[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59434-59443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23740]
[[Page 59433]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals and National
Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline
Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59434]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[AD-FRL-7379-3]
RIN 2060-AJ42
Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals and National
Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline
Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 18, 1983, we promulgated Standards of Performance
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (1983 New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). The 1983 NSPS limit and control emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) that react with other pollutants to form ozone (or
smog) that has been linked to respiratory impairments and eye
irritation, and that negatively affect vegetation and ecosystems. On
December 14, 1994, we promulgated National Emission Standards for
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline
Breakout Stations). The 1994 National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) limit and control hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) that are known or suspected to cause cancer or have other serious
health or environmental effects.
The proposed amendments would provide: The opportunity to use
alternative leak test procedures for railcars under the 1994 NESHAP, a
clarification on monitoring flares and thermal oxidation systems used
to comply with the 1994 NESHAP, an alternative recordkeeping
requirement for tank trucks and railcars under the 1983 NSPS and 1994
NESHAP, and the use of flare design specifications under the 1983 NSPS
by incorporating the allowance in the text of that final rule. The
proposed amendments do not change the level of control or compromise
the environmental protection achieved by the 1983 NSPS and 1994 NESHAP,
but provide clarification and alternatives that enhance the flexibility
of the recordkeeping and testing requirements of the two final rules.
The scope of the proposed amendments and comment period is limited to
the proposed changes to the 1983 NSPS and 1994 NESHAP.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before November 19, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by October 20, 2002, a public hearing will be held on
October 18, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-38, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-38,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460. EPA
requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00
a.m. and will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an alternate facility nearby. You
should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group,
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA (C439-03), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671 to request a public hearing,
or to find out if a hearing will be held.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-38 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for legal holidays. Copies of docket materials
may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-
7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, U.S. EPA, OAQPS,
Emission Standards Division, Waste and Chemical Processes Group (C439-
03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5397, facsimile number (919) 685-3195, electronic mail (e-mail)
address: ``[email protected].''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by e-mail to: ``[email protected].'' Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and
encryption problems. Comments will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect(TM) file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-92-38. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention Mr. Stephen Shedd, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404-02), RTP, NC 27711.
EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held must contact
JoLynn Collins of EPA at (919) 541-5671 at least 2 days in advance of
the hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should
also call Ms. Collins to verify the time, date, and location of the
hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposed amendments.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by EPA in the development of the proposed
amendments. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and potentially affected industries to
readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and
promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket,
with certain exceptions, will serve as the record in case of judicial
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) The
regulatory text and other materials related to the proposed amendments
are available for review in the docket, or copies may be mailed on
request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed amendments is also available on
the
[[Page 59435]]
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\a\ (SIC\b\) Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 324110 (2911) Operations at major sources that
493190 (4226) transfer and store gasoline,
486910 (4613) including petroleum refineries,
422710 (5171) pipeline breakout stations, and bulk
terminals.
Federal government
State/local/tribal government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.500
and 63.420. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit
authority for the entity or the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. What is the statutory authority for this action?
II. What are we proposing as alternatives for railcar leak testing?
A. What are the current EPA and DOT gasoline railcar leak
testing requirements?
B. Why are we making changes to our railcar leak testing
requirements?
III. Which specific leak test methods can be used for railcars?
IV. How is a flare defined for purposes of monitoring the presence
of a flame instead of flame temperature?
V. Can the flare design specifications be used for compliance with
the 1983 NSPS?
VI. Can cargo tank vapor tightness records be kept off-site?
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Regulatory Review
I. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
101, 111, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.).
II. What Are We Proposing as Alternatives for Railcar Leak Testing?
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has been regulating railcar
shipments for many years. In 1994, EPA promulgated additional
requirements to reduce gasoline vapor leakage during the loading and
unloading of railcars at certain facilities using gasoline vapor
recovery systems (59 FR 64318, December 14, 1994). The additional
requirements are in the 1994 NESHAP for gasoline distribution
facilities (40 CFR 63.420-63.429). This action proposes to amend the
1994 NESHAP to allow the use of existing DOT and other leak test
methods as an alternative to methods specified in the 1994 NESHAP.
In summary, we are proposing the following amendments to the 1994
NESHAP:
[sbull] As an alternative to the annual certification test for
railcars (40 CFR 63.425(e)) using EPA Method 27 (contained in appendix
A of 40 CFR part 60), owners and operators may use certain DOT and
other railcar test procedures as specified in the proposed amendments.
[sbull] Those alternative DOT and other railcar test procedures may
be used only for railcars that do not vapor balance with the end user's
vapor collection equipment.
[sbull] As an alternative to the pressure limit of 4,500 pascals
(18 inches of water column) for vapor collection and liquid loading
equipment (40 CFR 60.502(h)) and (i) as cross-referenced in (40 CFR
63.422(a)), railcars may be loaded at higher pressures if the railcar
and the facility's vapor collection and processing and liquid loading
equipment are designed and leak tested to allow those higher pressures
to be maintained.
Gasoline vapor released to the air is a concern since it contains
VOC and HAP. The VOC in the presence of heat and sunlight, chemically
react with oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to create an odorless
and colorless gas called ozone. Ground-level ozone causes human health
problems and damages crops and other vegetation. Also, ground-level
ozone is a key ingredient of urban smog. Gasoline vapors contain HAP
listed in section 112 of the CAA. The HAP are known or suspected to
cause cancer and other serious health and environmental effects. The
HAP contained in gasoline vapors include, but are not limited to
benzene, toluene, hexane, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, cumene, xylene,
and methyl tert-butyl ether.
A. What Are the Current EPA and DOT Gasoline Railcar Leak Testing
Requirements?
1. EPA Requirements
Our current vapor leakage requirements for railcars loading
gasoline grew out of earlier vapor leakage requirements for gasoline
tank truck loading and unloading operations. EPA and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) found in the 1970's that gasoline vapor leakage
from controlled transfer operations was a VOC control problem when
gasoline was loaded into tank trucks at bulk terminals and plants and
when unloaded at gasoline bulk plants and service stations. Those
controlled facilities utilize a vapor collection system to collect
displaced vapors during gasoline transfers and to pipe them to a vapor
processing system such as a thermal oxidation system. Vapor leakage
from points in the tank truck and vapor collection system often
[[Page 59436]]
allows the VOC and HAP in the gasoline vapors to escape to the
atmosphere instead of being recovered by the vapor collection and
processing systems. Additionally, the vapor balancing systems at bulk
plants and service stations rely on a vapor-tight vessel to help create
a vacuum in the truck's tank so that the vapors displaced from the
service station or bulk plant storage tank being loaded will be
efficiently returned (balanced) into the truck's tank.
To reduce gasoline vapor leakage from tank trucks, the CARB started
a regulatory program to require testing and repair of gasoline tank
trucks annually using a pressure and vacuum test. We followed that lead
and issued a guidance document on gasoline tank truck leakage testing
(Tank Truck Control Techniques Guideline, EPA-450/2-78-051, December
1978) for application in State implementation plans for areas not
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. In August
1983, we promulgated the 1983 NSPS (48 FR 37590, August 18, 1983) which
required further reductions in VOC emissions from gasoline tank trucks
that load at new, modified, or reconstructed loading racks at bulk
gasoline terminals nationwide. The 1983 NSPS include the same annual
pressure and vacuum test program for tank trucks as recommended in the
Tank Truck CTG. The CARB also continued to update their test program by
adding additional components, such as an internal vapor valve test,
lower allowable leakage rates, and test requirements and methods for
year-round compliance.
In December 1994, we promulgated the 1994 NESHAP to reduce
emissions of HAP from large bulk terminals and pipeline breakout
stations located separately or collocated at plant sites with other
emission sources (such as petroleum refineries). The 1994 NESHAP added
gasoline railroad tank cars (railcars) to our Federal vapor recovery
and leak test program. It also required the improvements to the leak
testing program for gasoline tank trucks that the CARB and local
districts made since the 1983 NSPS were promulgated. The rest of the
discussion pertains only to the 1994 NESHAP vapor leakage requirements
for railcar loading. Those requirements consist of the following four
parts: the annual pressure and vacuum leak test, year-round testing,
reporting and recordkeeping, and pressure limits for the vapor
collection and liquid loading systems at bulk terminals.
The first part of the 1994 NESHAP requirements for gasoline
railcars is the annual pressure/vacuum test. The 1983 NSPS specified
use of an EPA test method (Method 27) that provides a step-by-step
procedure for performing the test. Like the 1983 NSPS, the 1994 NESHAP
specify that you must use Method 27, but under defined conditions as
discussed below. The 1994 NESHAP require you to perform Method 27
annually at vessel pressures of 18 inches of water column of positive
pressure and 6 inches of negative water column pressure (40 CFR
63.425(e)). The 1994 NESHAP specify an allowable pressure drop of not
more than 1 inch of water in 5 minutes for railcar size tanks after
being pressurized to the test pressure. Also, the 1994 NESHAP require
you to test the vapor hoses and an internal vapor valve.
Year-round testing is the second part of the 1994 NESHAP provisions
for gasoline railcars. We found that significant vapor leakage may
occur at various times during the year after an annual test is
performed. Therefore, the CARB and local districts and EPA developed
the so-called anytime or year-round test program to augment the annual
test. Anyone (air pollution inspector, facility owner, etc.) who
identifies through sight, sound, or smell a possible problem with vapor
leaks from a railcar can require one of three alternative test
procedures to allow detection and repair of the leak. The three
alternative year-round test procedures are provided in 40 CFR 63.425(f)
through (h) of the 1994 NESHAP. They are, respectively, a leak test
using a portable instrument, an in-field pressure test using nitrogen,
and a pressure test using the Method 27 test procedure coupled with a
less stringent leakage rate than required in the annual test. If a
railcar fails any of the year-round test procedures, the 1994 NESHAP
require that it be taken out of service and not loaded again at that
facility until the railcar can be fixed and pass the Method 27 test at
the annual certification limits.
The third part of the railcar vapor leakage program in the 1994
NESHAP is the reporting and recordkeeping requirements (40 CFR
63.422(c)(2)). Railcars in gasoline service may not be loaded at an
affected loading rack unless the railcar owner or operator has provided
documentation that the railcar has passed the annual pressure and
vacuum tests discussed above. Railcars that have failed any of the
year-round leakage tests since the last annual test must also have
documentation that they were subsequently repaired and recertified to
the annual certification limits. The owner or operator of the loading
rack must take steps to assure that only railcars with the
documentation on file are loaded at the loading rack. Those steps
include: recording the tank identification number of railcars loaded,
cross-checking (within 2 weeks of loading) the identification numbers
against the leak test documentation on file at the facility, notifying
the owner or operator of non-documented railcars, assuring that such
railcars are not loaded again until proper documentation is provided,
and reporting the non-documented railcars in the semiannual compliance
report to the permitting authority (40 CFR 63.428(g)). Some permitting
authorities have also granted alternatives to allow electronic
recordkeeping and reporting and the use of key-locks to lock out non-
documented tank trucks or railcars from loading at the rack.
The last part of the 1994 NESHAP requirements concerning gasoline
leakage from railcars is a design specification (40 CFR 60.502(h) and
(i) as cross-referenced in (40 CFR 63.422(a)) for the liquid loading
and vapor collection equipment at the terminal to prevent over-
pressurizing of the railcar and vapor collection system. The
requirement specifies that the vapor collection and liquid loading
equipment be designed and operated to prevent the pressure in the
railcar from exceeding the annual test pressure of 18 inches of water
column. Also, we require that the pressure-vacuum safety vents in the
facility's vapor collection system be designed to not open below the
same 18 inches of water pressure limit. We have approved one gasoline
loading facility's use of an alternative test procedure to load
railcars at a higher pressure, provided they perform the Method 27
pressure test and the facility's vapor collection and recovery system
is designed and operated to be leak-free at those higher pressures.
2. DOT Requirements
DOT, through its Research and Special Programs Administration and
the Federal Railroad Administration, develops national requirements for
the transportation of gasoline in railroad cargo tanks (railcars) and
highway cargo tanks (tank trucks). Similar to EPA requirements
discussed earlier, DOT requirements limit the degree of leakage from
railroad cargo tanks, provide for test procedures, and specify the
frequency of testing. DOT has codified some of those requirements in
the Code of Federal Regulations, some have been developed by industry
trade associations, and some are currently under development by DOT.
DOT requirements for liquid transport in railcars, including those
cars used to transport gasoline, require a visual
[[Page 59437]]
inspection of the tank before transportation to determine if the tank
is in proper condition for transport (49 CFR 173.31(d)). At that point,
the inspection does not require the use of instruments to assess the
fitness for service of the tank, such as tank shell thickness
measurements or leak testing the mating surfaces of service equipment
(valves, fittings, and pressure relief devices). DOT regulations do
require, however, periodic maintenance of the tank and service
equipment to ensure that such equipment conforms to the minimum Federal
safety standards. Those latter standards require the use of
nondestructive testing equipment and qualified personnel using
qualified procedures.
Personnel performing periodic inspection and tests must be
qualified for the type of nondestructive examination performed, such as
ultrasonic testing, leak testing, or radiography (49 CFR 179.7(b)(9)).
The tank car owner must ensure that the procedure has the sensitivity
and reliability to find the flaw under observation (49 CFR
179.7(b)(10)); that is, the owner must qualify the procedure to
determine that it can find a pre-defined flaw. Recent DOT regulations
are not prescriptive in nature, but rather are end result driven. That
means that DOT does not specify a particular nondestructive examination
method or procedure for performing a test, but rather allows the tank
car owner and the maintenance facility to develop site-specific
procedures. End results are published by DOT as acceptance standards
(49 CFR 180.511). For leakage pressure tests, the end result must show
that all product piping, fittings, and closures show no indication of
leakage (Sec. 180.511(f)).
In addition to the published DOT rules, the railroad industry has
its own rules that have the effect of a national standard. The
Association of American Railroads (AAR), a not-for-profit trade
organization of the railroad industry, publishes the railroad industry
rules. A working group under the AAR, the Tank Car Committee, develops
rules and standards based on best practices. Appendix T in the AAR Tank
Car Manual contains requirements and methods for performing
nondestructive examinations. The AAR Appendix T parallels requirements
issued by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, an
international standard writing body (ASNT SNT-TC-1A). Recently, DOT
issued an exemption (DOT-E 12095) to over 70 parties that incorporates
by reference the requirements of Appendix T. DOT plans to propose
Federal rulemaking to include Appendix T in the next few years.
With respect to leak testing, Appendix T provides four test
procedures: bubble leak test, pressure change test, halogen diode
detector test, and mass spectrometer test. The tank car industry
generally uses the bubble leak test to test tanks in gasoline service.
That leak test procedure requires pressurizing the tank car, holding
the pressure for a defined period (dwell time), and then using a bubble
forming solution at the mating interface of the service equipment under
observation. Leaks will cause bubbles to appear. The actual details of
the procedure and the equipment under observation are defined in the
Federal rule and by the tank car owner. The Federal end result
(acceptance criterion) is no leakage.
The typical railcar is loaded about seven times per year. In
comparison, tank trucks are loaded as many as seven times per day for
high-volume commodities such as gasoline. The disparity in the loading
and unloading cycles and the volumetric size of the equipment between
railcars and tank trucks suggests a need to consider different leak
identification strategies. The DOT leak test interval for railcars is
once every 10 years, or whenever the service equipment is reassembled
on the tank (49 CFR 180.509(c)(3)(i) and (j)). Beyond those Federal
rules, DOT and AAR continue to work on procedures to determine the
appropriate in-use frequencies for leak testing. An appropriate in-use
frequency considers the material of construction of the service
equipment, the service equipment mating surface, gasket specifications,
the compatibility of the product with the gasket, the life-limit of the
gasket, the bolting arrangement and specified torque on the joint, and
the loading and unloading cycle time. In addition to those
considerations, the length of the railcar lease also drives the test
frequency. According to owners of railcars, leases usually run from 3
to 5 years and require leak testing at the start or renewal of the
lease. The DOT and industry standard will take into consideration all
aspects of fleet operations and maintenance.
DOT and the AAR are also currently working on the development of an
industry standard that outlines which items to inspect, how to inspect
those items, the acceptance criteria, data collection and analysis of
test results, and statistical tools for predicting inspection
frequencies based on a reliability-centered approach. In developing the
new standard, the railroad industry surveyed maintenance practices in
other industries and the industry is now working toward a document that
is very similar to the Federal Aviation Administration's maintenance
scheme for commercial aircraft.
B. Why Are We Making Changes to Our Railcar Leak Testing Requirements?
Over the last few years, both EPA and DOT have received requests to
clarify and reduce any overlapping requirements between DOT's test
procedures and those in the 1994 NESHAP. Additionally, we received and
approved one loading facility's request for alternative test procedures
for gasoline railcars. We met and reviewed the overlapping requirements
with both DOT and industry representatives. As discussed below, we
believe that DOT requirements control vapor leakage to levels
equivalent to those required by the 1994 NESHAP. Therefore, we are
proposing to allow certain DOT test procedures to be used as
alternatives to our test procedures at gasoline distribution facilities
affected under the 1994 NESHAP. Additionally, railcars have
historically been loaded and tested at higher pressures than tank
trucks, so we are proposing to allow them to load at those higher
pressures when using vapor recovery systems.
As discussed earlier, there are many differences between our rules
and DOT's rule for leak testing of gasoline railcars. Our test
procedures allow for some leakage during the test, are performed
annually and affect additional vapor-handling equipment, are for both
pressure and vacuum, and include checks for excessive leakage between
the annual tests. DOT requirements allow for no leaks during the test
when using the most common test procedure, provide for less frequent
testing than ours, test only under positive pressure, and include both
pre-test and post-test inspections of the railcar tank.
We believe the difference in test frequency is not a significant
issue because other factors balance the difference. As discussed above,
under DOT procedures and industry practices railcars are commonly
pressure tested every 3 to 5 years and, in the worst case, as long as
10 years. We require an annual test, but our test allows for some
leakage, we do not require pre- and post-test inspections of the cargo
tank, and we do not have a program for qualifying the personnel
performing the test. Additionally, we will still have the safety net of
our year-round field tests and the ongoing studies by DOT and shippers
to determine the appropriate test frequency for railcars. Considering
all of those factors, we are proposing
[[Page 59438]]
today to allow DOT frequency requirements and the no-leakage test
procedure (bubble test) to be used as an alternative to our test method
and procedures. In using that alternative, railcar operators must still
meet all of the recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements
as mentioned earlier for the 1994 NESHAP.
The remaining difference is that DOT bubble pressure test only
identifies positive pressure leakage and we require the tanks to be
tested for negative pressure (vacuum) leakage. Today's proposed
amendments would limit the use of DOT bubble test to those railcars
that do not vapor balance with the customer tanks. We are not aware of
any vapor balancing of gasoline railcars, and industry representatives
have reported that there are very few, if any, railcars that are being
vapor balanced. However, since maintaining vacuum is critical to the
capture and control of cargo tank unloading emissions, we are proposing
to limit DOT alternative procedures to railcars that do not vapor
balance.
Lastly, industry representatives have reported that gasoline
railcars load at higher pressures than the design and test pressure in
the 1994 NESHAP. As discussed earlier, the 1994 NESHAP require the
total system (railcar and vapor collection and loading equipment) to be
designed, tested, and operated below the same specified pressure (18
inches of water column). We have allowed one gasoline railcar loading
facility to operate under higher pressures \1\ which may be set by the
facility, provided they have designed and tested the complete loading
and vapor collection system for the specified higher pressures. Today,
we are proposing to provide a similar higher pressure allowance for all
affected facilities loading gasoline into railcars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Instead of limiting the positive pressure for the test to 18
inches of water as required under the 1994 NESHAP, the testing
pressure must be at or above the maximum operating pressure expected
when loading multiple railcars. The testing pressure is the maximum
operating pressure plus 20 percent, but will in no case be greater
than 25 pounds per square inch. Instead of the 25 mm (1 inch) of
water pressure change allowed in 40 CFR 63.425(e), the allowable
pressure change shall be no greater than 5.0 percent of the maximum
pressure. In complying with the test run repetition requirements as
specified in section 5.2.5 of Method 27, the tester must repeat
positive pressure test runs until two consecutive runs agree within
2.5 percent of the maximum pressure. Maintain records of the railcar
pressure limits as required in Sec. 63.428(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Which Specific Leak Test Methods Can be Used for Railcars?
As we describe in section VII.I of this preamble, we conducted a
search to identify railroad tank car test procedures that could serve
as alternatives to DOT's referenced bubble leak test procedure in the
AAR Tank Car Manual. Our search located two additional test methods
that we and DOT believe are equivalent to DOT's approach. Those test
procedures are: ASTM E 515-95 (Reapproved 2000), ``Standard Test Method
for Leaks Using Bubble Emission Techniques,'' and British Standard (BS)
EN 1593:1999, ``Non-destructive Testing: Leak Testing-Bubble Emission
Techniques.'' The procedure ASTM E 515-95 and BS EN 1593:1999 are
procedures for the detection and location of leaks in vessels by bubble
emission techniques and are similar to DOT's current procedure. The
procedure BS EN 1593 covers certification of personnel, creation of a
pressure differential across the vessel, the type of bubble forming
solution to be used, preparation of the vessel surface, dwell time for
establishment of bubble emissions, surface temperature, and direct and
indirect visual examination procedures. The procedure ASTM E 515-95
includes specifications for personnel performing the leak testing,
creation of a pressure differential across the vessel, and the type of
bubble forming solution to be used, and also addresses the application
of the solution to the test surface and provides estimates of precision
and bias for the procedure.
We are proposing to allow those two test procedures, as well as the
current DOT bubble leak test procedure, as acceptable alternatives
through addition of a new paragraph to the 1994 NESHAP (40 CFR
63.425(i)).
IV. How Is a Flare Defined for Purposes of Monitoring the Presence of a
Flame Instead of Flame Temperature?
We found that the 1994 NESHAP were not clear on the difference
between a flare system and a thermal oxidation system. The distinction
is important because of the different monitoring requirements for those
two types of control systems. The 1994 NESHAP require flares to be
continuously monitored for the presence of a pilot flame, and thermal
oxidation systems to be continuously monitored for firebox temperature.
The 1994 NESHAP did not contain a definition for either type of unit.
Today's proposed amendments would clarify the intent of the 1994 NESHAP
by adding definitions for both units. The proposed amendments would
also clarify the text of the monitoring requirements. Additionally, we
are clarifying the use of the term flare in the test methods and
procedures section of the 1994 NESHAP.
The continuous monitoring section of the 1994 NESHAP require
thermal oxidation systems to include a monitor to measure the
temperature in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream
from the firebox (40 CFR 63.427(a)(3)). Flare systems, on the other
hand, must use a heat-sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam
sensor or a thermocouple, installed in proximity to the pilot light, to
indicate the presence of a flame (40 CFR 63.427(a)(4)). Flares are one
type of thermal oxidation system that thermally oxidizes pollutants in
an open flame without an enclosure. Other types of thermal oxidizers
also thermally oxidize pollutants, but the combustion flame is enclosed
in a box or cylinder. We intended that only non-enclosed flare systems
meeting the design specifications in the General Provisions to this
part (40 CFR 63.11(b)) be allowed to monitor for the presence of a
flame. We found, through testing many types of flares, that flares
meeting those design specifications have a high combustion efficiency.
Therefore, due to the complexity of testing systems with an open flame
and no enclosure, we do not require each flare to be performance tested
if it meets the required design specifications. Also, due to their
design, the flares need only monitor for the presence of a flame to
show long-term or continuous compliance. For other enclosed thermal
oxidation systems or recovery systems, a performance test measuring
pollutant flow rate and concentration is feasible. The enclosed thermal
oxidation system's oxidation temperature can vary and is easily
measured, so temperature monitoring is important and required to
demonstrate long-term compliance. For flares not meeting the 40 CFR
63.11(b) design specifications, you must develop your own test methods
and procedures and monitoring techniques to determine short- and long-
term compliance with the emissions standards specified in the 1994
NESHAP. Outlet emissions shall not exceed 10 milligrams of total
organic compounds per liter of gasoline loaded.
Based on those considerations and how other standards have defined
the control systems, we have developed definitions for flares and
thermal oxidation systems to clarify the requirements for each type of
system. We are also proposing to clarify the rule text to say that
flares meeting the design specifications are the only flare systems
allowed to use a flame monitor rather than a temperature monitor. For
flares not meeting the design specifications, the owner or operator
must determine and obtain approval for alternative
[[Page 59439]]
monitoring and test procedures as discussed below.
The test methods and procedures section of the 1994 NESHAP (40 CFR
63.425(a)) specifies that a performance test is required for all
control systems. That provision also says that if you cannot measure
emissions from a flare using the specified test methods, then the
general design specifications for flares apply. The 1994 NESHAP neither
defined a flare nor specified what happens if a flare does not meet the
design specifications. The intent of the 1994 NESHAP and other rules
using that approach is that if a flare meets the 40 CFR 63.11(b) design
specifications, you must only demonstrate that those specifications are
met without the need to conduct the performance test required for
enclosed systems, where gas flow rate and pollutant concentration can
be easily measured. Today, we are clarifying the intent of the 1994
NESHAP by amending the rule text language of 40 CFR 63.425(a). We are
also clarifying that if a flare does not meet the flare design
specifications and cannot be tested using the specified test
procedures, then you must determine and demonstrate appropriate test
methods and procedures and monitoring parameters as currently specified
in 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.427(a)(5), respectively.
V. Can the Flare Design Specifications Be Used for Compliance With the
1983 NSPS?
When the 1983 NSPS were under development, flares were not being
used at bulk gasoline terminals and the flare design specifications in
40 CFR 60.18(b) through (f) had not been promulgated. If a flare is
designed and operated in accordance with these specifications, no
efficiency or outlet performance testing is necessary to demonstrate
performance. Since then, flares have been put into use at bulk
terminals and we have been allowing the flare design specifications to
be used for compliance demonstrations for flares with an open (without
enclosure) flame.\2\ Therefore, we are proposing to add a reference to
the flare design specifications in the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The industry also uses enclosed flares. You can test the
performance of enclosed flares with test procedures currently in the
1983 NSPS; therefore, the discussion and the proposed amendments do
not apply to enclosed flares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test methods and procedures section of the 1983 NSPS (40 CFR
60.503) provides detailed procedures for carrying out the required
performance testing of vapor processing systems. One of those
procedures includes measurement of volume and concentration of total
organic compounds exhausted from the control device (40 CFR 60.503(c)).
Open flame flares, due to their design, do not allow the easy
measurement of volume and concentration of total organic compounds
exhausted. For that reason, in 1986 we promulgated open flame flare
design specifications in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60.
However, we stipulated that those design specifications do not apply
unless a particular subpart of part 60 refers to them (40 CFR 60.18(a).
We found if a flare is designed and operated in accordance with those
specifications, no efficiency or outlet emissions testing is necessary
to show that the flare achieves a control efficiency of at least 98
percent. However, we require some testing to demonstrate that the flare
meets the design specifications. We have determined that those
specifications are applicable under the 1983 NSPS, so we are proposing
to add a reference to them in the rule text.
Under today's proposed amendments affecting 40 CFR 60.503, we are
allowing owners and operators under the 1983 NSPS to demonstrate that
their flare meets the 40 CFR 60.18(b)-(f) design specifications rather
than conducting an outlet volume and concentration performance test (40
CFR 60.503(c)). If you have an open flame flare that does not meet the
flare design specifications and cannot be tested using the specified
outlet volume and concentration test procedures, then you must
determine and demonstrate appropriate methods and procedures that will
demonstrate the control performance of the flare. Those methods must be
capable of demonstrating that the flare provides a level of emissions
control that is at least equivalent to the applicable emission limit in
the 1983 NSPS. We still require all vapor processing systems, including
flares meeting the above open flame flare design specifications, to
meet the additional leak and pressure test methods and procedures in 40
CFR 60.503 for vapor collection and vapor processing systems (40 CFR
60.503(a), (b), and (d)). Also, we are adding the flare definition to
40 CFR 60.501 to clarify that the flare design provisions only apply in
the 1983 NSPS to flares with an open (without enclosure) flame.
VI. Can Cargo Tank Vapor Tightness Records Be Kept Off-Site?
Recently, a company requested and we approved the off-site storage
of cargo tank vapor tightness records, instead of on-site record
retention as specified in 40 CFR 63.428(b) of the 1994 NESHAP. That
company and others operating multiple terminals need and have a
centralized recordkeeping system. The company is now allowed to keep
the records off-site if the records are instantly accessible at the
affected facility in a centralized computer system that will produce an
exact duplicate image of the original paper record with certifying
signatures. Also, they must notify the permitting authority in writing
when they have completed the scanning of all required records and have
the system of instant access to all terminals fully functional.
The 1994 NESHAP and the 1983 NSPS require (in 40 CFR 63.428(b) and
40 CFR 60.505(a), (b), and (d), respectively) terminal owners and
operators to maintain an on-site record of vapor tightness test results
for each gasoline cargo tank loaded at a 1994 NESHAP or 1983 NSPS
affected terminal. Those records are used by terminal owners and
operators and compliance inspectors to determine if the cargo tanks
loading at the terminal have passed the required vapor tightness test.
If an exact duplicate electronic copy of those records is instantly
available at the terminal, we believe that that is an equivalent
alternative to the original requirement. Today, we are proposing an
alternative for both the 1994 NESHAP and the 1983 NSPS that allows a
terminal owner or operator to keep paper copies of those records off-
site, provided that the same records are instantly available (in
electronic form) on-site.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
[[Page 59440]]
(4) Raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
The promulgation of the 1994 NESHAP was treated as a ``significant
regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. An
estimate of the cost and benefits of the 1994 NESHAP was prepared at
proposal as part of the draft background information document (BID) and
was updated in the final BID at promulgation to reflect public comments
and changes made in finalizing the rule. The 1983 NSPS were promulgated
when an earlier form (Executive Order 12291) of the Executive Order was
administered. We concluded that it was not a major rule under Executive
Order 12291. Today's proposed amendments to the 1983 NSPS and 1994
NESHAP would reduce the recordkeeping and testing burden for some
terminals, but we do not have an estimate of the number of terminals
affected by the proposed amendments. Therefore, the cost impacts of the
subject standards are less than previously estimated but our estimates
have not been revised. The OMB evaluated the action and determined it
to be nonsignificant; therefore, the action did not require OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
The proposed amendments would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132. The proposed amendments would not impose directly enforceable
requirements on States, nor would they preempt them from adopting their
own more stringent programs. Moreover, States are not required under
the CAA to take delegation of Federal NESHAP or NSPS and bear their
implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often choose
to do so. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to the proposed amendments. Although section 6 of Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments, EPA is providing
State and local officials an opportunity to comment on the proposed
amendments. A summary of the concerns raised during the notice and
comment process and EPA's response to those concerns will be provided
in the final rulemaking action.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications. They will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
affected plant sites are known to be owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed
amendments. The proposed amendments add two alternatives to provide
facilities with the flexibility to comply in the least costly manner
while maintaining a workable and enforceable rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on the proposed amendments from tribal
officials.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
As discussed earlier, OMB evaluated the action and determined it to
be nonsignificant. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The
proposed amendments provide for equivalent alternative recordkeeping
and testing and the promulgated 1994 NESHAP fall into that category
only in part: the minimum rule stringency is set according to a
congressionally-mandated, technology-based lower limit called the
``floor,'' while a decision to increase the stringency beyond the floor
can be partly based on risk-type considerations, although EPA does not
conduct true risk assessments when deciding to regulate beyond the MACT
floor under section 112(d). The 1983 NSPS are not based on health or
safety risks, but are based on the best demonstrated technological
systems of continuous emissions reduction, considering costs, nonair
quality health, and environmental and energy impacts. No children's
risk analysis was performed for the 1983 NSPS, 1994 NESHAP, or the
proposed amendments because no alternative technologies exist that
would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost; therefore, the
results of any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency
decision.
[[Page 59441]]
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that today's proposed amendments do not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to
this action.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
When EPA promulgated the 1994 NESHAP, it analyzed the potential
impacts on small businesses, discussed the results of the analysis in
the Federal Register, and concluded that the promulgated regulation
would not result in financial impacts that significantly or
differentially stress affected small companies. The 1983 NSPS were
analyzed for potential impacts on small businesses under the RFA of
1980, and it was determined that the RFA did not apply. We analyzed and
considered the impacts, and no significant impacts were expected.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, we certify that this action will not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
proposed amendments would minimize the impact on small entities and,
therefore, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments add two
alternatives to provide facilities with the flexibility to comply in
the least costly manner while maintaining a workable and enforceable
rule. Both alternatives were requested by impacted bulk terminal and
railcar owners and operators, and we worked with them to develop the
alternatives.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
previously submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and were approved by OMB under the previously
promulgated 1983 NSPS (OMB control number 2060-0006-ICR 0665.06) and
1994 NESHAP (OMB control number 2060-0325-ICR 1659.04). A copy of the
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents may be obtained from
Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or
by calling (202) 566-1672.
Today's proposed amendments would reduce the recordkeeping and
testing burden for some terminals. We do not have an estimate of the
number of terminals affected by the proposed amendments. Therefore, the
ICR burden is less than previously estimated but the ICR has not been
revised.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when the agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
The proposed amendments involve technical standards. EPA cites DOT
railcar procedures that reference the AAR Tank Car Manual bubble test.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in
addition to that method. The search and review results have been
documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed amendments,
Docket No. A-92-38.
Two VCS are cited in the proposed amendments as alternatives to
DOT's bubble test. The two standards are British Standard (BS) EN-
1593:1999, ``Non-destructive Testing: Leak Testing-Bubble Emission
Techniques,'' and ASTM E515-95 (Reapproved 2000), ``Standard Test
Method for Leaks Using Bubble Emission Techniques.'' Those two
standards are discussed below.
The VCS BS EN-1593 cited in the proposed amendments is a detailed
method that contains procedures that are either equivalent to those of
DOT bubble test specifications or that provide additional quality
control, including: certification of personnel, creating a pressure
differential, type of liquids to be used, preparation of the surface,
dwell time appropriate for the establishment of bubble emissions,
required surface temperature range, and
[[Page 59442]]
specifications for direct and indirect visual examination procedures.
The VCS ASTM E515 cited in the proposed amendments is also an
acceptable method that contains procedures that are either equivalent
to those of DOT bubble test specifications or provide additional
quality control, including: the type of liquids to be used; application
of fluid; creating a pressure differential; applying pressure before
liquid is applied; and accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of
locating leaks of 0.0001 Std cm\3\/sec or greater.
The methods that are included in the proposed amendments are listed
in 40 CFR 63.425(i)(2). Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of subpart A (General
Provisions), a source may apply to EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods in place of any of EPA testing methods.
J. Regulatory Review
In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the CAA, the
1994 NESHAP will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
That review may include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risk, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods of control, enforceability,
improvements in emissions control technology and health data, and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects for 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 12, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts
60 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart XX--[Amended]
2. Section 60.501 is amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 60.501 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flare means a thermal oxidation system using an open (without
enclosure) flame.
* * * * *
Thermal oxidation system means a combustion device used to mix and
ignite fuel, air pollutants, and air to provide a flame to heat and
oxidize hazardous air pollutants. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat
air pollutants to combustion temperatures.
* * * * *
3. Section 60.503 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.503 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(e) The performance test requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section do not apply to flares defined in Sec. 60.501 and meeting the
requirements in Sec. 60.18(b) through (f). The owner or operator of
the flare and associated vapor collection system shall demonstrate
compliance with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.18(b) through (f) and
60.503(a), (b), and (d), respectively.
(f) The owner or operator shall use alternative test methods and
procedures in accordance with the alternative test method provisions in
Sec. 60.8(b) for flares that do not meet the requirements in Sec.
60.18(b).
4. Section 60.505 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.505 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(e) As an alternative to keeping records at the terminal of each
gasoline cargo tank test result as required in paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) An electronic copy of each record is instantly available at the
terminal.
(2) The copy of each record in paragraph (e)(1) of this section is
an exact duplicate image of the original paper record with certifying
signatures.
(3) The permitting authority is notified in writing that each
terminal using this alternative is in compliance with paragraphs (e)
(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
PART 63--[AMENDED]
5. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart R--[Amended]
6. Section 63.421 is amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 63.421 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flare means a thermal oxidation system using an open (without
enclosure) flame.
* * * * *
Thermal oxidation system means a combustion device used to mix and
ignite fuel, air pollutants, and air to provide a flame to heat and
oxidize hazardous air pollutants. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat
air pollutants to combustion temperatures.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.422 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.422 Standards: Loading racks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The tank truck or railcar gasoline cargo tank meets the test
requirements in Sec. 63.425(e), or the railcar gasoline cargo tank
meets applicable test requirements in Sec. 63.425(i);
* * * * *
(e) As an alternative to Sec. 60.502(h) and (i) of this chapter as
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator may
comply with paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) The owner or operator shall design and operate the vapor
processing system, vapor collection system, and liquid loading
equipment to prevent gauge pressure in the railcar gasoline cargo tank
from exceeding the applicable test limits in Sec. 63.425(e) and (i)
during product loading. This level is not to be exceeded when measured
by the procedures specified in Sec. 60.503(d) of this chapter.
(2) No pressure-vacuum vent in the bulk gasoline terminal's vapor
processing system or vapor collection system shall begin to open at a
system pressure less than the applicable test limits in Sec. 63.425(e)
or (i).
* * * * *
8. Section 63.425 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.425 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the emission standard in
Sec. 63.422(b) or Sec. 60.112b(a)(3)(ii) of this chapter shall comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Conduct a performance test on the vapor processing and
collection systems
[[Page 59443]]
according to either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Use the test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.503 of this
chapter, except a reading of 500 ppm shall be used to determine the
level of leaks to be repaired under Sec. 60.503(b) of this chapter, or
(ii) Use alternative test methods and procedures in accordance with
the alternative test method requirements in Sec. 63.7(f).
(2) The performance test requirements of Sec. 60.503(c) of this
chapter do not apply to flares defined in Sec. 63.421 and meeting the
flare requirements in Sec. 63.11(b). The owner or operator of the
flare and associated vapor collection system shall demonstrate
compliance with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.11(b) and 60.503(a),
(b), and (d) of this chapter, respectively.
* * * * *
(i) Railcar bubble leak test procedures. As an alternative to
paragraph (e) of this section for annual certification leakage testing
of gasoline cargo tanks, the owner or operator may comply with
paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section for railcar gasoline cargo
tanks, provided the railcar tank meets the requirement in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section:
(1) Comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 173.31(d), 179.7,
180.509, and 180.511 for the testing of railcar gasoline cargo tanks.
(2) The leakage pressure test procedure required under 49 CFR
180.509(j) and used to show no indication of leakage under 49 CFR
180.511(f) shall be ASTM E 515-95, BS EN 1593:1999, or another bubble
leak test procedure meeting the requirements in 49 CFR 179.7, 180.505,
and 180.509.
(3) The alternative requirements in this paragraph (i) shall not be
used for any railcar gasoline cargo tank that collects gasoline vapors
from a vapor balance system permitted under or required by a Federal,
State, local, or tribal agency. A vapor balance system is a piping and
collection system designed to collect gasoline vapors displaced from a
storage vessel, barge, or other container being loaded, and routes the
displaced gasoline vapors into the railcar gasoline cargo tank from
which liquid gasoline is being unloaded.
9. Section 63.427 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.427 Continuous monitoring.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Where a thermal oxidation system other than a flare is used, a
CPMS capable of measuring temperature shall be installed in the firebox
or in the ductwork immediately downstream from the firebox in a
position before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(4) Where a flare meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.11(b) is
used, a heat-sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or a
thermocouple, shall be installed in proximity to the pilot light to
indicate the presence of a flame.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.428 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(3)(i), and (b)(3)(viii), and by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Annual certification testing performed under Sec. 63.425(e)
and railcar bubble leak testing performed under Sec. 63.425(k).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Name of test: Annual Certification Test--Method 27 (Sec.
63.425(e)(1)); Annual Certification Test--Internal Vapor Valve (Sec.
63.425(e)(2)); Leak Detection Test (Sec. 63.425(f)); Nitrogen Pressure
Decay Field Test (Sec. 63.425(g)); Continuous Performance Pressure
Decay Test (Sec. 63.425(h)); or Railcar Bubble Leak Test Procedure
(Sec. 63.425(i)).
* * * * *
(viii) Test results: test pressure; pressure or vacuum change, mm
of water; time period of test; number of leaks found with instrument;
and leak definition.
* * * * *
(k) As an alternative to keeping records at the terminal of each
gasoline cargo tank test result as required in paragraph (b) of this
section, an owner or operator may comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) An electronic copy of each record is instantly available at the
terminal.
(2) The copy of each record in paragraph (k)(1) of this section is
an exact duplicate image of the original paper record with certifying
signatures.
(3) The permitting authority is notified in writing that each
terminal using this alternative is in compliance with paragraphs (k)(1)
and (2) of this section.
[FR Doc. 02-23740 Filed 9-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P