storage tank at a a. The stored i. See the
reconstructed or new organic liquid is requirement in item
affected source with a not crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
capacity >=189.3 cubic condensate and if this table.
meters (50,000 gallons). the annual average
true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is <76.6
kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
condensate. this table.
[[Page 40775]]
6. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. Reduce emissions
existing, reconstructed, or organic liquid is of total organic
new affected source meeting not crude oil or HAP (or, upon
the capacity criteria condensate and if approval, TOC) by
specified in Table 2 to the annual average at least 95 weight-
this subpart, items 1 true vapor pressure percent or, as an
through 5. of the total Table option, to an
1 organic HAP in exhaust
the stored organic concentration less
liquid is >=76.6 than or equal to 20
kilopascals (11.1 ppmv, on a dry
psia). basis corrected to
3-percent oxygen
for combustion
devices using
supplemental
combustion air, by
venting emissions
through a closed
vent system to any
combination of
control devices
meeting the
applicable
requirements of
subpart SS of this
part and Sec.
63.2346(l); OR
ii. Comply with the
work practice
standards specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart, item 2.a
or 2.b, for tanks
storing the liquids
described in that
table.
7. A transfer rack at an a. The total Table 1 i. For all such
existing facility where the organic HAP content loading arms at the
total actual annual of the organic rack, reduce
facility-level organic liquid being loaded emissions of total
liquid loading volume through one or more organic HAP (or,
through transfer racks is of the transfer upon approval, TOC)
equal to or greater than rack's arms is at from the loading of
800,000 gallons and less least 98 percent by organic liquids
than 10 million gallons. weight and is being either by venting
loaded into a the emissions that
transport vehicle. occur during
loading through a
closed vent system
to any combination
of control devices
meeting the
applicable
requirements of
subpart SS of this
part and Sec.
63.2346(l),
achieving at least
98 weight-percent
HAP reduction, OR,
as an option, to an
exhaust
concentration less
than or equal to 20
ppmv, on a dry
basis corrected to
3-percent oxygen
for combustion
devices using
supplemental
combustion air; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item 3
of Table 4 to this
subpart.
8. A transfer rack at an a. One or more of i. See the
existing facility where the the transfer rack's requirements in
total actual annual arms is loading an items 7.a.i and
facility-level organic organic liquid into 7.a.ii of this
liquid loading volume a transport vehicle. table.
through transfer racks is
>=10 million gallons.
9. A transfer rack at a new a. The total Table 1 i. See the
facility where the total organic HAP content requirements in
actual annual facility- of the organic items 7.a.i and
level organic liquid liquid being loaded 7.a.ii of this
loading volume through through one or more table.
transfer racks is less than of the transfer
800,000 gallons. rack's arms is at
least 25 percent by
weight and is being
loaded into a
transport vehicle.
b. One or more of i. For all such
the transfer rack's loading arms at the
arms is filling a rack during the
container with a loading of organic
capacity equal to liquids, comply
or greater than 55 with the provisions
gallons. of Sec. Sec.
63.924 through
63.927; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item
3.a of Table 4 to
this subpart.
10. A transfer rack at a new a. One or more of i. See the
facility where the total the transfer rack's requirements in
actual annual facility- arms is loading an items 7.a.i and
level organic liquid organic liquid into 7.a.ii of this
loading volume through a transport vehicle. table.
transfer racks is equal to
or greater than 800,000
gallons.
b. One or more of i. For all such
the transfer rack's loading arms at the
arms is filling a rack during the
container with a loading of organic
capacity equal to liquids, comply
or greater than 55 with the provisions
gallons. of Sec. Sec.
63.924 through
63.927; OR
ii. During the
loading of organic
liquids, comply
with the work
practice standards
specified in item
3.a of Table 4 to
this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), for each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, if
you vent emissions through a closed vent system to a flare then you
must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(k).
\2\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the tank capacity criteria, liquid vapor pressure
criteria, and emission limits specified for storage tanks at an
existing affected source in Table 2 to this subpart, item 1 no longer
apply. Instead, you must comply with the requirements as specified in
Sec. 63.2346(a)(5) and Table 2b to this subpart.
0
23. Subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by adding Table 2b to read as
follows:
Table 2b to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Emission Limits For Storage Tanks
At Certain Existing Affected Sources
As stated in Sec. 63.2346(a)(5), beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342(e), the requirements in
this Table 2b to this subpart apply to storage tanks at an existing
affected source in lieu of the requirements in Table 2 to this subpart,
item 1 for storage tanks at an existing affected source.
[[Page 40776]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. Reduce emissions
existing affected source 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 <75.7 cubic the annual average at least 95 weight-
meters (20,000 gallons). 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). 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
Sec. Sec. 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
subpart SS of this
part and Sec.
63.2346(l); 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 ii of this
condensate. 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 >=75.7 not crude oil or 1.a.i or ii of this
cubic meters (20,000 condensate and if table.
gallons) and <151.4 cubic the annual average
meters (40,000 gallons). true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=13.1
kilopascals (1.9
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or ii of this
condensate. table.
3. A storage tank at an a. The stored i. See the
existing affected source organic liquid is requirement in item
with a capacity >=151.4 not crude oil or 1.a.i or ii of this
cubic meters (40,000 condensate and if table.
gallons) and <189.3 cubic the annual average
meters (50,000 gallons). true vapor pressure
of the total Table
1 organic HAP in
the stored organic
liquid is >=5.2
kilopascals (0.75
psia).
b. The stored i. See the
organic liquid is requirement in item
crude oil or 1.a.i or ii of this
condensate. table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
24. Table 3 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Operating Limits--High Throughput
Transfer Racks
As stated in Sec. 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating
limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each existing, each reconstructed,
and each new affected source using . . You must . . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an Maintain the daily average fire
emission limit in Table 2 to this box or combustion zone
subpart. 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 a. Replace the existing
an emission limit in Table 2 to this catalyst bed before the age of
subpart. 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.
3. An absorber to comply with an a. Maintain the daily average
emission limit in Table 2 to this concentration level of organic
subpart. 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
[[Page 40777]]
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.
4. A condenser to comply with an a. Maintain the daily average
emission limit in Table 2 to this concentration level of organic
subpart. 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.
5. An adsorption system with adsorbent a. Maintain the daily average
regeneration to comply with an concentration level of organic
emission limit in Table 2 to this compounds in the adsorber
subpart. 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.
6. An adsorption system without a. Maintain the daily average
adsorbent regeneration to comply with concentration level of organic
an emission limit in Table 2 to this compounds in the adsorber
subpart. 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.
7. A flare to comply with an emission a. Except as specified in item
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 7.d of this table, comply with
the equipment and operating
requirements in Sec.
63.987(a); AND
b. Except as specified in item
7.d of this table, conduct an
initial flare compliance
assessment in accordance with
Sec. 63.987(b); AND
c. Except as specified in item
7.d of this table, install and
operate monitoring equipment
as specified in Sec.
63.987(c).
d. Beginning no later than the
compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.2342(e), comply with
the requirements in Sec.
63.2380 instead of the
requirements in Sec. 63.987
and the provisions regarding
flare compliance assessments
at Sec. 63.997(a), (b), and
(c).
8. Another type of control device to Submit a monitoring plan as
comply with an emission limit in Table specified in Sec. Sec.
2 to this subpart. 63.995(c) and 63.2366(b), and
monitor the control device in
accordance with that plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
25. Table 4 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
As stated in Sec. 63.2346, you may elect to comply with one of the
work practice standards for existing, reconstructed, or new affected
sources in the following table. If you elect to do so, . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing, a. Comply with the requirements
reconstructed, or new affected source of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW
meeting any set of tank capacity and (control level 2), if you
organic HAP vapor pressure criteria elect to meet 40 CFR part 63,
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, subpart WW (control level 2)
items 1 through 5 or Table 2b to this requirements as an alternative
subpart, items 1 through 3. 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.
[[Page 40778]]
b. Comply with the requirements
in Sec. Sec. 63.2346(l) and
63.984 for routing emissions
to a fuel gas system or back
to a process; OR.
c. Comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.2346(a)(4) for
vapor balancing emissions to
the transport vehicle from
which the storage tank is
filled.
2. Storage tank at an existing, a. Comply with the requirements
reconstructed, or new affected source in Sec. Sec. 63.2346(l) and
meeting any set of tank capacity and 63.984 for routing emissions
organic HAP vapor pressure criteria to a fuel gas system or back
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, to a process; OR
item 6. b. Comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.2346(a)(4) for
vapor balancing emissions to
the transport vehicle from
which the storage tank is
filled.
3. Transfer rack subject to control a. If the option of a vapor
based on the criteria specified in balancing system is selected,
Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 install and, during the
through 10, at an existing, loading of organic liquids,
reconstructed, or new affected source. 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 Sec. Sec. 63.2346(l) and
63.984 during the loading of
organic liquids, for routing
emissions to a fuel gas system
or back to a process.
4. Pump, valve, and sampling connection Comply with Sec. 63.2346(l)
that operates in organic liquids and the requirements for
service at least 300 hours per year at pumps, valves, and sampling
an existing, reconstructed, or new connections in 40 CFR part 63,
affected source. subpart TT (control level 1),
subpart UU (control level 2),
or subpart H.
5. Transport vehicles equipped with Follow the steps in 40 CFR
vapor collection equipment that are 60.502(e) to ensure that
loaded at transfer racks that are organic liquids are loaded
subject to control based on the only into vapor-tight
criteria specified in Table 2 to this transport vehicles, and comply
subpart, items 7 through 10. 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.
6. Transport vehicles equipped without Ensure that organic liquids are
vapor collection equipment that are loaded only into transport
loaded at transfer racks that are vehicles that have a current
subject to control based on the certification in accordance
criteria specified in Table 2 to this with the U.S. DOT
subpart, items 7 through 10. qualification and maintenance
requirements in 49 CFR part
180, subpart E for cargo tanks
and subpart F for tank cars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Table 5 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
and Design Evaluations
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2354(a) and 63.2362, you must comply
with the requirements for performance tests and design evaluations for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must conduct . . . According to . . . Using . . . To determine . . . following
requirements . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each existing, each a. A performance test i. Sec. (1) Method 1 or 1A in (A) Sampling port (i) Sampling sites
reconstructed, and each new to determine the 63.985(b)(1)(ii), appendix A-1 of 40 locations and the must be located at
affected source using a nonflare organic HAP (or, upon Sec. 63.988(b), CFR part 60, as required number of the inlet and outlet
control device to comply with an a pproval, TOC) Sec. 63.990(b), or appropriate. traverse points. of each control
emission limit in Table 2 to this control efficiency of Sec. 63.995(b). device if complying
subpart, items 1 through 10, and each nonflare control with the control
each existing affected source device, OR the efficiency
using a nonflare control device to exhaust concentration requirement or at
comply with an emission limit in of each combustion the outlet of the
Table 2b to this subpart, items 1 device; OR control device if
through 3. complying with the
exhaust
concentration
requirement; AND
(ii) the outlet
sampling site must
be located at each
control device prior
to any releases to
the atmosphere.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, (A) Stack gas See the requirements
2D, or 2F in velocity and in items
appendix A-1 of 40 volumetric flow rate. 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
CFR part 60, or (ii) of this table.
Method 2G in
appendix A-2 of 40
CFR part 60, as
appropriate.
(3) Method 3A or 3B (A) Concentration of See the requirements
in appendix A-2 of CO2 and O2 and dry in items
40 CFR part 60, as molecular weight of 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
appropriate \1\. the stack gas. (ii) of this table.
(4) Method 4 in (A) Moisture content See the requirements
appendix A-3 of 40 of the stack gas. in items
CFR part 60. 1.a.i.(1)(A)(i) and
(ii) of this table.
[[Page 40779]]
(5) Method 25 or 25A (A) TOC and (i) The organic HAP
in appendix A-7 of formaldehyde used for the
40 CFR part 60, as emissions, from any calibration gas for
appropriate. Method control device. Method 25A in
316, Method 320 \4\, appendix A-7 of 40
or Method 323 in CFR part 60 must be
appendix A of this the single organic
part if you must HAP representing the
measure largest percent by
formaldehyde. You volume of emissions;
may not use Methods AND
320 2 4 or 323 for (ii) During the
formaldehyde if the performance test,
gas stream contains you must establish
entrained water the operating
droplets. parameter limits
within which TOC
emissions are
reduced by the
required weight-
percent or, as an
option for nonflare
combustion devices,
to 20-ppmv exhaust
concentration.
(6) Method 18 \3\ in (A) Total organic HAP (i) During the
appendix A-6 of 40 and formaldehyde performance test,
CFR part 60 or emissions, from non- you must establish
Method 320 2 4 of combustion control the operating
appendix A to this devices. parameter limits
part, as within which total
appropriate. Method organic HAP
316, Method 320 2 4, emissions are
or Method 323 in reduced by the
appendix A of this required weight-
part for measuring percent.
formaldehyde. You
may not use Methods
320 or 323 if the
gas stream contains
entrained water
droplets.
b. A design evaluation Sec. 63.985(b)(1)(i) During a design
(for nonflare control evaluation, you must
devices) to determine establish the
the organic HAP (or, operating parameter
upon approval, TOC) limits within which
control efficiency of total organic HAP,
each nonflare control (or, upon approval,
device, or the TOC) emissions are
exhaust concentration reduced by at least
of each combustion 95 weight-percent
control device. for storage tanks or
98 weight-percent
for transfer racks,
or, as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices, to 20-ppmv
exhaust
concentration.
2. Each transport vehicle that you A performance test to Method 27 of appendix Vapor tightness...... The pressure change
own that is equipped with vapor determine the vapor A of 40 CFR part 60. in the tank must be
collection equipment and is loaded tightness of the tank no more than 250
with organic liquids at a transfer and then repair as pascals (1 inch of
rack that is subject to control needed until it water) in 5 minutes
based on the criteria specified in passes the test. after it is
Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 pressurized to 4,500
through 10, at an existing, pascals (18 inches
reconstructed, or new affected of water).
source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The manual method in American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PTC 19.10-1981-Part 10 (2010) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may
be used instead of Method 3B in appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine oxygen concentration.
\2\ All compounds quantified by Method 320 of appendix A to this part must be validated according to Section 13.0 of Method 320.
\3\ ASTM D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used instead of Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 to determine total HAP
emissions, but if you use ASTM D6420-18, you must use it under the conditions specified in Sec. 63.2354(b)(3)(ii).
\4\ ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used instead of Method 320 of appendix A to this part under the following
conditions: the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM 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.
[[Page 40780]]
0
27. Table 6 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows
for items 1 and 2 to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2370(a) and 63.2382(b), you must show
initial compliance with the emission limits for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . For the following demonstrated initial
emission limit . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an Reduce total organic Total organic HAP
existing, reconstructed, or HAP (or, upon (or, upon approval,
new affected source meeting approval, TOC) TOC) emissions,
any set of tank capacity emissions by at based on the
and liquid organic HAP least 95 weight- results of the
vapor pressure criteria percent, or as an performance testing
specified in Table 2 to option for nonflare or design
this subpart, items 1 combustion devices evaluation
through 6, or Table 2b to to an exhaust specified in Table
this subpart, items 1 concentration of 5 to this subpart,
through 3. <=20 ppmv. item 1.a or 1.b,
respectively, are
reduced by at least
95 weight-percent
or as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices to an
exhaust
concentration <=20
ppmv.
2. Transfer rack that is Reduce total organic Total organic HAP
subject to control based on HAP (or, upon (or, upon approval,
the criteria specified in approval, TOC) TOC) emissions from
Table 2 to this subpart, emissions from the the loading of
items 7 through 10, at an loading of organic organic liquids,
existing, reconstructed, or liquids by at least based on the
new affected source. 98 weight-percent, results of the
or as an option for performance testing
nonflare combustion or design
devices to an evaluation
exhaust specified in Table
concentration of 5 to this subpart,
<=20 ppmv. item 1.a or 1.b,
respectively, are
reduced by at least
98 weight-percent
or as an option for
nonflare combustion
devices to an
exhaust
concentration of
<=20 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
28. Table 7 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is amended by revising the rows
for items 1, 3, and 4 to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Work
Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . If you . . . demonstrated initial
compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an a. Install a i. After emptying
existing affected source floating roof or and degassing, you
meeting either set of tank equivalent control visually inspect
capacity and liquid organic that meets the each internal
HAP vapor pressure criteria requirements in floating roof
specified in Table 2 to Table 4 to this before the
this subpart, items 1 or 2, subpart, item 1.a. refilling of the
or Table 2b to this storage tank and
subpart, items 1 through 3. perform seal gap
inspections of the
primary and
secondary rim seals
of each external
floating roof
within 90 days
after the refilling
of the storage
tank.
b. Route emissions i. You meet the
to a fuel gas requirements in
system or back to a Sec. 63.984(b)
process. and submit the
statement of
connection required
by Sec.
63.984(c).
c. Install and, i. You meet the
during the filling requirements in
of the storage tank Sec.
with organic 63.2346(a)(4).
liquids, operate a
vapor balancing
system.
2. Storage tank at a a. Install a i. You visually
reconstructed or new floating roof or inspect each
affected source meeting any equivalent control internal floating
set of tank capacity and that meets the roof before the
liquid organic HAP vapor requirements in initial filling of
pressure criteria specified Table 4 to this the storage tank
in Table 2 to this subpart, subpart, item 1.a. and perform seal
items 3 through 5. gap inspections of
the primary and
secondary rim seals
of each external
floating roof
within 90 days
after the initial
filling of the
storage tank.
b. Route emissions i. See item 1.b.i of
to a fuel gas this table.
system or back to a
process.
c. Install and, i. See item 1.c.i of
during the filling this table.
of the storage tank
with organic
liquids, operate a
vapor balancing
system.
3. Transfer rack that is a. Load organic i. You comply with
subject to control based on liquids only into the provisions
the criteria specified in transport vehicles specified in Table
Table 2 to this subpart, having current 4 to this subpart,
items 7 through 10, at an vapor tightness item 5 or item 6,
existing, reconstructed, or certification as as applicable.
new affected source. described in Table
4 to this subpart,
item 5 and item 6.
[[Page 40781]]
b. Install and, i. You design and
during the loading operate the vapor
of organic liquids, balancing system to
operate a vapor route organic HAP
balancing system. vapors displaced
from loading of
organic liquids
into transport
vehicles to the
storage tank from
which the liquid
being loaded
originated or to
another storage
tank connected to a
common header.
ii. You design and
operate the vapor
balancing system to
route organic HAP
vapors displaced
from loading of
organic liquids
into containers
directly (e.g., no
intervening tank or
containment area
such as a room) to
the storage tank
from which the
liquid being loaded
originated or to
another storage
tank connected to a
common header.
c. Route emissions i. See item 1.b.i of
to a fuel gas this table.
system or back to a
process.
4. Equipment leak component, a. Carry out a leak i. You specify which
as defined in Sec. detection and one of the control
63.2406, that operates in repair program or programs listed in
organic liquids service equivalent control Table 4 to this
>=300 hours per year at an according to one of subpart you have
existing, reconstructed, or the subparts listed selected, OR
new affected source. in Table 4 to this ii. Provide written
subpart, item 4. specifications for
your equivalent
control approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
29. Table 8 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limits
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must
show continuous compliance with the emission limits for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
For the following demonstrate
For each . . . emission limit . . continuous
. compliance by . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing, a. Reduce total i. Performing CMS
reconstructed, or new affected organic HAP (or, monitoring and
source meeting any set of tank upon approval, collecting data
capacity and liquid organic HAP TOC) emissions according to Sec.
vapor pressure criteria from the closed Sec. 63.2366,
specified in Table 2 to this vent system and 63.2374, and
subpart, items 1 through 6 or control device by 63.2378, except
Table 2b to this subpart, items 95 weight-percent as specified in
1 through 3. or greater, or as item 1.a.iii of
an option to 20 this table; AND
ppmv or less of ii. Maintaining
total organic HAP the operating
(or, upon limits
approval, TOC) in established
the exhaust of during the design
combustion evaluation or
devices. performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with
the emission
limit.
iii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), if
you use a flare,
you must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance by
performing CMS
monitoring and
collecting data
according to
requirements in
Sec. 63.2380.
2. Transfer rack that is subject a. Reduce total i. Performing CMS
to control based on the organic HAP (or, monitoring and
criteria specified in Table 2 upon approval, collecting data
to this subpart, items 7 TOC) emissions according to Sec.
through 10, at an existing, during the Sec. 63.2366,
reconstructed, or new affected loading of 63.2374, and
source. organic liquids 63.2378 during
from the closed the loading of
vent system and organic liquids,
control device by except as
98 weight-percent specified in item
or greater, or as 2.a.iii of this
an option to 20 table; AND
ppmv or less of ii. Maintaining
total organic HAP the operating
(or, upon limits
approval, TOC) in established
the exhaust of during the design
combustion evaluation or
devices. performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with
the emission
limit during the
loading of
organic liquids.
iii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), if
you use a flare,
you must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance by
performing CMS
monitoring and
collecting data
according to
requirements in
Sec. 63.2380.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40782]]
0
30. Table 9 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits--High Throughput Transfer Racks
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2390(b), you must
show continuous compliance with the operating limits for existing,
reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each existing, For the following continuous
reconstructed, and each new operating limit . . compliance by . . .
affected source using . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to a. Maintain the i. Continuously
comply with an emission daily average fire monitoring and
limit in Table 2 to this box or combustion recording fire box
subpart. zone, as or combustion zone,
applicable, as applicable,
temperature greater temperature every
than or equal to 15 minutes and
the reference maintaining the
temperature daily average fire
established during box temperature
the design greater than or
evaluation or equal to the
performance test reference
that demonstrated temperature
compliance with the established during
emission limit. the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
2. A catalytic oxidizer to a. Replace the i. Replacing the
comply with an emission existing catalyst existing catalyst
limit in Table 2 to this bed before the age bed before the age
subpart. of the bed exceeds of the bed exceeds
the maximum the maximum
allowable age allowable age
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit; AND emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
temperature at the recording the
inlet of the temperature at the
catalyst bed inlet of the
greater than or catalyst bed at
equal to the least every 15
reference minutes and
temperature maintaining the
established during daily average
the design temperature at the
evaluation or inlet of the
performance test catalyst bed
that demonstrated greater than or
compliance with the equal to the
emission limit; AND. reference
temperature
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
c. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
temperature recording the
difference across temperature at the
the catalyst bed outlet of the
greater than or catalyst bed every
equal to the 15 minutes and
minimum temperature maintaining the
difference daily average
established during temperature
the design difference across
evaluation or the catalyst bed
performance test greater than or
that demonstrated equal to the
compliance with the minimum temperature
emission limit. difference
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
3. An absorber to comply a. Maintain the i. Continuously
with an emission limit in daily average monitoring the
Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level organic
of organic concentration in
compounds in the the absorber
absorber exhaust exhaust and
less than or equal maintaining the
to the reference daily average
concentration concentration less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or concentration
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; OR performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
[[Page 40783]]
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring the
scrubbing liquid scrubbing liquid
temperature less temperature and
than or equal to maintaining the
the reference daily average
temperature temperature less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or temperature
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; AND performance test
Maintain the that demonstrated
difference between compliance with the
the specific emission limit; AND
gravities of the ii. Maintaining the
saturated and fresh difference between
scrubbing fluids the specific
greater than or gravities greater
equal to the than or equal to
difference the difference
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit. emission limit; AND
iii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
4. A condenser to comply a. Maintain the i. Continuously
with an emission limit in daily average monitoring the
Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level organic
of organic concentration at
compounds at the the condenser exit
exit of the and maintaining the
condenser less than daily average
or equal to the concentration less
reference than or equal to
concentration the reference
established during concentration
the design established during
evaluation or the design
performance test evaluation or
that demonstrated performance test
compliance with the that demonstrated
emission limit; OR compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Maintain the i. Continuously
daily average monitoring and
condenser exit recording the
temperature less temperature at the
than or equal to exit of the
the reference condenser at least
temperature every 15 minutes
established during and maintaining the
the design daily average
evaluation or temperature less
performance test than or equal to
that demonstrated the reference
compliance with the temperature
emission limit. established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
5. An adsorption system with a. Maintain the i. Continuously
adsorbent regeneration to daily average monitoring the
comply with an emission concentration level daily average
limit in Table 2 to this of organic organic
subpart. compounds in the concentration in
adsorber exhaust the adsorber
less than or equal exhaust and
to the reference maintaining the
concentration concentration less
established during than or equal to
the design the reference
evaluation or concentration
performance test established during
that demonstrated the design
compliance with the evaluation or
emission limit; OR performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Maintain the i. Maintaining the
total regeneration total regeneration
stream mass flow stream mass flow
during the during the
adsorption bed adsorption bed
regeneration cycle regeneration cycle
greater than or greater than or
equal to the equal to the
reference stream reference stream
mass flow mass flow
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated that demonstrated
compliance with the compliance with the
emission limit; AND emission limit; AND
Before the ii. Maintaining the
adsorption cycle temperature of the
commences, achieve adsorption bed
and maintain the after regeneration
temperature of the less than or equal
adsorption bed to the reference
after regeneration temperature
less than or equal established during
to the reference the design
temperature evaluation or
established during performance test
the design that demonstrated
evaluation or compliance with the
performance test; emission limit; AND
AND. iii. Achieving
Achieve greater than greater than or
or equal to the equal to the
pressure reduction pressure reduction
during the during the
adsorption bed regeneration cycle
regeneration cycle established during
established during the design
the design evaluation or
evaluation or performance test
performance test that demonstrated
that demonstrated compliance with the
compliance with the emission limit; AND
emission limit. iv. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
[[Page 40784]]
6. An adsorption system a. Maintain the i. Continuously
without adsorbent daily average monitoring the
regeneration to comply with concentration level organic
an emission limit in Table of organic concentration in
2 to this subpart. compounds in the the adsorber
adsorber exhaust exhaust and
less than or equal maintaining the
to the reference concentration less
concentration than or equal to
established during the reference
the design concentration
evaluation or established during
performance test the design
that demonstrated evaluation or
compliance with the performance test
emission limit; OR that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
b. Replace the i. Replacing the
existing adsorbent existing adsorbent
in each segment of in each segment of
the bed before the the bed with an
age of the adsorbent that
adsorbent exceeds meets the
the maximum replacement
allowable age specifications
established during established during
the design the design
evaluation or evaluation or
performance test performance test
that demonstrated before the age of
compliance with the the adsorbent
emission limit; AND exceeds the maximum
Maintain the allowable age
temperature of the established during
adsorption bed less the design
than or equal to evaluation or
the reference performance test
temperature that demonstrated
established during compliance with the
the design emission limit; AND
evaluation or ii. Maintaining the
performance test temperature of the
that demonstrated adsorption bed less
compliance with the than or equal to
emission limit. the reference
temperature
established during
the design
evaluation or
performance test
that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
iii. Keeping the
applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
7. A flare to comply with an a. Except as i. Continuously
emission limit in Table 2 specified in item operating a device
to this subpart. 7.e of this table, that detects the
maintain a pilot presence of the
flame or flare pilot flame or
flame in the flare flare flame; AND
at all times that ii. Keeping the
vapors may be applicable records
vented to the flare required in Sec.
(Sec. 63.998.\1\
63.11(b)(5)); AND
b. Except as i. Maintaining a
specified in item flare flame at all
7.e of this table, times that vapors
maintain a flare are being vented to
flame at all times the flare; AND
that vapors are ii. Keeping the
being vented to the applicable records
flare (Sec. required in Sec.
63.11(b)(5)); AND 63.998.\1\
c. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare with no
7.e of this table, visible emissions
operate the flare exceeding the
with no visible amount allowed; AND
emissions, except ii. Keeping the
for up to 5 minutes applicable records
in any 2 required in Sec.
consecutive hours 63.998.\1\
(Sec.
63.11(b)(4)); AND
EITHER
d.1. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare within the
7.e of this table, applicable exit
operate the flare velocity limits;
with an exit AND
velocity that is ii. Operating the
within the flare with the gas
applicable limits heating value
in Sec. greater than the
63.11(b)(7) and (8) applicable minimum
and with a net value; AND
heating value of iii. Keeping the
the gas being applicable records
combusted greater required in Sec.
than the applicable 63.998.\1\
minimum value in
Sec.
63.11(b)(6)(ii); OR
d.2. Except as i. Operating the
specified in item flare within the
7.e of this table, applicable limits
adhere to the in 63.11(b)(6)(i);
requirements in AND
Sec. ii. Keeping the
63.11(b)(6)(i). applicable records
required in Sec.
63.998.\1\
e. Beginning no i. Operating the
later than the flare with the
compliance dates applicable limits
specified in Sec. in Sec. 63.2380;
63.2342(e), comply AND
with the ii. Keeping the
requirements in applicable records
Sec. 63.2380 required in Sec.
instead of the 63.2390(h).
requirements in
Sec. 63.11(b).
8. Another type of control Submit a monitoring Submitting a
device to comply with an plan as specified monitoring plan and
emission limit in Table 2 in Sec. Sec. monitoring the
to this subpart. 63.995(c) and control device
63.2366(b) and according to that
monitor the control plan.
device in
accordance with
that plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the referenced provisions specified in Sec. 63.2346(l)
do not apply.
0
31. Table 10 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Work
Practice Standards
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2378(a) and (b) and 63.2386(c)(6), you
must show continuous compliance with the work practice standards for
existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources according to the
following table:
[[Page 40785]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must
demonstrate
For each . . . For the following continuous
standard . . . compliance by . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Internal floating roof (IFR) a. Install a i. Visually
storage tank at an existing, floating roof inspecting the
reconstructed, or new affected designed and floating roof
source meeting any set of tank operated deck, deck
capacity, and vapor pressure according to the fittings, and rim
criteria specified in Table 2 applicable seals of each IFR
to this subpart, items 1 specifications in once per year
through 5, or Table 2b to this Sec. 63.1063(a) (Sec.
subpart, items 1 through 3. and (b). 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 (Sec.
63.1063(c)(1),
(d)(1), and (e));
AND
iii. Keeping the
tank records
required in Sec.
63.1065.
2. External floating roof (EFR) a. Install a i. Visually
storage tank at an existing, floating roof inspecting the
reconstructed, or new affected designed and floating roof
source meeting any set of tank operated deck, deck
capacity and vapor pressure according to the fittings, and rim
criteria specified in Table 2 applicable seals of each EFR
to this subpart, items 1 specifications in either each time
through 5, or Table 2b to this Sec. 63.1063(a) the storage tank
subpart, items 1 through 3. and (b). is completely
emptied and
degassed or every
10 years,
whichever occurs
first (Sec.
63.1063(c)(2),
(d), and (e));
AND
ii. Performing
seal gap
measurements on
the secondary
seal of each EFR
at least once
every year, and
on the primary
seal of each EFR
at least every 5
years (Sec.
63.1063(c)(2),
(d), and (e));
AND
iii. Keeping the
tank records
required in Sec.
63.1065.
3. IFR or EFR tank at an a. Repair the i. Repairing
existing, reconstructed, or new conditions conditions
affected source meeting any set causing storage causing
of tank capacity and vapor tank inspection inspection
pressure criteria specified in failures (Sec. failures: Before
Table 2 to this subpart, items 63.1063(e)). refilling the
1 through 5, or Table 2b to storage tank with
this subpart, items 1 through 3. 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 Sec.
63.1065(b).
4. Transfer rack that is subject a. Ensure that i. Ensuring that
to control based on the organic liquids organic liquids
criteria specified in Table 2 are loaded into are loaded into
to this subpart, items 7 transport transport
through 10, at an existing, vehicles in vehicles in
reconstructed, or new affected accordance with accordance with
source. the requirements the requirements
in Table 4 to in Table 4 to
this subpart, this subpart,
items 5 or 6, as items 5 or 6, as
applicable. applicable.
b. Install and, i. Monitoring each
during the potential source
loading of of vapor leakage
organic liquids, in the system
operate a vapor quarterly during
balancing system. 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.
An instrument
reading of 500
ppmv defines a
leak. Repair of
leaks is
performed
according to the
repair
requirements
specified in your
selected
equipment leak
standards
c. Route emissions i. Continuing to
to a fuel gas meet the
system or back to requirements
a process. specified in Sec.
63.984(b)
5. Equipment leak component, as a. Comply with i. Carrying out a
defined in Sec. 63.2406, that Sec. 63.2346(l) leak detection
operates in organic liquids and the and repair
service at least 300 hours per requirements of program in
year. 40 CFR part 63, accordance with
subpart TT, UU, the subpart
or H. selected from the
list in item 5.a
of this table
6. Storage tank at an existing, a. Route emissions i. Continuing to
reconstructed, or new affected to a fuel gas meet the
source meeting any of the tank system or back to requirements
capacity and vapor pressure the process. specified in Sec.
criteria specified in Table 2 63.984(b)
to this subpart, items 1
through 6, or Table 2b to this
subpart, items 1 through 3.
[[Page 40786]]
b. Install and, i. Except for
during the pressure relief
filling of the devices,
storage tank with monitoring each
organic liquids, potential source
operate a vapor of vapor leakage
balancing system. in the system,
including, but
not limited to
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.
An instrument
reading of 500
ppmv defines a
leak. Repair of
leaks is
performed
according to the
repair
requirements
specified in your
selected
equipment leak
standards. For
pressure relief
devices, comply
with Sec.
63.2346(a)(4)(v).
If no loading of
a storage tank
occurs during a
quarter, then
monitoring of the
vapor balancing
system is not
required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
32. Table 11 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As stated in Sec. 63.2386(a), (b), and (f), you must submit
compliance reports and startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports
according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report or a. The information Semiannually, and it
Periodic Report. specified in Sec. must be postmarked
63.2386(c), (d), or electronically
(e). If you had a submitted by
SSM during the January 31 or July
reporting period 31, in accordance
and you took with Sec.
actions consistent 63.2386(b).
with your SSM plan,
the report must
also include the
information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i)
except as specified
in item 1.e of this
table; AND.
b. The information See the submission
required by 40 CFR requirement in item
part 63, subpart 1.a of this table.
TT, UU, or H, as
applicable, for
pumps, valves, and
sampling
connections; AND.
c. The information See the submission
required by Sec. requirement in item
63.999(c); AND. 1.a of this table.
d. The information See the submission
specified in Sec. requirement in item
63.1066(b) 1.a of this table.
including:
Notification of
inspection,
inspection results,
requests for
alternate devices,
and requests for
extensions, as
applicable.
e. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), the
requirement to
include the
information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) no
longer applies..
2. Immediate SSM report if a. The information i. Except as
you had a SSM that resulted required in Sec. specified in item
in an applicable emission 63.10(d)(5)(ii). 2.a.ii of this
standard in the relevant table, by letter
standard being exceeded, within 7 working
and you took an action that days after the end
was not consistent with of the event unless
your SSM plan. you have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
ii. Beginning no
later than the
compliance dates
specified in Sec.
63.2342(e), item
2.a.i of this table
no longer applies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
33. Table 12 to subpart EEEE of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEE
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with
the applicable General Provisions requirements as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability......... Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
Applicability after
standard established;
Permit requirements;
Extensions, Notifications.
[[Page 40787]]
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions........... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Units and abbreviations for Yes.
Abbreviations. part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; Yes.
and Circumvention. Circumvention,
Severability.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. Applications; Approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Compliance with GP apply unless compliance Yes.
Standards/O&M extension; GP apply to
Applicability. area sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).......... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and Reconstructed effective date; 3 years
Sources. after effective date; upon
startup; 10 years after
construction or
reconstruction commences
for CAA section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).............. Notification.......... Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
New and Reconstructed major must comply with
Area Sources That major source standards
Become Major. immediately upon becoming
major, regardless of
whether required to comply
when they were an area
source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).......... Compliance Dates for Comply according to date in Yes.
Existing Sources. this subpart, which must
be no later than 3 years
after effective date; for
section 112(f) standards,
comply within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).......... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area Sources major must comply with
That Become Major. major source standards by
date indicated in this
subpart or by equivalent
time period (e.g., 3
years).
Sec. 63.6(d)................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)........... Operation and Operate to minimize Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Maintenance. emissions at all times. No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2350(d) for general
duty requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).......... Operation and Correct malfunctions as Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Maintenance. soon as practicable. No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)......... Operation and Operation and maintenance Yes.
Maintenance. requirements independently
enforceable; information
Administrator will use to
determine if operation and
maintenance requirements
were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).............. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).............. SSM Plan.............. Requirement for SSM plan; Yes, before July 7, 2023;
content of SSM plan; however, (1) the 2-day
actions during SSM. reporting requirement in
paragraph Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iv) does not
apply and (2) Sec.
63.6(e)(3) does not apply
to emissions sources not
requiring control.
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).............. Compliance Except You must comply with Yes, before July 7, 2023.
During SSM. emission standards at all No, beginning on and after
times except during SSM. July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).......... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and maintenance
plans, records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).......... Alternative Standard.. Procedures for getting an Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).............. Opacity/Visible You must comply with Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Emission Standards. opacity and visible No, beginning on and after
emission standards at all July 7, 2023.
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(9).......... Opacity/Visible Requirements for compliance No; except as it applies
Emission Standards. with opacity and visible to flares for which
emission standards. Method 22 observations
are required as part of a
flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)......... Compliance Extension.. Procedures and criteria for Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Presidential President may exempt any Yes.
Compliance Exemption. source from requirement to
comply with this subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2).............. Performance Test Dates Dates for conducting Yes.
initial performance
testing; must conduct 180
days after compliance date.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).............. Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a Yes.
performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).............. Notification of Must notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days before the test.
[[Page 40788]]
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).............. Notification of If you have to reschedule Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test, must
notify Administrator of
rescheduled date as soon
as practicable and without
delay.
Sec. 63.7(c)................. Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirement to submit site- Yes.
Test Plan. specific test plan 60 days
before the test or on date
Administrator agrees with;
test plan approval
procedures; performance
audit requirements;
internal and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)................. Testing Facilities.... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).............. Conditions for Performance tests must be Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Conducting conducted under No, beginning on and after
Performance Tests. representative conditions; July 7, 2023. See Sec.
cannot conduct performance 63.2354(b)(6).
tests during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).............. Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes.
Conducting this subpart and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).............. Test Run Duration..... Must have three test runs Yes; however, for transfer
of at least 1 hour each; racks per Sec. Sec.
compliance is based on 63.987(b)(3)(i)(A)-(B)
arithmetic mean of three and 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A)-
runs; conditions when data (B) provide exceptions to
from an additional test the requirement for test
run can be used. runs to be at least 1
hour each.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).............. Authority to Require Administrator has authority Yes.
Testing. to require testing under
CAA section 114 regardless
of Sec. 63.7 (e)(1)-(3).
Sec. 63.7(f)................. Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
intermediate or major
change, or alternative to
a test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................. Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes, except this subpart
Analysis. performance test report; specifies how and when
must submit performance the performance test and
test data 60 days after performance evaluation
end of test with the results are reported.
Notification of Compliance
Status; keep data for 5
years.
Sec. 63.7(h)................. Waiver of Tests....... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).............. Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).............. Performance Performance Specifications Yes.
Specifications. in appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Monitoring of Flares.. Monitoring requirements for Yes, before July 7, 2023;
flares in Sec. 63.11. however, flare monitoring
requirements in Sec.
63.987(c) also apply
before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2380.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).............. Monitoring............ Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).......... Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements for Yes.
Multiple Monitoring installing monitoring
Systems. systems; must install on
each affected source or
after combined with
another affected source
before it is released to
the atmosphere provided
the monitoring is
sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with the
standard; if more than one
monitoring system on an
emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).............. Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system Yes.
Operation and in a manner consistent
Maintenance. with good air pollution
control practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........... Routine and Keep parts for routine Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Predictable SSM. repairs readily available; No, beginning on and after
reporting requirements for July 7, 2023.
SSM when action is
described in SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).......... CMS malfunction not in Keep the necessary parts Yes.
SSM plan. for routine repairs if CMS
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)......... Compliance with Develop a written SSM plan Yes, before July 7, 2023.
Operation and for CMS. No, beginning on and after
Maintenance July 7, 2023.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).......... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission or
parameter measurements;
must verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
[[Page 40789]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. CMS Requirements...... CMS must be operating Yes; however, COMS are not
except during breakdown, applicable.
out-of-control, repair,
maintenance, and high-
level calibration drifts;
COMS must have a minimum
of one cycle of sampling
and analysis for each
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period; CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of
operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures.... No.
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).......... CMS Requirements...... Zero and high level Yes, but only applies for
calibration check CEMS. Subpart SS of this
requirements. Out-of- part provides
control periods. requirements for CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).......... CMS Quality Control... Requirements for CMS Yes, but only applies for
quality control. CEMS. Subpart SS of this
part provides
requirements for CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).............. CMS Quality Control... Must keep quality control Yes, before July 7, 2023,
plan on record for 5 but only applies for
years; keep old versions. CEMS. Subpart SS of this
part provides
requirements for CPMS.
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2366(c).
Sec. 63.8(e)................. CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes, but only applies for
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, CEMS, except this subpart
reports. specifies how and when
the performance
evaluation results are
reported.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).......... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes, but subpart SS of
Method. Administrator to approve this part also provides
alternative monitoring. procedures for approval
of CPMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).............. Alternative to Procedures for Yes.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)................. Data Reduction........ COMS 6-minute averages Yes; however, COMS are not
calculated over at least applicable.
36 evenly spaced data
points; CEMS 1 hour
averages computed over at
least four equally spaced
data points; data that
cannot be used in average.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5). Initial Notifications. Submit notification within Yes.
120 days after effective
date; notification of
intent to construct/
reconstruct, notification
of commencement of
construction/
reconstruction,
notification of startup;
contents of each.
Sec. 63.9(c)................. Request for Compliance Can request if cannot Yes.
Extension. comply by date or if
installed best available
control technology or
lowest achievable emission
rate (BACT/LAER).
Sec. 63.9(d)................. Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Sources. and want to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)................. Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)................. Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 No.
Opacity Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)................. Additional Notification of performance Yes; however, there are no
Notifications When evaluation; notification opacity standards.
Using CMS. about use of COMS data;
notification that exceeded
criterion for relative
accuracy alternative.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6).......... Notification of Contents due 60 days after Yes; however, (1) there
Compliance Status. end of performance test or are no opacity standards
other compliance and (2) all initial
demonstration, except for Notification of
opacity/visible emissions, Compliance Status,
which are due 30 days including all performance
after; when to submit to test data, are to be
federal vs. state submitted at the same
authority. 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.
Sec. 63.9(i)................. Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days No. These changes will be
Information. after the change. reported in the first and
subsequent compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension; when
to submit to federal vs.
state authority;
procedures for owners of
more than one source.
[[Page 40790]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............. Recordkeeping/ General requirements; keep Yes.
Reporting. all records readily
available; keep for 5
years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).......... Records Related to Occurrence of each for Yes, July 7, 2023.
Startup and Shutdown. operations (process No, beginning on and after
equipment). July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)......... Recordkeeping Relevant Occurrence of each Yes, before July 7, 2023.
to Malfunction malfunction of air No, beginning on and after
Periods and CMS. pollution equipment. July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2390(f).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........ Recordkeeping Relevant Maintenance on air Yes.
to Maintenance of Air pollution control
Pollution Control and equipment.
Monitoring Equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)......... Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during SSM......... Yes, before July 7, 2023.
to SSM Periods and No, beginning on and after
CMS. July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).......... Recordkeeping Relevant Actions during SSM......... No.
to SSM Periods and
CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi).... CMS Records........... Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes.
out-of-control periods.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........ Records............... Records when under waiver.. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....... Records............... Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........ Records............... All documentation Yes.
supporting initial
notification and
notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............. Records............... Applicability Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(14)........ Records............... Additional records for CMS. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............ Records............... Additional records for CMS. Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............. General Reporting Requirement to report...... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............. Report of Performance When to submit to federal No. This subpart specifies
Test Results. or state authority. how and when the
performance test results
are reported.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. Reporting Opacity or What to report and when.... Yes.
Visible Emissions
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............. Progress Reports...... Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............. SSM Reports........... Contents and submission.... Yes, before July 7, 2023.
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2386(d)(1)(xiii).
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)......... Additional CMS Reports Must report results for Yes, except this subpart
each CEMS on a unit; specifies how and when
written copy of CMS the performance
performance evaluation; evaluation results are
two-three copies of COMS reported; however, COMS
performance evaluation. are not applicable.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii).... Reports............... Schedule for reporting Yes; however, note that
excess emissions and the title of the report
parameter monitor is the compliance report;
exceedance (now defined as deviations include excess
deviations). emissions and parameter
exceedances.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)..... Excess Emissions Requirement to revert to Yes.
Reports. quarterly submission if
there is an excess
emissions or parameter
monitoring exceedance (now
defined as deviations);
provision to request
semiannual reporting after
compliance for 1 year;
submit report by 30th day
following end of quarter
or calendar half; if there
has not been an exceedance
or excess emissions (now
defined as deviations),
report contents in a
statement that there have
been no deviations; must
submit report containing
all of the information in
Sec. Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-
(8) and 63.10(c)(5)-(13).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii).. Excess Emissions Requirements for reporting No. This subpart specifies
Report and Summary excess emissions for CMS the reported information
Report. (now called deviations); for deviations within the
requires all of the compliance reports.
information in Sec. Sec.
63.10(c)(5)-(13) and
63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............. Reporting COMS Data... Must submit COMS data with No.
performance test data.
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
[[Page 40791]]
Sec. 63.11(b)................ Flares................ Requirements for flares.... Yes, before July 7, 2023;
Sec. 63.987
requirements apply, and
the section references
Sec. 63.11(b).
No, beginning on and after
July 7, 2023. See Sec.
63.2380.
Sec. 63.11(c), (d), and (e).. Control and work Alternative work practice Yes.
practice requirements. for equipment leaks.
Sec. 63.12................... Delegation............ State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13................... Addresses............. Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14................... Incorporation by Test methods incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-05900 Filed 7-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P