[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5038-5087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2003-0138, FRL-7551-6]
RIN 2060-AE79
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing organic liquids
distribution (OLD) (non-gasoline) operations, which are carried out at
storage terminals, refineries, crude oil pipeline stations, and various
manufacturing facilities. These NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all OLD operations at plant sites that
are major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
The EPA estimates that approximately 5,300 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (5,900 tons per year (tpy)) of HAP are emitted from facilities in
this source category. Although a large number of organic HAP are
emitted nationwide from these operations, benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylenes are among the most prevalent.
These HAP have been shown to have a variety of carcinogenic and
noncancer adverse health effects.
The EPA estimates that the final standards will result in the
reduction of HAP emissions from major sources with OLD operations by 60
percent. The emissions reductions achieved by the final standards, when
combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar
standards, will provide improved protection to the public and achieve a
primary goal of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2004. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in today's final rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 3,
2004.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket Nos. A-98-13 and OAR-2003-0138 are located at
the U.S. EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations,
[[Page 5039]]
contact the appropriate State or local agency representative. If no
State or local representative is available, contact the EPA Regional
Office staff listed in 40 CFR 63.13. For information concerning the
analyses performed in developing the NESHAP, contact Martha Smith, U.S.
EPA, Emission Standards Division, Waste and Chemical Processes Group,
C439-03, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-2421,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS* code SIC* code entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................. 325211, 325192, 325188, 32411, 49311, 2821, 2865, 2869, 2911, 4226, 4612, 5169, Operations at major
49319, 48611, 42269, 42271. 5171. sources that transfer
organic liquids into
or out of the plant
site, including:
liquid storage
terminals, crude oil
pipeline stations,
petroleum refineries,
chemical manufacturing
facilities, and other
manufacturing
facilities with
collocated OLD
operations.
Federal Government....................... ......................................... ......................................... Federal agency
facilities that
operate any of the
types of entities
listed under the
``industry'' category
in this table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Considered to be the primary industrial codes for the plant sites with OLD operations.
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 is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2334 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. We have established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID Nos. A-98-13 and OAR-2003-0138. The official
public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. All items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so
interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that
they have received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket)
in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The telephone number for the Air Docket
is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
to access the index listing of the contents of the official public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then
key in the appropriate docket identification number. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility in the above paragraph entitled Docket.
WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
at 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.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by April 5, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of NESHAP?
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
C. What Processes and Operations Are Included in the OLD (Non-
gasoline) Source Category?
II. Summary of the Final OLD NESHAP
A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the
Final OLD NESHAP?
B. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are
the Emissions?
C. What Is the Affected Source?
D. What Are the HAP Emissions Limits, Operating Limits, and
Other Standards?
E. When Must I Comply With the OLD NESHAP?
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
H. What Are the Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Facilities Are Affected by These Final NESHAP?
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?
D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
IV. Summary of Rule Differences From Proposal
A. Rule Applicability
B. Compliance Demonstrations
C. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Rule Applicability
B. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
C. Testing, Compliance Requirements, and Monitoring
D. Notifications, Reports, and Records
E. Definitions
[[Page 5040]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply: Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of NESHAP?
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health and
the environment by reducing emissions of HAP from operations that
distribute organic liquids.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Organic
liquids distribution (non-gasoline) (major sources only) was included
on the initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57
FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to
emit 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination
of HAP.
Section 112 (d)(2) of the CAA requires NESHAP to reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable.
This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP.
This concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the HAP emissions control
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the
average HAP emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12
percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or by the
best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the HAP
emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements, under CAA section 112(d)(2).
The NESHAP for organic liquids distribution were proposed on April
2, 2002 (67 FR 15674). This action announces EPA's final decisions on
the NESHAP.
C. What Processes and Operations Are Included in the OLD (Non-gasoline)
Source Category?
The OLD (non-gasoline) source category involves the distribution of
organic liquids into, out of, or within a plant site. The distribution
activities include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not
subject to other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of
the tanks from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. Organic
liquids are those non-crude oil liquids that contain at least 5 percent
by weight of any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 to subpart
EEEE of part 63, and have a total liquid vapor pressure of 0.7
kilopascals (0.1 pound per square inch absolute (psia)) or greater, and
all crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer. For
the purposes of the OLD NESHAP, organic liquids do not include
gasoline, fuels that are consumed or dispensed on the plant site,
kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil),
asphalt, and heavier distillate oils and fuel oils, hazardous waste,
wastewater, or ballast water. Emission sources controlled by the OLD
NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while
being loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and
sampling connections) that have the potential to leak.
The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are
already subject to other NESHAP. If an emission source is in organic
liquid distribution service and is already subject to an existing 40
CFR part 63 NESHAP, then that emission source is not subject to the OLD
NESHAP.
II. Summary of the Final OLD NESHAP
A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Final
OLD NESHAP?
Today's final rule applies to the OLD source category. We did not
develop any subcategories. However, OLD operations that do not meet the
specified applicability criteria for relevant emission limitations and
work practice standards contained in the final rule are not required to
apply emission reduction measures:
B. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary sources of HAP emissions from the OLD source category
are the loss of HAP during the filling of storage tanks with organic
liquids, storage of organic liquid in storage tanks, vapor displacement
during the loading of organic liquids into transport vehicles and
containers, and vapor leakage from transport vehicles at transfer racks
during loadings of these vehicles. The HAP emissions are also the
result of leaks from equipment such as valves, pumps, and sampling
connection systems. Total baseline HAP emissions from the OLD source
category are approximately 5,900 tpy.
C. What Is the Affected Source?
We have defined the affected source broadly to be the collection of
activities and equipment used to distribute organic liquids into, out
of, or within a major source plant site. This affected source is termed
the ``organic liquids distribution (OLD) operation.'' Four types of
emission sources are included in the affected source: storage tanks
storing organic liquids; transfer racks at which organic liquids are
loaded into or unloaded out of transport vehicles and/or containers;
the transport vehicles themselves while they are loading or unloading
organic liquids at transfer racks; and equipment leak components in
organic liquids service that are associated with pipelines and with
storage tanks and transfer racks storing, loading, or unloading organic
liquids.
Applicability of the final standards is not restricted to any
specific industries, but to each OLD operation that meets the
applicability criteria of the final rule. The final standards do not
apply to any emission source that is subject to another 40 CFR part 63
rule.
The liquids regulated by the final rule consist of non-crude oil
organic liquids that contain at least 5 percent by weight of any
combination of the organic HAP compounds listed in Table 1 to subpart
EEEE of part 63 and have a total liquid vapor pressure of 0.1 psia or
greater, plus all crude oils downstream of the first point of custody
transfer. Gasoline is specifically excluded from coverage by the final
rule as are fuels consumed or dispensed on the plant site as well as
kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil),
asphalt, and heavier distillate oils and fuel oils.
Regulatory overlaps are specifically addressed in the final rule.
Many of the
[[Page 5041]]
facilities potentially affected by the final OLD NESHAP contain
activities and equipment (i.e., certain storage tanks, transfer racks,
and equipment components) that are already subject to other Federal air
standards (such as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, for storage tanks, or
subpart GGG or FFFF of 40 CFR part 63). The final rule clarifies that
emission sources subject to other 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP are not subject
to the OLD NESHAP. The final rule also clarifies that sources subject
to other non-MACT rules must comply with the requirements of the OLD
NESHAP as well as the other rules.
D. What Are the HAP Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other
Standards?
We are promulgating the requirements of the final NESHAP in the
form of HAP emission limits (i.e., percent reduction or exhaust
concentration), operating limits, and work practice standards. The work
practice standards are a combination of design, equipment, and
operational standards.
The final NESHAP contain emission standards for storage tanks,
transfer racks, transport vehicles, and equipment components at
existing and new OLD operations.
The standards for storage tanks apply to tanks storing organic
liquids and meeting the tank capacity and liquid HAP vapor pressure
applicability criteria given in Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63. You
have three options for control. First, you may install a closed vent
system and control device with at least 95 percent control efficiency
for the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63. You
may also choose to demonstrate that the measurement of total organic
compounds (TOC) is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP. As an
alternative option to the 95 percent standard, combustion devices may
meet an exhaust concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) of organic HAP or TOC. Second, you may capture and route
emissions to a fuel gas system or back into a process. Third, you may
meet a work practice standard by using a compliant internal or external
floating roof in the affected storage tank. The tank size and liquid
vapor pressure applicability criteria defining tanks subject to
emission reduction requirements are different for tanks at existing or
new affected sources.
The owner or operator will have to install a continuous monitoring
system (CMS) and establish operating limits for each control device
used to control storage tanks. The CMS may be of a type to measure
either organic concentration in the gas stream or an operating
parameter (such as fire box temperature) of the control device. A site-
specific monitoring plan must be developed and submitted by the owner
or operator for each emission source.
The emission limit for transfer racks is a closed vent system and
control device achieving a control efficiency of at least 98 percent
for the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63. You
may also utilize a vapor balancing system to achieve the required
control efficiency. You may also choose to demonstrate that the
measurement of TOC is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP. As an
alternative option to the 98 percent standard, combustion devices may
meet an exhaust concentration limit of 20 ppmv of organic HAP or TOC.
Only transfer racks meeting the specified applicability criteria in the
final rule are required to implement emission reduction measures. The
same emission limit applies to affected transfer racks at both existing
and new affected sources.
The same requirements for installing a CMS and establishing
operating limits for the control device applicable to storage tanks
also apply to the control systems installed on transfer racks.
A work practice standard applies to pumps, valves, and sampling
connection systems. These equipment leak components in organic liquids
service must be included in a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program
which requires the use of a detection instrument. The term ``in organic
liquid service'' is defined in the final rule to mean an equipment leak
component that contains or contacts organic liquids having 5 percent by
weight or greater of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to subpart EEEE
of part 63. Owners and operators have the option of applying the
provisions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, subpart UU, or subpart H
for their LDAR program. The LDAR standard applies to equipment leak
components at both existing and new affected sources.
A work practice standard applies to transport vehicles (cargo tanks
and tank cars) loading at affected transfer racks. Each of these
vehicles must have current vapor tightness certification indicating
that it has been properly tested for vapor tightness. If the vehicle is
equipped with vapor collection equipment, the vehicle must be tested
using EPA Method 27 on an annual basis. For vehicles not so equipped,
the Department of Transportation (DOT) leak tightness standards apply,
and current certification indicating that these standards have been met
must be retained by the owner or operator for each vehicle that loads
at affected transfer racks whether the source owns the vehicle or not.
The owner or operator is not required to test transport vehicles he or
she does not own, but must take adequate steps to ensure that
uncertified vehicles are not loaded at affected racks. These work
practice standards are the same for both existing and new affected
sources.
E. When Must I Comply With the OLD NESHAP?
We are requiring that all existing affected sources comply by
February 5, 2007, except for floating roof storage tanks that do not
initially meet the equipment standard for storage tanks in the final
rule. These tanks must be in compliance following their next degassing
and cleaning, or by February 3, 2014, whichever is sooner. If the first
degassing and cleaning activity occurs during the 3 years following
February 3, 2004, the compliance date is February 5, 2007. Existing
area sources that increase their HAP emissions or their potential to
emit such that they become major sources of HAP, and thus affected
sources, must be in compliance within 3 years after the date they
become major sources.
Any affected source that commenced construction after April 2,
2002, at a site where there were no existing OLD operations, is a new
affected source. Any affected source that commenced reconstruction
after April 2, 2002, at a site that was an existing OLD source, is a
reconstructed source. Emissions sources at new and reconstructed
affected sources that are now in operation must be in compliance on
February 3, 2004, with certain exceptions. These exceptions are due to
the fact that the final rule applies to some affected sources and
emission sources that would not have been covered by the proposed rule,
and that in some cases the final emission standards are more stringent
than were proposed. In cases where an emission source at a now-
operating new or reconstructed affected source would not have been
required to be controlled under the proposed rule but is required to be
controlled under the final rule, the emission source must be in
compliance by February 5, 2007. Where an emission source at such a new
or reconstructed affected source would have been subject to a less
stringent control requirement under the proposed rule than applies
under the final rule, the emission source must be in compliance with
the final rule's requirement by February 5, 2007, and in the interim
must comply with the less stringent control requirement as proposed.
[[Page 5042]]
New or reconstructed sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after February 3, 2004 must comply upon startup.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
To determine the applicability of the final standards to individual
operations, each OLD operation must evaluate whether any of their
distributed liquids contain less than 5 percent HAP by weight and,
thus, do not meet the definition of an organic liquid under the final
rule. The specified test method for this is EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A, or other methods approved by the Administrator. An
owner or operator may use other means (such as voluntary consensus
standard methods, material safety data sheets (MSDS), or certified
product data sheets) for determining the HAP content. However, if the
results of an analysis by EPA Method 311 (or other approved test
method) are different from the HAP content determined by another means,
the EPA Method 311 (or other approved test method) results will govern
compliance determinations.
Control devices used to comply with the final standards are subject
to a performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits, except that a design evaluation, conducted according
to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS, may be used for nonflare control devices.
The test methods applicable to control devices include EPA Methods
18, 25, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and EPA Method 316 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, depending on the constituents of the gas
stream being controlled and the format of the standard (organic HAP or
TOC) the facility selects for its compliance demonstration. Floating
roof tanks are subject to visual and seal gap inspections to determine
initial compliance with the tank work practice standards. For the LDAR
program for equipment components, EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, is applicable.
Initial compliance with the emission limits for storage tanks and
transfer racks consists of demonstrating that the control device
achieves the required 95 or 98 percent control efficiency for organic
HAP (or TOC, if used as a documented surrogate) or 20 ppmv exhaust
concentration for combustion devices. The required percentage control
efficiency must be applied to the Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63
HAP concentration found at the inlet to the control device.
Work practice standards apply to storage tanks, transfer racks,
transport vehicles, and equipment components. You must perform a visual
inspection before filling internal floating roof tanks. You must also
conduct a measurement of seal gaps for external floating roof tanks
within 90 days after filling. For transfer racks, you must ensure that
vapor balancing systems or equipment for routing emissions to a fuel
gas system or back to a process are properly designed and operated. For
transport vehicles, you must perform vapor tightness testing for
vehicles that you own and maintain documentation for all affected
vehicles certifying that they are vapor-tight. Finally, for the
equipment LDAR program, you must identify which 40 CFR part 63 subpart
you are complying with and keep a record identifying the selected
subpart.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
If you use a control device, we are requiring that you monitor and
record the operating parameters established during the initial
performance test and calculate operating parameter values averaged on a
daily basis. Continuous compliance is demonstrated if you collect CMS
data as specified and maintain the operating limits established during
the design evaluation or performance test.
If you are subject to work practice standards, we are requiring
that you demonstrate continuous compliance by performing the required
work practices and by keeping the records required to show that you are
in compliance. For storage tanks, you must continue to perform the
applicable inspections and seal gap measurement to ensure that the
floating roofs continue to provide the proper control. For transport
vehicles, you must continue performing the required vapor tightness
testing on vehicles that you own and take steps to ensure that all
transport vehicles loading at the OLD operation have the required
certification. For equipment components, you must perform the required
monitoring, keep the required records, and file the required reports
consistent with the LDAR program you selected for the equipment
components in the affected source.
H. What Are the Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements?
The notifications, records, and reports required by the final rule
are generally consistent with the requirements of the General
Provisions of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. Two basic types of reports
are required: notifications (such as the Initial Notification and the
Notification of Compliance Status) and semiannual compliance, or
periodic, reports. The Initial Notification apprises the permitting
authority of applicability for existing sources or of construction for
new sources.
The Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted within 60
days after the compliance demonstration activity has been completed.
This report contains the results of the initial performance test, as
well as all calculations and analyses used to show that the affected
source has achieved and will continue to achieve compliance.
You are required to describe in your semiannual compliance reports
any deviations of monitored parameters from reference values; failures
to comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan for
control devices; and results of LDAR monitoring and storage tank
inspections. These reports are also used to notify the permitting
authority of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
You are required to keep a copy of each notification and report,
along with supporting documentation, for 5 years. Of these 5 years, the
2 most recent years must be kept on-site. The final rule allows
electronic recordkeeping; however, you must be able to access all
required records in a timely manner. You must keep records related to
SSM, records of performance tests, and records for each continuous
monitoring system. If you must comply with work practice standards, you
also need to keep records for 5 years (the 2 most recent years must be
kept on-site) certifying that you are in compliance with the work
practices.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Final OLD NESHAP?
Facilities affected by the final OLD NESHAP are those facilities
that carry out organic liquid distribution activities. Most of these
facilities can be grouped under three general categories: stand-alone
(usually for-hire) storage terminals; OLD operations collocated with a
petroleum refinery, a chemical manufacturing plant site, or other
manufacturing plant site; and crude oil pipeline pumping or breakout
stations (containing crude oil tankage).
We estimate that in 1997, the baseline year for the final
standards, there were approximately 279 collocated OLD operations, 86
stand-alone storage terminals, and 16 crude oil pipeline stations, for
a total of approximately 381
[[Page 5043]]
existing major source plant sites with OLD operations.
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The 1997 baseline HAP emissions from OLD operations are
approximately 5,900 tpy. The final OLD NESHAP will reduce HAP from
existing major sources by 3,500 tpy, a reduction of 60 percent. Such
emission reductions are likely to reduce the risk of adverse effects of
HAP.
Although the final OLD NESHAP do not specifically require the
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC), the organic HAP emission
control technologies upon which the standards are based will also
significantly reduce VOC emissions from the source category. We
estimate that the final OLD NESHAP will reduce nationwide VOC emissions
emitted by the source category by approximately 9,900 tpy, or 70
percent, from baseline. This will have the effect of reducing adverse
ozone-related health and welfare impacts.
The final OLD NESHAP will result in small increases in other air
pollution emissions from combustion devices that will be installed in
the next 5 years to comply with today's final rule. These increases
result both from the combustion device directly and from the electrical
generating plants used to generate the electricity necessary to operate
the add-on controls and associated air handling equipment.
C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the final OLD NESHAP will not significantly impact
water quality. The final standards do not contain requirements related
to water discharges, wastewater collection, or spill containment, and
no additional organic liquids are expected to enter these areas as a
result of the OLD NESHAP. A few facilities may select a scrubber
(depending on the specific emissions they are controlling) to control
emissions from transfer racks or fixed-roof storage tanks. The impact
on water quality from the use of scrubbers is not expected to be
significant.
D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?
We project that there will be no significant solid or hazardous
waste impact. Flares, thermal oxidizers, scrubbers, and condensers do
not generate solid waste as a by-product of their operation. When
adsorption systems are used, the spent activated carbon or other
adsorbent that cannot be further regenerated may be disposed of in a
landfill, which would contribute a small amount of solid waste.
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
The control devices used for transfer rack and storage tank control
use electric motor-driven blowers, dampers, or pumps, depending on the
type of system, in addition to electronic control and monitoring
systems. The installation of these devices would have a small negative
energy impact. To the extent that some of the controlled organic
liquids are non-gasoline fuels, the applied control measures would keep
these liquids in the distribution system and thus have a positive
impact on this form of energy.
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
We have estimated the industrywide capital costs for HAP emissions
control equipment to be $49.3 million for the 381 existing sources. The
capital costs include the costs to purchase and install the control
equipment.
We have estimated the industrywide annual costs of the final rule
are $25.1 million per year for the 381 existing sources. Annual costs
include fixed annual costs, such as reporting, recordkeeping and
capital amortization, and variable annual costs such as natural gas.
The estimated average cost of the final rule is $7,100 per ton of HAP
emissions reductions for existing sources.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The increases in price for petroleum and chemical products affected
by the final OLD rule are less than 0.003 percent, and the price
increase for distribution service covered by the final rule is 0.1
percent. Reductions in output for petroleum and chemical products are
also less than 0.003 percent, and the output reduction of distribution
services is less than 0.002 percent.
None of the facilities affected are expected to close as a result
of incurring costs associated with the final rule. Therefore, it is
likely that there is no adverse impact expected to occur for the
industries affected by the final rule, such as chemical manufacturing,
petroleum refineries, pipeline operators, and petroleum bulk terminal
operators.
IV. Summary of Rule Differences From Proposal
A. Rule Applicability
We made several clarifications to our intent as to the composition
of the OLD source category and the affected source and the overall
applicability of various requirements of the final rule. We have
removed the facilitywide 7.29 million gallon throughput cutoff. We
found, after reanalyzing our database, that we could not support such a
cutoff, since our data reanalysis indicated that MACT floor levels of
control applied to facilities below the proposed facility throughput
cutoff. For the final rule, we have adopted a set of applicability
criteria to be applied to each type of emission source to determine
whether emission reductions are required for each specific emission
source. These applicability criteria were developed from our MACT floor
analysis of our database.
We have written the definition of the term ``organic liquid'' to
include any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5 percent by
weight of any combination of the HAP listed in Table 1 to subpart EEEE
of part 63 and also has a total liquid vapor pressure of at least 0.1
psia, plus all crude oil downstream of the first point of custody
transfer. This reflects our reanalysis of our database, which revealed
that MACT floor levels of control apply to liquids with these HAP
concentrations and vapor pressures. The definition also reflects our
decision to eliminate the ``black oil'' exemption as proposed because
we identified MACT floor controls for storage of crude oil.
In response to several comments, we clarified that the OLD final
rule will not regulate any emission sources that are part of another 40
CFR part 63 MACT rule's affected source, whether those sources are
actually controlled or not. We also included a new section in the final
rule on how owners and operators should treat regulatory overlaps
(i.e., two Federal rules with applicability to the same emission
source).
The final rule also corrects several of the proposed citations to
40 CFR part 63, subparts PP, SS, TT, UU, and WW and adds new ones to
make the use of the referenced provisions easier for regulated sources
to understand.
B. Compliance Demonstrations
The proposed rule was unclear as to how a source could use a design
evaluation as an alternative to a performance test when demonstrating
initial compliance for a control device. The final rule clarifies that
the design evaluation (per 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS) may only be
applied to nonflare control devices. Flares are subject to specific
design criteria contained in the General Provisions (40 CFR 63.11(b)).
We have changed the principal test method to be used for analyzing
the organic HAP content of liquids from EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, to EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The
EPA Method 18 is not an appropriate method for liquid analysis of the
type that will be performed under the OLD NESHAP.
[[Page 5044]]
Method 18 is appropriate for determining the HAP content in air
streams, not the HAP content in liquids. We are now specifying EPA
Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, which is titled ``Analysis
of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct
Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.'' Sources may also use alternative
analytical methods with EPA's approval, or rely on supplier
information, MSDS, and similar analyses that do not require the source
to perform any testing. If an MSDS, or similar documentation, presents
the HAP content of components of a liquid as a range, then you must use
the upper end of the range of values in determining the total HAP
content of the liquid. If the results of an analysis by EPA Method 311
are different from the HAP content determined by another means, the EPA
Method 311 results will govern compliance determinations.
The final rule allows up to 180 days after the compliance date to
conduct the initial performance tests, rather than having to conduct
them by the compliance date, and, thus, makes the final rule consistent
with the amended General Provisions and other MACT rules.
C. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
At proposal, we specified liquid vapor pressure cutoffs to
determine applicability of the storage tank control requirements in
terms of the annual average true vapor pressure of the stored liquid.
This format was compatible with the liquid property data in our OLD
database as we had received the data from industry. For the final rule,
we have determined, in response to comments and after our re-analysis
of our database, that the vapor pressure basis should be consistent
with other NESHAP that also specify storage tank vapor pressure cutoff
levels. Therefore, we have written the basis for the applicability
criteria in the final OLD NESHAP to be the annual average true vapor
pressure of the total organic HAP in the stored liquid.
We have also increased the time period over which an owner or
operator may achieve compliance with the work practice standards for
floating roof storage tanks. For any floating roof tanks that do not
currently meet the equipment requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63
subpart WW, full compliance may be achieved within 10 years after the
effective date of the final OLD NESHAP, or at the next degassing or
cleaning of the tank, whichever occurs first. If the first degassing
and cleaning activity occurs during the 3 years following the effective
date of the final OLD NESHAP, the compliance date is 3 years from the
effective date of the final OLD NESHAP. Fixed-roof tanks are still
required to achieve compliance within 3 years after the effective date
of the final OLD NESHAP.
At proposal, the emission limit and applicability throughput cutoff
for transfer racks was based on each rack loading position. In re-
analyzing the database since proposal, we have determined that the
information for transfer racks could not be verified on the basis of
individual rack loading position. We have written the final rule based
on the entire transfer rack to be consistent with many other MACT
rules.
In response to requests by commenters and after re-analyzing our
database, we added 40 CFR part 63 subpart H as one of the LDAR programs
that may be used to comply with the work practice standard for
equipment. We also clarified that only equipment leak components
associated with the affected source need to be included in a source's
LDAR program.
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The proposed rule contained detailed procedures for performing
monitoring and for carrying out quality assurance checks on the
monitors. The final rule incorporates the monitoring provisions of 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, and requires owners and operators to submit
their own monitoring plan for approval by the applicable title V
permitting authority. In accordance with subpart SS, the final rule
allows the use of organic monitors in addition to monitors that measure
an operating parameter of the control device (such as temperature).
This will provide more flexibility in the way a source determines
operating limits and monitors operation of control systems. In response
to several comments, the averaging time for the monitored data is
daily, which is consistent with 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS.
Following proposal, we reviewed the proposed requirements to file
reports and keep records and determined that these requirements could
be streamlined by reorganizing the pertinent rule sections and deleting
certain records and reports that were duplicative or unnecessary for
ensuring that sources were maintaining compliance with the standards.
We also responded to comments requesting flexibility in the way a
source generates and submits reports by allowing a source to combine
the reports required by different MACT rules or to send the periodic
reports required under the final OLD NESHAP along with those required
by title V of the CAA. We have incorporated provisions to allow these
forms of combined reporting, as well as an allowance for multiple
Notifications of Compliance Status for the same affected source to be
submitted together. We have included specific references to the
periodic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU,
and WW, which had been inadvertently omitted from the proposal.
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Rule Applicability
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Agency should revise
the definition of ``OLD operation'' to be the combination or group of
emission units used to transfer organic liquids into or out of a plant
site in order to provide a clear definition of the OLD source category.
Two of the commenters stated that EPA's definition of ``OLD operation''
is inconsistent with its source category listing. The proposed
definition captures facilities that receive organic liquids but do not
serve as distribution points, and from which such liquids are not
obtained for further use and processing. These commenters urged EPA to
limit the source category so that facilities and activities that do not
serve as distribution points, or are merely managing organic liquids
without distribution, are not captured in the final rule. Other
commenters urged EPA to clarify that the final rule will not apply to
end-users of organic liquid products, but rather only to manufacturers
and distributors of those organic liquid products in the SIC/NAICS
codes listed at proposal.
Response: The commenter's suggested definition for ``OLD
operation'' is more appropriate for the affected source definition to
clearly establish the limits of the affected source, but is not
appropriate for describing the source category as a whole.
Further, we disagree with the commenters that our definition of OLD
operation and, thus, the OLD source category is inconsistent with the
source category listing by including facilities that receive organic
liquids without further distributing them to end users. We consider the
distribution network to include both outgoing and incoming transfers
and storage of organic liquids, whether offsite or onsite. Thus, while
the types of facilities identified by the commenters may never
distribute the liquids offsite, the activities, equipment, and
emissions that occur at such receiving and end-use facilities are part
[[Page 5045]]
of the overall organic liquid distribution network.
The final rule is clear that the source category includes OLD
operations that are collocated with other (such as manufacturing)
activities at major source plant sites. Since the source category
includes distribution operations in many industrial categories, we have
not included any reference to SIC or NAICS codes in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter noted that the Technical Support Document
(TSD) indicates that ``tanks and other liquid handling equipment
involved solely in activities within the plant site would not be
considered to be OLD emission sources * * *,'' but the provisions of
the proposed rule and the definition of ``OLD operation'' do not
support this position.
Similarly, commenters recommended that the affected source not
include dedicated equipment used to transfer and store organic liquids
between on-site process units.
Response: Our intent for the final rule is to reduce HAP emissions
from the storage and transfer of organic liquids within a distribution
network. It is our judgment that the distribution network ends only
when the organic liquids reach a final destination where they are
consumed or are introduced into an operation included in another source
category. Therefore, the OLD network includes the transfer and storage
of organic liquids involving any equipment identified in the affected
source for OLD and that are not subject to another MACT rule. Further,
in our judgement, there is no practical difference in the types of
equipment in use and the types of available emission controls are
identical for both inter- and intra-plant site transfers.
Based on these considerations, it is our intent that equipment used
to store or transfer organic liquids that occur ``within'' a plant site
are considered part of the OLD distribution network and part of the OLD
affected source unless such equipment is subject to another MACT
standard. Therefore, we have not excluded from the final rule ``tanks
and other liquid handling equipment involved solely in activities
within the plant site,'' and we have written the definition of OLD
operation to include transfers and storage of organic liquids ``into,
out of, or within a plant site.'' Thus, if an emission source meets the
relevant HAP content, vapor pressure, and capacity or throughput
criteria, the emission reduction requirements of the final rule apply
to that emission source even if it transfers or stores organic liquids
wholly within a plant site.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA clarify the
relationship between applicability and affected source. These
commenters felt that restricting the affected source to only those
emission points that are subject to controls could result in a very
narrow definition of the affected source. It could also result in
triggering the MACT new source requirements by the addition of a
relatively small component to an OLD operation, if the rest of the OLD
operation were exempt from controls. This does not appear to be EPA's
intent, but rather an inadvertent consequence of the manner in which
the proposed rule addresses emission points that are exempt from
controls.
Another commenter stated that EPA's proposed affected source
definition is unlawful because EPA chose a broad definition that allows
equipment to be replaced without the replacement becoming a new source.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the proposed rule did
not contain a clear definition of the affected source, primarily
because of confusion that occurred as the result of the two different
definitions of ``affected source'' that were inadvertently created in
the proposed rule.
While the intent of proposed Sec. 63.2338(b)(2) was to provide
additional detail to supplement the definition in Sec. 63.2338(b)(1),
we understand the confusion that this created by appearing to present a
different and conflicting affected source definition. In the final
rule, we have defined ``affected source'' as ``* * * the collection of
activities and equipment used to distribute organic liquids into, out
of, or within a facility that is a major source of HAP.''
We also agree with the commenters that the affected source should
include all of the pertinent emission sources without regard to the
applicability criteria that cause certain equipment to be subject to
different requirements of the final rule. Therefore, the final rule, in
Sec. 63.2338(b), presents a description of the affected source in which
all of the pertinent emission sources are listed, without regard to
their control requirements under the final rule. We have also written
Sec. 63.2338(b)(1) to define the affected source as ``the collection of
activities and equipment.'' This clarifies our intention to have a
broad interpretation of affected source.
We acknowledge that a broad definition in many circumstances allows
individual emission points (such as a single storage tank, pump, etc.)
to be replaced without the new source standards being applied to that
new piece of equipment. Using a broad definition of affected source is,
however, within our discretion in selecting the best approach for the
standards for a particular source category. The term ``affected
source'' refers to the collection of processes, activities, or
equipment to which a MACT standard applies. In other MACT rules, we
have adopted either a broader or narrower definition of affected source
for given categories depending on the nature of particular MACT
requirements and the strategies available for meeting them. A broader
definition permits emission reduction requirements to apply to a larger
group of processes, activities, and equipment. This approach encourages
owners or operators to develop and utilize more innovative and
economically efficient control strategies. Using a narrower definition
of affected source frequently leads to difficulties for facilities in
managing differing requirements for individual pieces of equipment
without achieving substantive emission reduction.
For the purpose of determining MACT, however, we chose to utilize
the approach of examining the emission sources individually. In our
industry survey, we requested data for each emission source rather than
from the entire OLD operation. By evaluating the data on an emission
source basis, we were able to establish MACT floors for each type of
emission source without having to consider how each facility controlled
emissions on a facilitywide basis. For example, we established MACT
floors for storage tanks based on facilities with the best controlled
storage tanks, even if those facilities did not utilize the best
controlled transfer racks.
Our selected approach for the final OLD NESHAP is consistent with
the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, as amended (67 FR 16582, April
5, 2002), which adopt a broader definition of affected source such that
future MACT standards will generally adopt a definition of affected
source which consists of all existing HAP-emitting equipment and
activities that are at a single contiguous site and are within a
specific category or subcategory.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that compounding, blending,
and packaging operations be included in the affected source, but with
no control requirements. According to the commenters, this would result
in a more accurate investment basis for OLD operations at a site, would
clarify which MACT affected source these operations are associated
with, and would avoid the potential for future regulatory overlap.
[[Page 5046]]
One commenter supported the inclusion of small containers (pails,
drums, portable tanks, and isotainers) as part of the OLD affected
source but urged that small containers be excluded from controls in the
final rule.
Response: We have written the definition of affected source in the
final rule to include storage tanks and transfer racks used to store or
transfer organic liquids regardless of the particular operation or
activity such tanks and transfer racks were supporting, including such
operations and activities as packaging, blending, and compounding.
We have not defined the affected source to single out the
operations identified by the commenter because the changes that were
made to the definition provide the necessary clarity. The final rule
makes it clear that equipment used in operations such as these would be
part of the affected source if they meet the general criteria of
storing or transferring organic liquids and they are not subject to
another MACT rule. Equipment meeting the affected source criteria in
Sec. 63.2338 of the final rule are to be included as emission sources
in the initial Notifications and Reports required under Sec.Sec.
63.2382 and 63.2386 of the final rule.
Finally, we have included containers in the definition of affected
source. This is consistent with how we have re-defined the affected
source to include equipment even if control is not required under the
final rule. The re-analysis of our data after reviewing the public
comments resulted in a finding that the floor level of control for
existing container filling operations is no emission reduction. We did,
however, identify a MACT floor level of control for new source
container filling. As discussed in more detail later in this preamble,
we have determined that there are no feasible or cost-effective beyond-
the-floor alternatives for the filling of containers at existing
sources. Therefore, the final rule includes control requirements only
for container filling operations that are new sources.
Comment: A number of commenters stated that the inclusion of cargo
tanks as part of the affected source is inappropriate. These commenters
pointed out that third parties typically provide cargo tanks and they
are not generally under the common control of the OLD facilities. The
commenters also stated that, if the OLD operation owner purchases
either new cargo tanks or a fleet of existing cargo tanks, they should
not be included in the reconstruction cost evaluation and potentially
trigger new source MACT requirements at the OLD operation.
Response: As discussed in the proposal preamble and the TSD, and in
previous rulemakings including the Gasoline Distribution MACT NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart R), cargo tanks (consisting of tank trucks and
tank cars, and renamed as ``transport vehicles'' in the final rule) can
be a significant source of emissions while being loaded at transfer
racks. Transport vehicles (whether owned/leased by the facility or
operated by other firms) must be included in the affected source to
ensure that MACT control will extend to these sources. As the final
rule makes clear in Table 4 to subpart EEEE of part 63, the owner or
operator must have vapor tightness documentation for each transport
vehicle loading at an affected transfer rack. Third parties in many
cases will be responsible for getting periodic testing (EPA Method 27
or DOT test) performed and for providing the certification papers to
the facilities.
The acquisition of additional transport vehicles, whether by the
source owner or by third parties, would not be included in the
reconstruction cost evaluation and would not trigger any different
control requirements for the liquid transfer operation. The items that
define the affected source are the stationary infrastructure of the
facility; that is, the combination of tanks, transfer racks, and
equipment leak components. The primary mission of transport vehicles is
transporting the liquids on roadways. Thus, they are not part of the
stationary infrastructure of the facility. The objective of the
``reconstruction'' provisions of the CAA is to prevent an existing
source from avoiding more stringent new source standards by perpetually
rebuilding existing equipment rather than installing new equipment. The
purchase of transport vehicles should have no impact on the triggering
of more stringent standards for the storage tanks or transfer racks at
an affected source. Also, at an OLD operation, facilitywide emission
rates are impacted by the size, throughput capacity, and number of
storage tanks and transfer racks. From the standpoint of overall
emissions, it makes no difference if one vehicle is loaded ten times or
if ten identical vehicles are loaded once. Therefore, the number of
individual transport vehicles or the acquisition of additional
transport vehicles should not be included as part of the infrastructure
of the facility that is considered in determining ``reconstruction''
cost. The acquisition of additional containers by an owner or operator
of an OLD facility would also not be considered in the determination of
``reconstruction'' costs.
Comment: Three commenters stated that EPA needed to clarify that
only pipelines with equipment leak components (i.e., pumps, valves, or
sampling connection systems) associated with a storage tank or transfer
rack included in the affected source will be subject to the LDAR
requirements. Commenters requested that a pipeline that transfers
organic liquids directly to or from a process unit that does not pass
through a transfer rack or storage vessel subject to the rule is not to
be included in the affected source or in the calculation of throughput
used in applicability determinations.
Commenters also stated that the exclusions from the OLD rule should
include pipeline equipment leak components used to directly transfer
organic liquids across plant site boundaries into or out of storage
tanks not subject to another MACT standard or process equipment that
are not storage tanks, and unloading facilities and pipeline equipment
used to transfer organic liquids from ships, barges, tank trucks, or
tank cars into a storage tank covered by other MACT standards or
process equipment that are not storage tanks.
Response: Pipelines themselves are not and never were part of the
affected source definition. Only equipment leak components that are
part of a pipeline were considered part of the affected source at
proposal. We know of no reason as to why equipment leak components
associated with a pipeline that transfers organic liquids should not be
part of the affected source for the final rule, regardless of whether
the organic liquid being transferred is deposited in a storage tank
subject to the final rule or to another MACT standard. If the
pipeline's equipment leak components are subject to another MACT
standard, then they are not subject to the final OLD NESHAP. If the
pipeline's equipment leak components are not subject to another MACT
standard and the pipeline is in organic liquids service, then the
equipment leak components are subject to the requirements of the final
OLD NESHAP.
Finally, the final rule does not include a facility-level
throughput calculation to determine whether or not a facility is
subject to the final rule. Therefore, there is no longer a need to
clarify the relationship of pipelines to the throughput applicability
determination.
Comment: We received a large number of comments concerning the
proposed applicability criteria of 7.29 million gallons per year, which
would
[[Page 5047]]
have excluded facilities from the OLD rule if their facility throughput
was less than 7.29 million gallons of organic liquids. Several
commenters supported the cutoff and requested clarification on the
procedures for determining throughput. Other commenters questioned the
appropriateness of excluding from control those facilities that are in
the source category and have emission sources that could be controlled
by the final OLD rule.
Response: We proposed a facility-level throughput cutoff believing
it was a useful criterion to identify smaller facilities at which
controls would not be required based on our understanding that such
facilities were not typically required to be controlled under other
rules. We re-analyzed the database to determine if MACT floors existed
for facilities with throughputs less than 7.29 million gallons of
organic liquids, and determined that MACT floors exist for facilities
with throughputs of less than 7.29 million gallons. Therefore, we can
not support the proposed 7.29 million gallon cutoff.
However, as a result of our re-analysis of the database, we
determined that throughput cutoffs for certain emission points were
justified. The throughput cutoffs are now a part of the applicability
criteria used to determine which transfer racks are subject to control.
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the
relationship between the OLD rule and other existing rules and future
rules.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the final OLD NESHAP
must be explicit in describing the specific applicability of other 40
CFR part 63 NESHAP for sources that potentially may be drawn into more
than one subpart. Section 63.2338(c)(1) of the final rule states that
storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak components that are
part of an affected source under another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP are
excluded from the definition of affected source, even in cases where
the other rule does not require a reduction in emissions from the
emission source.
Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA needs to address
overlap between the OLD NESHAP and other non-40 CFR part 63 existing
rules, such as the Storage Tank New Source Performance Standard (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb), the Benzene Storage Tank and Benzene Transfer
Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subparts Y and BB, respectively),
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
Response: We have written 40 CFR 63.2396 to address the overlap
between the final OLD NESHAP and those rules cited by the commenters.
If meeting the requirements of another rule does not result in an owner
or operator fully meeting the requirements of the OLD NESHAP, then the
owner or operator must modify the compliance methods to come into full
compliance with the OLD NESHAP while remaining in compliance with the
other rule.
Comment: One commenter, whose facility is subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart Y (Marine Loading), pointed out that 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS, Sec. 63.983(b) and (c), imposes an initial leak detection
standard for closed vent systems that is more stringent than the
detection standard contained in subpart Y; Sec. 63.983(c)(1)(v)
specifies only the use of methane for calibration of the instrument
used to conduct the initial EPA Method 21 sweeps in subpart SS, while
subpart Y is more flexible; subpart Y and subpart SS conflict on the
response required if a leak is found; and, for closed vent systems that
contain bypass lines, subpart Y contains an exemption on closure
requirements for maintenance vents, but subpart SS does not allow that
exemption. The commenter stated that this is appropriate for subpart Y
due to the ``batch'' nature of tank vessel loading, and that it would
be inappropriate to impose the subpart SS requirement on part of their
facility.
Response: If an OLD emission source is required to be controlled
under the final OLD NESHAP and that emission source is already
controlled in a ``shared'' control device, then the owner or operator
is required to be in compliance with both NESHAP or the NESHAP that
impose the more stringent emission standard and/or work practices.
If an OLD emission source is in OLD operation part of the year and
``in service'' for another NESHAP for the rest of the year, then that
OLD emission source is required to be in compliance with the final OLD
NESHAP when that emission source is in OLD operation, even if the
requirements between the two NESHAP rules are different. The owner or
operator still has the option to permanently comply with whichever
NESHAP provides the most stringent emission standard and/or work
practices.
Comment: One commenter noted several conflicts between 40 CFR part
63, subparts SS and Y, and the proposed OLD NESHAP; specifically,
performance tests on incinerators using specified test methods and
conflicting language regarding the temperature monitoring location. The
commenter claimed that the proposed control device evaluation in 40 CFR
63.2362(g) that would be submitted according to the requirements of 40
CFR 63.985(b)(1)(i) is an unnecessarily burdensome requirement for a
facility that has source test data less than 5 years old showing that
the control device more than adequately controls emissions. For such
facilities, the commenter requested that existing data be allowed to be
used in lieu of a design evaluation.
Response: We have written the performance test and design
evaluation requirements in Sec. 63.2362 of the final rule and Table 5
to subpart EEEE of part 63 to more clearly specify the use of the 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, procedures and also to clarify that prior test
results may be used, in many cases, to demonstrate compliance with the
final OLD NESHAP. The final rule also allows owners or operators the
flexibility of applying for approval to use alternative test methods.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that EPA clarify the OLD
boundary by incorporating the concept of ``intervening storage tanks,''
which has been used in several other MACT standards such as the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and the Polymers and Resins rules. Under
this concept, if a bulk tank in a centralized tank farm area has
received organic liquids from outside the plant site and feeds that
material to another storage tank at the process unit (an ``intervening
storage tank''), the bulk tank is assigned to the organic liquid
distribution operation and the intervening storage tank to the process
unit.
Response: We have evaluated the comment concerning the concept of
``intervening storage tanks'' and have determined that such a concept
is neither appropriate nor needed for the final OLD NESHAP. The
``intervening storage tank'' concept is specifically to help facilities
identify which storage tanks are part of the affected source of a
particular MACT source category. The intent of the final OLD NESHAP is
to supplement other NESHAP and apply to all remaining unregulated
storage tanks that are in OLD operation. To incorporate similar
``intervening storage tank'' language in the final OLD rule is at best
unnecessary and at worst could lead to excluding tanks that should be
covered by the final OLD NESHAP.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that EPA clarify that the
emission limitations and work practice standards identified in Sec.
63.2346 apply whenever an emission source is in OLD operation, but not
when the emission
[[Page 5048]]
source is not in OLD operation. Commenters pointed out that the
proposal stated that affected facilities must be in compliance with the
emission limitations at all times except for periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. They felt that periods of ``non-operation of
the affected source'' should be included on this list.
Commenters recommended that Sec. 63.2374(c) be clarified such that
for demonstrating continuous compliance data averages should only
include data collected when vapors from OLD operations are being routed
to the control device.
Response: It was our intent in the proposed rule that the emission
limitations and work practice standards apply only when an emission
source is transferring or storing an organic liquid or when an
equipment leak component is in organic liquids service. Because there
are no emissions from storage tanks or transfer racks during periods of
``non-operation of the affected source,'' there is no need for the
emission limitations to apply during these times. In addition to
periods when the entire affected source is not in operation, there may
be periods when any one of the emissions sources within the affected
source is not in operation or is not in OLD operation. During these
periods, the emission limitations for all other emission sources would
still apply, but the emission limitations would not apply to the
emission source not in OLD operation. This intention has been clarified
in Sec. 63.2350 of the final rule.
We agree with the comment that only data collected during times
when emissions are being routed to the control device should be used in
demonstrating continuous compliance and have written Sec. 63.2374(c) of
the final rule to the effect that data are not to be used when
collected during ``periods when emissions from organic liquids are not
routed to the control device.''
Comment: One commenter felt that the proposed rule should be
modified to allow pilot flames to be turned off during flare shutdowns
and when all the sources serviced by the flare are shut down.
A second commenter thought EPA should reconsider the continuous
compliance requirements for thermal incinerators that utilize ``bladder
tanks,'' which collect emissions in a bladder until a sufficient
quantity is collected to use the incinerator, so that the oxidizer does
not have to be operated continuously. The commenter suggested changing
the rule language to require sites to maintain the average fire box
temperature only during times that vapors are introduced to the control
device.
Response: The requirement to continuously maintain a flare pilot
flame is part of the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, which state
that a pilot flame is required for an open flare during periods when
emissions may be vented to the flare. If the flare is shutdown (out of
service), there is no need to require a pilot flame because no
emissions will be vented to the flare. Where the emissions sources
serviced by the flare are shutdown, we agree that operating a pilot
flame during such periods would be nonproductive because there are no
emissions to be vented to the flare. We have written Table 9 to subpart
EEEE of part 63 to allow an owner or operator not to maintain the pilot
flame when all emission sources serviced by the flare are shutdown (out
of service). However, we are requiring in the final rule that owners
and operators make a demonstration to the permitting authority that it
will not experience a deviation and to keep records of each time the
pilot flame is extinguished and relit.
We also agree with the commenter that it is unnecessary to maintain
the average fire box temperature in thermal incinerators during periods
when emissions are not vented to the incinerator. Therefore, we have
written Table 9 to subpart EEEE of part 63 to clarify that the average
fire box temperature in thermal incinerators need only be maintained
while emissions are being vented to the control device. The final rule
requires the owner or operator to monitor both this temperature and the
time periods when vapors are flowing to the device. We also note that
an owner or operator may have to increase the firebox temperature some
time before emissions are vented back into the incinerator in order to
comply with the average fire box temperature requirement.
Comment: We received several comments concerning the definition of
``organic liquid'' that affects the applicability of the proposed
standards. One commenter asserted that the exemption of most organic
liquids containing less than 5 percent HAP by weight is in violation of
the requirements of the CAA. Another commenter claimed that the 5
percent HAP cutoff is legally permissible on ``de minimis'' grounds.
Two commenters recommended that EPA revise its definition of
``organic liquid'' to exclude liquids that are not predominantly
organic in order to exclude from regulation those liquids that contain
very small amounts of organic material such as predominantly aqueous or
inorganic liquids. The commenters felt that these liquids should not be
included in the final OLD NESHAP because they do not emit significant
amounts of organics to the environment and controlling them will not
provide the intended emission reductions.
Finally, several commenters added that EPA should provide a list of
common materials within the petroleum industry that will not be
regulated, such as kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2
distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate oils and fuel oils.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the proposed exemption of organic
liquids containing less than 5 percent HAP-by-weight can be justified
by de minimis principles. The EPA's de minimis authority exists to help
avoid excessive regulation of tiny amounts of pollutants, where
regulation would yield a result contrary to a primary legislative goal.
It is unavailable ``where the regulatory function does provide
benefits, in the sense of furthering the regulatory objectives, but the
agency concludes that the acknowledged benefits are exceeded by the
costs.'' EDF v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Public Citizen
v. Young, 831 F.2d 1108, 1112-13 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Alabama Power v.
EPA, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 & n.89 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Accordingly, a de
minimis exemption to section 112(d)(3) is unavailable, because it would
frustrate a primary legislative goal by carving out tons of HAP
emissions from regulation. The EPA's rejection of the de minimis
concept has already been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, in National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d
625, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (``NLA''), in which the court rejected the
petitioner's claim that in light of both the high costs and low
quantities of HAP at issue in that case, EPA should read a de minimis
exception into the requirement that it regulate all HAP emitted by
major sources. In that case, the Court found that ``EPA reasonably
rejected this argument on the ground that the statute `does not provide
for exceptions from emissions standards based on de minimis principles
where a MACT floor exists.' '' NLA at 640.
Contrary to the commenter's request, EPA sees no reason to revisit
this fundamental issue, and rejects the assertion that both EPA and the
court decided this issue incorrectly in NLA. Section 112 of the CAA is
replete with careful definitions of volume-or effect-based limitation
on regulation, indicating that Congress has already defined what
amounts of HAP
[[Page 5049]]
emissions are too small to warrant MACT standards. The requirement to
adopt MACT emission limitations, for example, applies without exception
to ``each category or subcategory of major sources * * * of [HAP].''
CAA section 112(d)(1). For sources below the major source threshold,
however, EPA has discretion to require ``generally available control
technologies or management practices.'' CAA section 112(d)(5). Congress
has thus itself defined volumetrically which sources' emissions are
small enough not to warrant mandatory MACT standards.
Congress likewise defined several MACT exceptions applicable where
emissions have de minimis health effects. Section 112(d)(4) of the CAA
allows EPA to establish standards less stringent than MACT for HAP with
an established health threshold, so long as it sets a standard below
the health threshold with ``an ample margin of safety.'' Section
112(b)(3)(C) of the CAA directs EPA to de-list HAP--precluding section
112(d) MACT standards--if EPA determines that ``there is adequate data
on the health and environmental effects of the substance to determine
that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition
of the substance may not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse
effects to the [sic] human health or adverse environmental effects.''
Section 112(c)(9)(B)(i) of the CAA lets EPA delete source categories
from the category list--the consequence again being no MACT control--if
it determines that, for emissions of carcinogenic HAP, ``no source in
the category * * * emits such [HAP] in quantities which may cause a
lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one million to the
individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such
pollutant from the source.'' For noncarcinogens, EPA may delete source
categories if it determines that ``emissions from no source in the
category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to
protect public health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse
environmental effect will result from emissions from any source.'' CAA
section 112(c)(9)(B)(ii). Moreover, in defining which source
modifications trigger additional regulatory standards, CAA section
112(g)(1)(A) mentions a ``greater than de minimis increase in actual
emission of a [HAP].'' This shows that Congress knew how to use the de
minimis concept when it considered such was appropriate in section 112,
and the fact that it did not use it in section 112(d)(3) supports
EPA's--and the D.C. Circuit's--conclusion that it is unavailable to
support an exception to a MACT floor.
The EPA does not find persuasive the commenter's reliance on CMA v.
EPA, 217 F.3d 861, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2000) for the proposition that the
overall purpose of section 112 is protecting human health and the
environment, and that, therefore, as long as this general purpose is
met, EPA may fashion de minimis exceptions from MACT. First, this
position appears to assume that the issue is to be drawn on a clean
slate, while in fact the same court has affirmed EPA's view that
section 112(d)(3) provides no discretion to use a de minimis rationale
to avoid MACT, and the CMA case was not faced with it. Second, the
commenter appears to give prominence to an over-arching statutory goal
over the specific language of the statutory provisions themselves, in
assessing whether those provisions are ``extraordinarily rigid''
regarding EPA's otherwise-inherent de minimis authority; the logical
extension of such an approach would be to find that no single provision
in the CAA could restrict EPA's de minimis authority, in light of the
CAA's over-arching purpose ``to promote the public health and
welfare.'' CAA section 101(b)(1). Third, the commenter does not present
any statutory arguments to overcome those that EPA presented to the
court--and which the court affirmed--in NLA, beyond noting that CAA
section 112(d)(8) is even more extraordinarily rigid in requiring
regulation of coke ovens than is otherwise the case for MACT standards.
Finally, EPA is unable to discern the basis for the commenter's
suggestion that EPA has in fact ``been relying on'' de minimis
authority in the MACT program ``for years,'' and is not aware of any
instance in which EPA has explicitly created such an exception from an
identified MACT floor. Therefore, and for the additional reasons
discussed below, EPA does not believe it is appropriate or necessary to
revisit the Agency's and the D.C. Circuit's prior conclusions regarding
the availability of the de minimis principle in the final OLD NESHAP.
However, for the final rule, we are promulgating a 5 percent HAP by
weight threshold for non-crude oil liquids in the definition of an
organic liquid. No such cutoff is being adopted for crude oil. There
are several reasons why we believe such a cutoff is appropriate for the
final OLD NESHAP, which EPA believes support the use of a non-crude oil
5 percent cutoff without having to rely upon a legally unavailable de
minimis theory. During the planning and development of the proposed
rule, we intended to reduce HAP emissions from the distribution of
organic liquid products that were either pure HAP liquids, mixtures of
HAP and non-HAP liquids, or crude oils. As stated, our intent was to
focus on products (including crude oil, which is a naturally occurring
product) ``intended for further use or processing.'' Therefore, we
focused our data gathering efforts on five 2-digit Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes that we believed represented the vast
majority of the facilities nationwide engaged in the distribution of
what we considered to be organic liquid products.
We surveyed facilities in these five 2-digit SIC codes asking broad
questions about the liquids that they distributed that contained
organic HAP. In evaluating and analyzing the data, we discovered that
the types of liquids containing organic HAP, including some non-product
liquids and liquids with very low organic HAP contents, were more
diverse than we had expected. In addition, the types of facilities
engaged in distribution of such liquids, were greater than we had
assumed in developing the proposed rule, as was the degree to which
unforseen facility types were distributing and controlling emissions
from such liquids.
As stated above, such low HAP content non-crude oil liquids were
not initially anticipated to be covered by the OLD rule, and may in
many cases be the result of impurities or contaminants and not the
result of an intended formulation of a product. These types of non-
crude oil liquids (those with small HAP contents) can be found at many
facilities outside the five 2-digit SIC that we targeted. At this
point, based on the data collected for the OLD rule, we cannot
ascertain the representativeness of our data for those industries in
other 2-digit SIC codes that we did not survey. Nor can we ascertain
how many additional emission sources (controlled or uncontrolled) might
need to be added to the database to adequately assess the MACT floor
for these facilities and non-crude oil liquids and make final,
enforceable regulatory decisions. We believe that our current data are
insufficient for this purpose and do not provide enough information
about the emissions, emission controls in use, or potential to reduce
emissions to complete the MACT floor analyses that we believe are
appropriate to address the unexpected non-crude oil liquids and
facility types that we did not foresee as being subject to the OLD rule
when we developed the proposal. As a result, we do not have sufficient
data to develop regulatory requirements,
[[Page 5050]]
including those regarding emissions control and reduction, and
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, for low HAP-content non-crude
oil liquids. We also do not currently have the flexibility in our
schedule to allow us to gather the necessary additional data to assess
requirements for these low HAP-content non-crude oil liquids prior to
the consent decree date for promulgation of the final OLD rule. Section
112(d)(3)(A) and (B) of the CAA directs EPA to base existing source
MACT floor determinations on ``emissions information'' which EPA
``has'' or ``could reasonably obtain.'' Rather than adopt requirements
for low-HAP non-crude oil liquids based on insufficient data, EPA is
proceeding with the final OLD NESHAP as initially envisioned and
supported.
We are also concerned that if we were to lower or eliminate the 5
percent HAP content cutoff level for non-crude oil liquids, the final
OLD NESHAP would have previously unforeseen impacts on a significant
number of Department of Defense (DoD) facilities, at a time when the
Federal government as a whole is re-assessing the extent to which it is
appropriate to subject DoD facilities to regulatory requirements. There
was a consensus among representatives of the DoD that the OLD rule as
proposed (a 5 percent HAP content cutoff) would not impact the storage
and distribution of many types of fuels and other liquids in use at
military installations. However, if non-crude oil liquids with less
than 5 percent HAP were included in the definition of organic liquids
as written in the final OLD rule, many DoD facilities would be subject
to the final rule and impacted in ways that DoD representatives have
informed EPA may seriously compromise the military function. The
potential impacts of facilities such as these becoming subject to the
final OLD rule were not considered at proposal. No information was
provided by commenters, including DoD or others, during the public
comment period that would be useful in quantifying the potential
impacts of lowering or eliminating the cutoff for these facilities. In
light of the sensitivity of this issue, EPA believes it would be
inappropriate to proceed with the final rule in a form that might cause
unforeseen and as-yet un-analyzed impacts on DoD facilities.
After evaluating the issues discussed above, we have concluded that
the most appropriate approach for the final OLD NESHAP, and the one
that is most consistent with the CAA's directives, is to adopt a
definition of organic liquid that includes a HAP content cutoff level
for non-crude oil liquids. We have also concluded that the proposed
level of 5 percent is a reasonable separation between our intended
scope of products and those non-crude oil liquids that contain low
amounts of HAP, often as impurities and contaminants.
For vapor pressure, we have only a small amount of data for non-
crude oil liquids with true vapor pressures less than 0.1 psia. The
data we do have are not representative of the universe of such low
vapor pressure non-crude oil liquids and are not sufficient to enable
us to support a MACT floor or emission standard requiring controls. We
conclude that for a non-crude oil organic liquid to be subject to the
final OLD rule, the organic liquid must have a total vapor pressure of
at least 0.1 psia and must also contain at least 5 percent HAP by
weight.
With regard to the comments about excluding organic liquids that
are not predominantly HAP and including primarily aqueous or inorganic
liquids, we investigated the HAP emission potential for solutions of
HAP in organic liquids, inorganic liquids, and water (or mostly water).
Based on consideration of the volatilization properties of organic
compounds in various types of liquid media, we cannot support the
suggestion for limiting the scope of the organic liquid definition.
More detail on our analysis of this issue can be found in a memorandum
in the docket.
Lastly, we have included a list of exempt liquids in the definition
because the liquids are well defined and would exhibit such low vapor
pressure that they would not exceed the 0.1 psia vapor pressure
threshold.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the
evaluation of crude oil as an organic liquid is only applicable after
custody transfer.
Several commenters felt that ``black oil'' should be redefined
based on whether it has the potential for flash emissions rather than
in terms of the gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) and API gravity because
petroleum transporters, petroleum marketers, and major petroleum
product testing laboratories do not commonly use the gas-to-oil ratio.
One commenter suggested that, for OLD MACT applicability, ``black oil''
should be determined solely on the basis of API gravity. This commenter
also noted that for the purpose of ``black oil'' determination, the
point of entry to the distribution system should be defined as the
point of entry to the affected facility. Two other commenters felt that
the determination should be made at a point that is representative of
the combined crude oil stream.
One commenter provided data on crude oils handled throughout the
country, including the Alaskan oil pipeline and the Valdez Marine
Terminal (VMT). These data indicated that the API gravities for all of
these crude oils average less than 40 degrees. For example, the blended
North Slope crude oil loaded at the VMT ranges from 23 degrees to about
28 degrees, with most of it averaging 26 degrees API. The commenter
concluded that if the OLD NESHAP are finalized with an exemption for
crude oils having an API gravity less than 40 degrees, the effect will
be to exclude virtually all crude oil from the final OLD rule.
Response: We have clarified in the final rule that only crude oil
after the first point of custody transfer is subject to the final rule.
As discussed in the proposal preamble, the exclusion of black oil
from the definition of crude oil (and hence from the family of
regulated ``organic liquids'') was based on a similar exemption in the
Oil and Gas Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. Based on the
comments received and additional data (e.g., typical API gravities of
crude oil distributed), we have discovered that most crude oil being
distributed at OLD facilities would have been excluded from the final
rule, even though our impacts analyses assumed most crude oil was
subject to control. Moreover, in the reevaluation of our data, we
determined that there are emission reduction floors for crude oil.
Furthermore, the emission potential of crude oil is the same as for
other organic liquids with similar HAP and HAP contents, and the total
HAP emissions can actually be much larger due to the significant
volumes of crude oil being distributed.
We have revised the definition of organic liquid to include all
crude oil (after the first point of custody transfer) and have deleted
the ``black oil'' exemption, the exclusion for heavier crude oils
(i.e., those with an API gravity less than 40 degrees), and the
parameter ``gas-to-oil-ratio'' as a measure of applicability for crude
oil. Under the final rule, crude oil will be subject to the same
storage tank capacity and HAP vapor pressure criteria used to determine
control requirements for other organic liquids.
Comment: We received comments stating that EPA Method 18 is not an
appropriate method for determining the organic composition of liquid
streams, and that only the analytical requirements of EPA Method 18
should be made applicable in the final rule.
The commenters stated that testing should not be required if a
material is already known to be a regulated organic
[[Page 5051]]
liquid through process knowledge, an approach EPA has used in other
rules, or if the material transferred is a commercial product with
established specifications and is accompanied by an MSDS based on prior
analysis.
Response: After reviewing the EPA's analytical test methods, we are
in agreement with these commenters that EPA Method 18 is not an
appropriate method for liquid analysis of the type that will be
performed under the final OLD NESHAP. The EPA Method 18 is appropriate
for determining the HAP content in air streams, not the HAP content in
liquids. We are now specifying EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR
part 63, which is titled ``Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas
Chromatograph.''
The final rule includes provisions that allow the owner or operator
of an affected OLD operation to use a variety of information available
to them to determine whether a given liquid meets the HAP content
criteria in the definition of ``organic liquids.'' Information such as
product data sheets or MSDS, as well as knowledge of commonly accepted
formulations for certain products, may be used to designate materials
as above or below the HAP content criteria.
While the owner or operator will not be required to test each
liquid, EPA may require a test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved
alternative) to confirm the reported content of organic HAP (from Table
1 to subpart EEEE of part 63) in the liquid. In the event of any
inconsistency between information provided by the owner or operator and
the values obtained using the test methods, the results obtained
through the use of an approved test method (e.g., EPA Method 311) will
govern compliance determinations.
Comment: One commenter felt there is an issue of the reliability of
determining vapor pressures at 0.1 psia and lower. Since true vapor
pressure is uncertain for low volatility stocks (such as distillate
oils), EPA should allow the use of a surrogate property. The commenter
suggested allowing the use of a flash point of 100F as a
surrogate for the 0.1 psia vapor pressure cutoff.
Response: We agree that measured values of liquid vapor pressure
become increasingly uncertain as the vapor pressure decreases. In order
to avoid the difficulties of these measurements for liquids with very
low volatilities, and also to be consistent with other rules such as
the HON, we have changed the basis for determining the vapor pressure
of an organic liquid. Under the final rule, the vapor pressure may be
determined by using the specified test methods or by using a calculated
value based on knowledge of the organic HAP content of the liquid. As
vapor pressure may now be a calculated value, it is not necessary to
use a surrogate approach. Also, we have included a list of exempt
liquids in the definition of organic liquids because the liquids
exempted are well defined and would exhibit such low vapor pressure
that they would not exceed the 0.1 psia vapor pressure threshold.
Therefore, the final rule does not incorporate the flash point
approach.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the storage tank capacity and
vapor pressure criteria need to be reevaluated. The commenters noted
that the proposed cutoffs in Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63 for
applicability of storage tank controls are the same as those in the
HON, and stated that the HON criteria should not set a precedent for
any other source category. The commenters pointed out that other MACT
rules that have followed the statutory procedure for MACT floor
determination, such as the Refinery MACT, have concluded that the
values for these criteria should be much higher. One commenter stated
that the storage tank capacity and vapor pressure applicability
criteria should, in fact, be consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC
(Refinery MACT I). According to the commenter, these differences lead
to confusion about applicability for facilities that must comply with
several MACT rules.
Response: Applicability criteria are established based on the MACT
floor and beyond-the-floor determinations and are made independently
for each source category. This determination depends on the data
available for each category. Since the data reflect different tank
sizes and liquids stored, the applicability criteria may, and do, vary
from one rule to the next. Therefore, it is not necessary or
appropriate that the OLD applicability criteria be the same as for the
Refinery MACT. Further, based on the re-analysis of the database, the
applicability criteria for the final OLD rule have been written to
better reflect our OLD database and no longer matches the HON
applicability criteria.
One commenter was concerned about the potential confusion
differences in applicability criteria may create for facilities that
must meet several MACT rules. There should be no confusion at such
facilities. The OLD NESHAP will not conflict with other storage tank
applicability requirements, as storage tanks that are already subject
to an existing 40 CFR part 63 subpart rule will continue to be subject
to that subpart. The fact that an owner or operator must comply with
different NESHAP for different storage tanks simply means that the
owner or operator will have to implement an accurate and more exact
accounting of which NESHAP apply to which tanks. This needs to be done
only once, provided storage tanks do not change source categories.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the final OLD NESHAP should
include a vapor pressure threshold for transfer rack control. The
commenters suggested that a 1.5 psia threshold (i.e., no control for a
rack if all transferred liquids are below the threshold), which was
used in the HON and in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading NESHAP, be
adopted. These commenters did not believe that cost-effective controls
could be implemented for these low vapor pressure materials because of
the low level of emissions. They also felt that mandating controls for
these low volatility liquids could result in greater emissions from the
control device than from the loading activities.
Response: In response to these comments, we re-examined the OLD
database to determine the relationship between the current level of
transfer rack control and the organic HAP vapor pressures. We
determined that MACT floors consisting of the use of a control device
existed for transfer racks handling liquids with vapor pressures
greater than 0.1 psia at both new and existing sources. Since the MACT
floor for loading activities down to this level is a closed vent and
control system, we did not include a vapor pressure criterion for
transfer racks in the final rule. We note, however, that transfer racks
transferring non-crude oil liquids with total vapor pressures less than
0.1 psia (i.e., liquids that are not ``organic liquids'' for purposes
of the OLD NESHAP) are not subject to the final OLD rule.
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA's proposed exemption from
control for the following emission sources: (a) storage tanks below
10,000 gallon capacity, (b) transfer racks with annual throughput less
than 3.12 million gallons, and (c) pumps and valves in organic liquids
service for less than 300 hours per year is unlawful because it allows
unregulated HAP emissions.
Response: Based on a reevaluation of our database, we have revised
the emission source criteria approach for storage tanks and transfer
racks in the final rule. We are, however, retaining the 300 hour per
year requirement for pumps and valves. Each of these items is discussed
below.
[[Page 5052]]
Storage tanks below 10,000 gallons capacity. At proposal, we
proposed to exclude from control new tanks with capacities of less than
10,000 gallons and existing tanks with capacities of less than 20,000
gallons. This exclusion was based on other MACT rules with storage tank
standards that exclude such tanks from control. We have revised the
database to include only those tanks likely to be subject to the final
OLD rule and re-calculated MACT floors based on the remaining tanks in
the database. We retained the basic analysis methodology of examining
tanks by capacity and vapor pressure ranges, using common capacity and
vapor pressure ranges (i.e., those frequently found in other rules) and
by examining the cumulative level of control across these ranges.
Based on the revised analysis, the only MACT floors requiring
emission reduction that were identified for existing tanks with less
than 10,000 gallons capacity were for those tanks with capacities
between 5,000 and 10,000 gallons capacities that are included in the
5,000 to 50,000 gallons capacity range containing non-crude oil liquids
with a HAP partial vapor pressure equal to or greater than 4.0 psia or
crude oil.
For new sources, a MACT floor requiring emission reduction was
identified for tanks with 5,000 to 10,000 gallons capacities containing
non-crude oil liquids with a HAP partial vapor pressure equal to or
greater than 4.0 psia or crude oil. A MACT floor was also identified
for tanks with capacities of 10,000 gallons or more and containing non-
crude oil liquids with a HAP partial vapor pressure equal to or greater
than 0.1 psia or crude oil. We have used these findings to determine
the applicability criteria (tank capacity and HAP partial vapor
pressure) to determine which tanks will be subject to control.
For those tanks for which the MACT floor was found to be ``no
emission reduction,'' we conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis, and we
have determined that there are no feasible or cost effective beyond-
the-floor alternatives for these storage tanks. Therefore, the final
rule does not include control requirements for tanks for which the MACT
floor was determined to be ``no emission reduction.''
In conclusion, the final rule is driven by the data for the OLD
source category and includes capacity and vapor pressure criteria based
on those data to determine which OLD storage tanks are required to be
controlled and those that are not required to be controlled. Requiring
no additional emission reduction from certain tanks is justified by the
available data, meets the mandates of the CAA, and is not unlawful.
Transfer rack loading positions below 3.12 million gallons per
year. As for storage tanks, we proposed to exclude relatively smaller
transfer rack positions from control based on the requirements of other
40 CFR part 63 subparts (e.g., subparts SS and YY define a low
throughput transfer rack as one that transfers less than a total of
11.8 million liters/yr (3.12 million gallons per year) of liquid
containing regulated HAP). This throughput is equivalent to about 9,000
gallons per day, or the filling of approximately one tank truck.
Based on a re-analysis of the data (as described for storage tanks
above), we determined that this applicability criterion is not
appropriate for the OLD source category. Our data re-assessment
indicates that there are emission reduction MACT floors for existing
and new transfer racks above and below the 3.12 million gallons per
year threshold. Therefore, the final rule does not adopt the 3.12
million gallons per year exemption for transfer racks.
Equipment in organic liquids service less than 300 hours per year.
The stringency of a LDAR program is based on a number of factors. These
factors include the definition of ``in organic HAP service'' (e.g., 5
percent HAP, 10 percent HAP), the leak definition (e.g., 500 ppmv,
10,000 ppmv), the frequency of monitoring (e.g., monthly, quarterly,
annually), and exemptions for monitoring requirements (e.g., difficult
to monitor components, in service less than 300 hours per year). The
smaller the values associated with the definition of ``in organic HAP
service'' and the leak definition, and the more frequent the
monitoring, the more effective the LDAR program (better emission
reduction). The more exemptions, the less effective the LDAR program.
In examining the LDAR programs in place at OLD facilities, we
evaluated the overall effectiveness of the programs, including each of
the aforementioned items. In general, the majority of the LDAR programs
in place at OLD facilities use a 10 percent HAP in organic HAP service
definition and do not contain a 300-hour per year in service exemption
because the LDAR programs tend to be State or local rules or older New
Source Performance Standard-type rules. The proposed rule allowed an
affected source to comply with either of two NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT or UU) for equipment leaks. While both of these NESHAP
contain an exemption for components in service less than 300 hours per
year, they have an ``in organic HAP service'' definition of 5 percent
(not 10 percent). When compared to a 10 percent ``in organic HAP
service'' definition without a 300-hour per year exemption, a LDAR
program with a 5 percent ``in organic HAP service'' definition with a
300-hour per year exemption is more effective in reducing emissions
(i.e., is more stringent). This occurs, in part, because there are more
components caught by lowering the ``in organic HAP service'' definition
than are ``lost'' due to the 300-hour per year in service exemption
and, in part, because there are less emissions associated with
components operating only 300 hours per year than from components in
the 5 to 10 percent organic HAP range.
The 300-hour per year in service exemption has been provided in
previous rules primarily to address equipment that has only occasional
use in HAP service. Examples of such equipment are pumps and
compressors used only during startup and shutdown of a process unit.
Equipment in use less than 300 hours per year would be difficult to
monitor within a regularly scheduled LDAR program, and very little
emission reduction would be realized by including them.
The analysis of equipment LDAR programs in place within the OLD
industry indicated that the 300-hour service exemption with monthly
instrument-based inspections results in a level of control at least as
stringent as the MACT floor level of control. Our investigation of the
available control approaches for controlling equipment leaks did not
identify any control approaches that would be beyond-the-floor level
and also cost effective.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we are not removing the
300 hours per year exemption from the LDAR programs specified in the
final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that the CAA requires EPA to
promulgate standards for all emission points at all major sources, and
that exemptions based on capacity, throughput, and hours of service
violate that requirement. The commenter noted that EPA attempts to
justify the exemptions by arguing that the exempted facilities do not
have a volume of emissions that warrants control, but the Agency does
not claim that these emissions are de minimis.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that
every emission point at an affected source must be required to reduce
emissions. Section 112(a) of the CAA does not state, or imply, that all
emission points must be subjected to control
[[Page 5053]]
requirements in standards promulgated under section 112. Section
112(d)(1) allows the Administrator to distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory in establishing
such standards. We interpret this provision for the final OLD rule, as
we have for previous NESHAP, as allowing emission limitations to be
established for subcategories of sources based on size or volume of
materials processed at the affected source. Under the discretion
allowed by the CAA to consider sizes of sources, we made the
determination that certain small-capacity and low-use operations can be
analyzed separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and
determining whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. With
regard to whether emissions from certain groups of sources are ``de
minimis,'' the commenter did not elaborate on its interpretation of
this term or how it might apply in discussing the OLD applicability
criteria for emission limitations.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has no discretion to
exempt certain OLD emission sources such as container filling,
wastewater collection, and semi-aqueous waste. Several other commenters
stated that the final rule should explicitly state that wastewater
operations, including the treatment, storage, transfer, or discharge of
wastewater, are exempt from the final OLD NESHAP. Some commenters were
concerned that the rule as proposed would regulate hazardous waste
transfer and conveyance systems that are collocated at manufacturing
facilities that are major sources for HAP and requested that EPA allow
such sites to utilize alternate LDAR programs established under 40 CFR
part 265, subpart BB, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
Response: As previously discussed, the proposed rule would reduce
HAP emissions from the distribution of organic liquid products that
were either pure HAP liquids, mixtures of HAP and non-HAP liquids, or
crude oils, focusing on products (including crude oil, which is a
naturally occurring product) intended for further use or processing.
The handling of wastewater and semi-aqueous waste is not part of the
distribution of organic liquid products. The definition of ``organic
liquid'' in the final rule excludes hazardous waste, wastewater, and
ballast water. In addition, the final rule clearly states that emission
sources that are part of the affected source under another 40 CFR part
63 rule (such as oil and natural gas production) are not included in
the affected source for the final OLD rule.
However, based on a review of data on container filling operations,
we have determined that the only MACT floor for either existing or new
sources is a new source floor for container filling operations. We
identified one container filling operation that controls emissions by
performing the operation in a total enclosure that is vented to a
thermal oxidizer. This level of control meets the level 3 control for
container filling found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP, the National
Emission Standards for Containers. We have not, however, identified any
technology that would achieve cost-effective beyond-the-floor control
for new source container filling operations. The final rule requires
owners or operators of new container filling operations to comply with
the level 3 control requirements found in Sec. 63.924 of subpart PP.
B. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Comment: A commenter claimed that EPA set the floor for new storage
tanks the same as the floor for existing tanks without demonstrating
that the floors reflect the best performing source, and claimed that
EPA set the floor for existing transfer racks as the use of a control
device with 95 percent control efficiency based on a ``cursory
analysis.''
The commenter states that EPA's proposed emission standards do not
reflect the maximum achievable degree of reduction in emissions, and
that EPA failed to adequately consider beyond-the-floor standards for
each of the three regulated emission sources.
Response: As a clarification, the averaging process (for either the
arithmetic average or the median) is applied to the top 12 percent of
sources and not to the whole data set. This approach, consisting of
more than one possible way of determining floors, is a practical
necessity when working with the results of an averaging process. In
examining our database and evaluating it based on comments, we have
used the median source of the top performing 12 percent of existing
sources where there are at least 30 sources, or the median source of
the top performing five sources where there are fewer than 30 sources
to determine MACT floors for the final OLD rule. Our methodology for
determining MACT floors for existing sources is reasonable and conforms
to the legal requirements of the CAA.
In developing the proposal and performing the MACT floor analysis
for storage tanks, we evaluated each of the three primary types of
tanks used for storage of organic liquids. These tank types are
characterized by their basic construction and are referred to as fixed
roof, internal floating roof, and external floating roof tanks. The
selection of which type to use in a given situation is based on factors
including capacity, types of liquids to be stored, climate, throughput,
and cost. The emission control approach utilized for storage tanks
differs depending on the tank type. The most common emission control
approach for organic liquids storage tanks is floating roof technology,
installed as either an internal or external floating roof. Floating
roofs with properly designed seals and gaskets have been determined to
perform at the highest level of emission control in use for storage
tanks. External floating roof tanks achieve a somewhat lower control
efficiency, because the vapor space above the floating roof is open to
the atmosphere. However, the application of floating roof technology is
the best demonstrated technology for this type of tank construction.
For these reasons the Agency has developed storage tank equipment
standards that specify in detail the design features that must be
incorporated into a compliant floating roof design.
The emission reductions that can be achieved by add-on control
devices on fixed roof tanks are equivalent to the reductions that can
be achieved by floating roof technology. As with floating roof
technology, the performance of the various types of add-on controls are
somewhat variable depending on operational factors such as the types of
liquids being stored and the tank filling rate. Properly designed and
operated add-on control systems have been demonstrated to achieve
emission reductions of 95 percent or greater from fixed roof storage
tanks.
We developed MACT floor levels of control for the range of tank
capacities and HAP vapor pressure of liquids stored based on the OLD
storage tank database. The MACT floor level of control that was
determined from the database is the use of properly designed floating
roof technology or an add-on control device achieving a 95 percent
reduction in HAP emissions. The MACT floor for storage tanks at new
sources is not the same as the floor for tanks at existing sources. The
new source storage tank floor is more stringent because the control
requirements extend to tanks storing liquids with lower vapor pressures
(i.e., more tanks will undergo control than at existing sources). New
storage tanks in the 10,000 to 50,000 gallons capacity range will be
subject to control under the final OLD rule at HAP vapor pressures as
low as 0.1 psia (versus 4.0 psia for existing tanks in this same
capacity range).
[[Page 5054]]
Based on our review of the types of control devices in use
(primarily incinerators, adsorbers, and scrubbers) and the range of
control efficiencies reported (approximately 20 percent to over 99
percent), we proposed that 95 percent was the most appropriate control
efficiency for transfer operations. We selected this value based on the
known capabilities of these control devices and on regulatory limits
specified in other rules.
Following proposal, we re-analyzed our OLD database and determined
that the MACT floor for transfer racks at existing and new sources is a
control efficiency of 98 percent, based on the best performing sources.
The 98 percent level of control has been shown to be achievable by
well-designed and operated combustion devices. The choice of control
options is not limited to combustion devices, however, as vapor
balancing systems also achieve the required 98 percent control level
where they are technically feasible.
In evaluating beyond-the-floor alternatives, we examined the
ability to switch products, the ability to switch fuels, the potential
for improved performance of add-on controls at already controlled
sources, and the use of add-on control devices to reduce emissions from
sources for which we determined the floors were ``no additional
emission reductions.''
The emission sources subject to the OLD rule are storage tanks,
transfer racks, and equipment leak components (pumps, valves, and
sampling connections). The liquids that are stored in storage tanks are
those liquids required by a facility or its customers. It is not
feasible for a facility to switch to a lower vapor pressure liquid when
its customer requires a specific liquid. Therefore, product switching
is not a feasible beyond-the-floor alternative for storage tanks. For
the same basic reason, product switching is not a feasible beyond-the-
floor alternative for transfer racks. Finally, equipment leak
components can only leak what is in the process stream that they
contact. Those process streams come from OLD storage tanks and transfer
racks. As product switching is not feasible for tanks and racks, it is
not feasible for equipment leaks.
With regards to fuel switching, the emissions that occur from
tanks, racks, and equipment leak components have no fuel sources
associated with them. The emissions occur as the result of displaced
vapors when loading, breathing losses, and leaks. There are no fuel
sources to ``switch.'' Therefore, fuel switching is not feasible.
The use of add-on control devices, including vapor balancing,
however, represents a feasible beyond-the-floor alternative for storage
tanks and transfer racks. Our analyses of beyond-the-floor alternatives
for those emission sources for which we determined the floors are ``no
emission reduction,'' showed cost-effectiveness values greater than
$10,000 per ton for storage tanks and greater than $50,000 per ton for
transfer racks. We have determined that these values are not
reasonable. Further, because add-on controls were determined to be
``not cost effective,'' we did not evaluate the associated impacts of
add-on controls for energy and other non-air quality environmental
impacts. We note here that we have included in the final rule the
option for transfer racks of using a vapor balancing system where
technically feasible. These systems have demonstrated control
efficiencies of 98 percent or greater (i.e., floor levels of control).
Our investigation of the available control approaches for
controlling equipment leaks did not identify any control approaches
that would be beyond-the-floor level and also cost effective. We are,
therefore, promulgating equipment leak standards based on the floor
level of control determined from the OLD database.
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed rule text did not
indicate whether the entire CAA section 112 HAP list or the proposed
OLD Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 HAP list is the appropriate
chemical list to use for the various determinations and performance
demonstrations, even though the proposal preamble notes that organic
HAP listed on Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 (and all crude oil
except black oil) are the ``regulated liquids.'' One commenter noted
that the proposal did not include emission standards for 24 of the 93
organic HAP that EPA claims are emitted from OLD operations, based on
the Agency's claim that the HAP for which standards were not set are
lower in volatility and have lower potential to be emitted.
Response: We have written Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 to
include all of the organic HAP identified as being present in OLD
liquids. The control devices and work practice standards in the final
OLD rule affect all of the HAP in an OLD liquid, even those that have
lower emission potential due to their low vapor pressure. By including
all of the known organic HAP in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63,
there is no longer any inconsistency between the HAP emitted by OLD
operations, the HAP used to determine whether control is required, and
the HAP used to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, while the initial
determination of whether an entire facility meets the criteria for
being a major source is based on all the HAP listed in the CAA,
compliance with the final OLD rule is based only on the 98 HAP found in
Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that EPA has proposed allowing
sources to meet a standard for TOC emissions rather than meeting any
standard for HAP, stating that the Agency cannot credibly claim that
TOC is a valid surrogate for all HAP that OLD facilities emit. In
addition, the TOC option would result in control of even fewer HAP. For
these reasons, the commenter believes this provision of the proposal is
unlawful.
Response: The primary format for the emission limits in the final
OLD rule is a control efficiency standard for organic HAP. At proposal,
we offered the option of complying with the percent reduction standards
using a TOC format. The use of ``surrogate'' pollutants is an accepted
practice in environmental regulation, because it is often reasonable to
infer similar behavior among members of a class of pollutants that
share a common attribute. Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d
1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996); NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 125 (D.C. Cir.
1987). Significant regulatory cost and time can be saved by relying on
that relationship; monitoring, sampling, and recordkeeping can be
reduced when a surrogate pollutant, rather than numerous individual
pollutants, are tracked. Specifically, EPA's use of a surrogate
pollutant in the MACT program has been upheld as reasonable in judicial
review, where the court held that if control of the surrogate pollutant
is the means by which sources achieve reductions in multiple HAP, EPA
may require surrogate control without quantifying the reduction in HAP
thus achieved. NLA v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 639 (D.C. Cir. 2000). After
evaluating the comments, we have retained the optional TOC measurement
format, but have added a requirement for a demonstration by the owner
or operator that the HAP emission reduction achieved is at least as
stringent as the TOC emission reduction for their affected sources. To
make this demonstration, the owner or operator will have to show that
the ratio of captured organic HAP-to-TOC is at least 1-to-1, such that
it can thereafter be assured that capture of TOC will result in capture
of organic HAP to at least as stringent a level as required. After the
initial demonstration to establish the relationship between HAP and TOC
emission reductions, use of the TOC
[[Page 5055]]
format will be an acceptable alternative emission limit.
For the 20 ppmv outlet concentration standard, the use of TOC is an
acceptable option without an equivalency determination. Because
measured TOC in a gas stream includes all HAP, and may include some
organic compounds that are not HAP, the concentration of HAP at the
outlet of a control device will always be less than the measured TOC
value. Thus, the limitation of TOC to a maximum concentration of 20
ppmv will always result in HAP emissions of 20 ppmv, or less.
We initially selected the TOC format as a possible alternative for
the standards to provide flexibility for source owners and operators,
while still requiring the MACT level of emission control to be
achieved. The requirements of the final OLD rule will accomplish both
objectives by allowing the use of a demonstrated surrogate, in
appropriate cases. The approach adopted in the final rule will ensure
that in all cases where the TOC surrogate is used, the correlation
between the surrogate and organic HAP will have been demonstrated, and
that control of the surrogate will achieve emission reductions of
organic HAP at least as stringent as under the organic HAP limit.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule fails to
provide for the use of a number of proven emission reduction options
and focuses primarily on closed vent systems and control devices. The
commenters stated that EPA must allow the option of vapor balancing for
storage tank and transfer rack emission reduction. Further, emission
reduction options such as cooling the liquid in a storage tank to
reduce vapor pressure, maintaining an inert gas blanket, or routing
emissions to a fuel gas system or to a process should be specifically
stated to be acceptable alternatives for compliance with the proposed
rule.
Response: We have considered these comments and reviewed the
provisions of the HON and other MACT rules that allow the alternative
of vapor balancing, and we have added vapor balancing to the final rule
as an alternative control approach for transfer racks (i.e., to control
HAP vapors displaced during the loading of transport vehicles). Vapor
balancing is a highly efficient (98 percent or greater) means of
reducing the emissions of vapors displaced during the loading of
transport vehicles. Vapor balancing to a fixed roof tank with an add-on
control device may be a viable option for facilities that utilize this
type of tank. However, vapor balancing is not technically feasible in
all cases.
We recognize that, for the variety of liquids and equipment
configurations that exist at OLD operations in many different
industries, there may be numerous control approaches that would reduce
HAP emissions to a degree equivalent to an end-of-pipe control system.
Cooling a liquid may reduce its actual vapor pressure below the
threshold for control in a storage tank, in which case the storage tank
control requirements would not apply. The final rule addresses the
routing of emissions to a fuel gas system or a process in Sec.Sec.
63.2346(a) and (b) and 63.2378(d). We have not added the use of an
inert gas blanket as an approved control measure because we have no
evidence (and the commenters did not provide any) that this approach
inherently provides the level of control required by the final
standards. However, Sec. 63.2346(g) of the final rule provides for
requests for approval to use any other alternative approach. We have
added a reference to Sec. 63.177 of the HON to provide a more
structured method for receiving approval of approaches that are not
specifically listed in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested that the availability of the
floating roof option be limited to those storage tanks storing stock
with an annual average true vapor pressure of less than 11.1 psia.
Proposed Table 4 allows compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW
(floating roof control), as an alternative compliance measure for
storage tanks, but without this vapor pressure restriction. Other EPA
rules require controls on tanks storing stocks with vapor pressure
greater than 11.1 psia (if the tank is in the capacity category that is
subject to controls), but they do not allow the use of floating roofs
as a control option for these higher volatility stocks. Several
commenters also recommended that the storage tank definition should
exclude pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals (29.7 psia) and without emissions to the atmosphere.
Response: We have written the final OLD rule to limit the
application of floating roof technology to storage tanks containing
organic liquids with an organic HAP annual average true vapor pressure
less than 76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia). For affected tanks with liquids
[ge]11.1 psia, only a closed-vent system and control device may be
used. The OLD storage tank definition has also been written to exclude
from OLD coverage pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of
204.9 kilopascals (29.7 psia) and without emissions to the atmosphere.
Comment: One commenter noted that EPA proposed to regulate
equipment leaks through work practice standards, and EPA has not
determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard. In fact, EPA notes in the TSD that leakless equipment, such
as seal-less pumps, can ``eliminate emissions entirely.''
Response: We have previously determined in the development of rules
such as the HON that emission standards (in the format of a numerical
emission limit) are not feasible for equipment leaks. Under section 112
of the Act, national emission standards must, whenever possible, take
the format of a numerical emission standard. Typically, an emission
standard is written in terms of an allowable emission rate (mass per
unit of time), performance level (e.g., 90 percent control), or an
allowable concentration. These types of standards require the direct
measurement of emissions to determine compliance. For some source
types, emission standards cannot be prescribed because it is not
feasible to measure emissions. Section 112(h)(2) of the CAA recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions under which it is not
feasible to establish an emission standard. These conditions are: (1)
If the pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and
constructed to emit or capture the pollutant; or (2) if the application
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. If an emission standard cannot be established,
EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard or combination thereof.
For equipment leak sources, such as pumps and valves, EPA has
previously determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce
emission standards. Except for those items of equipment for which
standards can be set at a specific concentration, the only method of
measuring emissions is total enclosure of individual items of
equipment, collection of emissions for a specified time period, and
measurement of the emissions. This procedure, known as bagging, is a
time-consuming and prohibitively expensive technique considering the
great number of individual items of equipment in a typical process
unit. Moreover, this procedure would not be useful for routine
monitoring and identification of leaking equipment for repair.
While we did not include this rationale in the OLD proposal,
emission
[[Page 5056]]
standards in the form of numerical emission limits are not feasible for
components subject to the OLD equipment leak regulations, and we have
included the rationale in the final rule for establishing the equipment
leak standards under CAA section 112(h).
The use of leakless equipment, as discussed in the TSD, may not be
compatible with many of the liquids transferred at OLD sources. For
example, seal-less pumps use the pumped liquid for lubrication and
cooling, and some transferred liquids may not be adequate in this
capacity. Also, this equipment can develop leaks after a period of
time, which would require an LDAR program similar to the program in
place for traditional equipment. For OLD operations, we have not
developed enough experience and do not have data to indicate that
equipment emissions at these operations justify this extreme type of
reduction approach. The LDAR program represented in the final rule is
being used successfully throughout industry to maintain low leakage
rates from equipment.
Comment: Several commenters believe that EPA should not require
instrument LDAR to control equipment leaks at OLD facilities. They said
that instrument scanning for equipment leaks is impractical and not
cost-effective, and they recommended that the OLD MACT rule specify a
sensory (sight, sound, smell) leak detection and repair program similar
to that in the Gasoline Distribution MACT rule, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
R. One of the commenters felt that many OLD sources are already subject
to regular Coast Guard inspection as well as EPA's SPCC plan
requirements. The gains from additional LDAR requirements on the same
piping must be quite limited but would come with a substantial burden.
Another commenter noted that the preamble states that the Agency
found that an instrument-based LDAR program similar to the HON
represents the MACT floor, but the OLD MACT rule generally applies to
facilities similar to bulk gasoline terminals. Consequently, Table 4
Item 3 should state: ``You must comply with the requirement of subpart
R of this part.''
Response: In our MACT analysis, we determined that the MACT floor
for existing sources is an instrument-based LDAR program. We further
determined that this is the best system of emission reduction
available, so we selected it as MACT for existing and new sources.
Therefore, allowing a sensory program would not represent MACT because
such programs have not been demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to be equivalent to equipment-based programs for OLD
operations. We specifically requested data to show that sensory
programs would achieve the MACT level of control. In the development of
40 CFR part 63, subpart R, industry provided such data for gasoline and
the final rule allows sensory programs. The Agency has received no data
to support the claim that sensory programs would achieve equivalent
control for OLD operations. Therefore, we have not written the
equipment leak standards in the final rule as requested by the
commenters. The final rule provides flexibility by allowing LDAR
programs that are consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart TT, UU, or H.
C. Testing, Compliance Requirements, and Monitoring
Comment: One commenter felt that proposed Table 5 to subpart EEEE
of part 63 needs to be revised to allow for design evaluations in lieu
of performance testing for non-flare control devices controlling
emissions from storage tanks, as 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS specifies.
In proposed Sec. 63.2362, there is no language explaining specifically
when a design evaluation may be done in lieu of a performance test. In
addition, it appears that you must conduct a performance test to
demonstrate compliance with emission limits in Table 2 to subpart EEEE
of part 63 for both storage tanks and transfer racks. The commenter
provided suggested revised language to clarify Sec. 63.2362 through
references to applicable provisions of subpart SS.
A second commenter noted that the text of proposed Sec. 63.2354(a)
pertaining to ``other initial compliance demonstrations'' was imprecise
and confusing, since there is nothing other than performance testing
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2).
One commenter noted that a source that qualifies as an existing
source may already be obligated to perform initial performance tests as
a condition of a new source review construction permit. In the event of
overlapping requirements to perform initial performance tests, there
should be coordination of the schedule by which the testing is to be
performed.
Two other commenters noted that proposed Sec. 63.2358 would require
performance testing of a control device used to comply with the OLD
rule even if it is the same control device already tested and in use
for compliance with another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP standard. They felt
that a facility that has already conducted performance testing to
comply with a more stringent NESHAP should be able to use those test
results in place of a new performance test.
Response: We have written Sec. 63.2354 of the final rule and Table
5 to subpart EEEE of part 63 to clarify that design evaluations may be
used in lieu of performance testing for demonstrating initial
compliance for nonflare control devices. The requirements in 40 CFR
63.985(b)(1) were developed to ensure that design evaluations include
adequate documentation to demonstrate that the control device being
used achieves the required control efficiency. By specifically listing
this alternative to performance testing in the final OLD rule, we have
provided additional flexibility to owners or operators and increased
uniformity among the other MACT rules that affect them.
We have also written the language in Sec. 63.2370 of the final rule
to clarify that the initial compliance demonstrations referred to in
that section are those initial compliance requirements contained in
Tables 6 and 7 to subpart EEEE of part 63. We have clarified that the
General Provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2) impose a schedule for the
performance testing, while design evaluations are to be submitted in
the Notification of Compliance Status per Sec. 63.985(b)(1) of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(h), the owner or operator of an affected facility
may request a waiver of the performance test requirements. Individual
performance tests may be waived if, in the Administrator's judgment,
the source is meeting the relevant standard(s) on a continuous basis.
The provisions allowing for submission of a request for a waiver of the
performance test, accompanied by supporting information such as a
documented performance test previously conducted on the device, should
avoid the situation of overlapping tests.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has failed to mandate
adequate continuous monitoring requirements and that, at a minimum, EPA
must establish requirements that provide a reasonable assurance of
compliance. As an example, EPA did not propose the use of continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS), but rejected them on cost grounds
without indicating why the costs are too high. Another commenter noted
that 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (Sec. 63.990(c)), allows for use of
organic monitoring device CEMS as an alternative to the continuous
parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for which operating limits are to
be established. The final OLD rule should include the same allowance.
[[Page 5057]]
Response: Section 112 of the CAA does not require EPA to impose a
CEMS requirement in MACT standards. Instead, EPA has substantial
discretion in exercising its technical expertise to devise a monitoring
system that assures compliance with applicable requirements. NLA v.
EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 635 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Marsh v. Oregon Natural
Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377 (1989). Particularly, the D.C.
Circuit has already ruled that parameter monitoring requirements
provide the necessary assurance of continuous compliance with
applicable requirements and enhance the enforceability of emission
standards, as required by the CAA. NRDC v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130, 134-37
(D.C. Cir. 1999). The commenters should note that the proposal included
a requirement (in Sec. 63.2366(a)) to install, operate, and maintain a
CPMS on each control device installed under the final OLD rule. These
CPMS continuously measure an operating parameter of the control device
that influences emissions (such as temperature inside a thermal
incinerator, vacuum achieved during the desorption cycle of a carbon
adsorption system, etc.). They have been widely prescribed in several
other MACT rules and are specified under the monitoring requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We consider properly selected CPMS to
provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the applicable
requirements established in the final OLD rule. Deviations from the
established values (operating limits) for these parameters must be
reported by the facility in their periodic reports to EPA.
Because CPMS are judged to provide a reasonable assurance of
compliance and are generally less expensive to install and operate, a
requirement to use CEMS is not necessary. While we are not requiring
the use of CEMS in the final OLD rule, facilities may request to
utilize CEMS as an alternative monitoring method under Sec. 63.8 of the
General Provisions.
In addition, we have added an option for the use of organic
monitoring devices (one type of CEMS) to Table 9 to subpart EEEE of
part 63. In accordance with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS,
requirements in Sec. 63.990(c), an organic monitoring device may be
used (as an alternative to CPMS) where absorbers (scrubbers),
condensers, and carbon adsorbers are used to meet a weight percent
emission reduction or a ppmv outlet concentration requirement. Organic
monitors provide a reasonable assurance of compliance by quantifying
exhausted total organic compounds (pollutants), which in turn provides
an indication of the proper operation of the control device. A properly
operating control device will continue to achieve the required control
levels for organic HAP specified in the final OLD rule.
The alternative of installing and operating either CPMS or CEMS, in
conjunction with effectively managed control devices, will provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance with the final OLD rule's
requirements.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that EPA has proposed
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for continuous
parameter monitoring systems in Sec. 63.2366 of the final rule that are
wasteful, unnecessary, and in some cases infeasible and will have
environmentally negative impacts. Due to the significant problems
associated with the proposed continuous parameter monitoring system
requirements, EPA should withdraw these requirements from the OLD final
rule and use the existing subpart SS requirements for continuous
monitoring systems.
Response: We have decided not to include the performance
specifications for CPMS in the final OLD rule as they were proposed. We
have clarified in the final rule that owners and operators must comply
with the continuous monitoring provisions of subpart SS. Since owners
and operators subject to the final OLD rule are required to comply with
the requirements of subpart SS, they are already required to follow
written performance specifications. We have concluded that the
requirements in subpart SS are adequate to ensure that CPMS are
properly operated and provide reasonable assurance of continuing
compliance with the standards.
In a separate action, we are currently developing performance
specifications for CPMS that we intend to propose to be followed by
owners and operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR
part 63. We decided it would be premature to promulgate performance
specifications for the final OLD rule when the performance
specifications that would ultimately be promulgated in the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 may be significantly different as a result
of possible public comments received on that rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter stated that a minimum or maximum parameter
monitoring limit should be established based on the parameter values
measured during the performance test and supplemented by engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. Nowhere in the
proposal preamble, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, or any of the
referenced standards is there any indication of how operating limits
are established. The final OLD rule should allow the facility to
establish the operating limits necessary to achieve the requirements of
Table 2 to subpart EEEE of part 63. This would be consistent with the
HON. In addition, the conditions for conducting performance tests
should be consistent between Table 12 to subpart EEEE of part 63 (Sec.
63.7(e)(1)) and Sec. 63.997(e)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, to
avoid confusion.
Response: We have included in the final OLD rule a requirement for
the owner or operator to develop and submit a monitoring plan according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.985(c) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
The monitoring plan must specify the parameters that an owner or
operator proposes to monitor and the range of acceptable values for
each parameter. The final OLD rule specifies parameters that must be
monitored unless the owner or operator chooses to request permission to
monitor an alternative parameter. The final OLD rule does not, however,
provide specific ranges of acceptable values for the monitored
parameters. Owners or operators must establish monitored parameter
limits based on performance testing or design evaluation information.
Thus, the owner or operator now has the flexibility to establish
monitoring parameter limits that are most appropriate for assuring that
their particular equipment complies with the emission limitations.
Comment: Two commenters stated that, in Tables 3 and 9 to subpart
EEEE of part 63, compliance with the operating limits should be based
on a daily average value instead of an hourly average. They claim that
using an hourly average as the basis for compliance with the operating
limit is a very stringent requirement and is in direct conflict with
numerous 40 CFR part 63 standards. They also claim that the use of
daily averages instead of hourly averages supports every legitimate
need of EPA's Enforcement Office, while still making compliance with
the final OLD rule possible.
Response: We have evaluated the changes recommended by the
commenters and have modified Tables 3 and 9 to require that daily
average values of recorded parameters be used to determine compliance.
Daily average values have been considered by EPA in other MACT rules to
be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the types of control
devices in use within this industry. We concluded, after further
evaluation, that an hourly average may not be sufficient to account for
normal, short-term fluctuations of operating
[[Page 5058]]
parameter values. Also, the parameter monitoring limits are normally
established during performance testing that covers a span of three, 1-
hour runs. This testing period helps ensure that short-term variations
in operating conditions (temperature, flow rate, concentration, etc.)
do not inappropriately bias the overall average. It is consistent with
EPA policy developed in other MACT rules and with good engineering
judgement to allow daily average values to be used to determine
compliance. It should also be noted that in cases where an emission
source operates for a total of less than 24 hours at a time, the
average recorded values must comply over the total operating period.
Comment: One commenter stated that the non-applicability of the
emission limits during periods of SSM is unclear and needs to be
addressed, and recommended that specific language in Sec. 63.2378,
patterned on 40 CFR Sec.Sec. 63.102-103 or 63.480(j) regarding
operation during SSM, be included in the final OLD rule.
Response: We have written the language in Sec. 63.2378 to clarify
the applicability of the emission limitations during periods of SSM.
While the emission limitations still apply during periods of SSM,
deviations from the emission limitations during these periods are not
automatically considered to be violations if the owner or operator
demonstrates that they have followed the requirements of their SSM
plan. Paragraphs (b)(2) of Sec. 63.2378 require that control devices be
operated during periods of SSM if possible without damaging the devices
and paragraphs (b)(3) require that appropriate measures be taken to
minimize emissions during periods of SSM. The final OLD rule does
require, in Sec. 63.2386(d), that deviations from the emission
limitation that occur during periods of SSM be reported in the
semiannual compliance report.
Comment: The same commenter stated that proposed Sec. 63.2378(d) is
unnecessary and confusing and should be deleted, stating that SSM
requirements are adequately addressed in the recently amended General
Provisions and no argument has been made to justify deviating from
those provisions.
Response: As discussed in the previous response pertaining to SSM
requirements, we have clarified in the final rule that deviations
occurring during periods of SSM must be reported in the semiannual
compliance report even though they are not automatically considered to
be violations of the emission limitation. The result is more
consistency between the final OLD rule and other recently promulgated
rules and also provides the EPA with information necessary to decide on
a case by case basis if further documentation should be requested from
a facility.
Comment: Several commenters felt that EPA should allow storage
tanks with nonconforming seals to upgrade the seals up until the next
time the tank is out of service, but no more than 10 years after rule
promulgation. For an existing affected source, the proposed OLD rule
would have required compliance with the emission limitations and work
practice standards for existing sources no later than 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule. Other MACT rules with storage tank
provisions recognize that a 3-year compliance schedule would typically
result in an increase in emissions because the emissions associated
with emptying and degassing the tanks for performing the required
alterations can be greater than the emission reductions that those
alterations would achieve.
Response: In response to these comments, we reviewed the allowances
made in other MACT rules regulating storage tanks, and also the Generic
MACT standards for storage vessels, 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, which
are an allowable alternative (in Table 4 of the proposed rule) to the
95 percent emission limit.
The Gasoline Distribution MACT rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart R)
allows a 3-year compliance period for upgrading external floating deck
rim seals and for applying controls (gaskets, etc.) to deck fittings.
However, if only the fitting controls are needed for a particular
external floating roof tank to achieve compliance, the facility may
wait until the next scheduled degassing and cleaning of the tank (or up
to 10 years) to install the fitting controls. Subpart WW of 40 CFR
63.1063(a)(2)(ix) is similar to the Gasoline Distribution rule in that
fitting controls may be installed up to 10 years after promulgation.
The Petroleum Refinery MACT rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)
allows up to 10 years to achieve compliance for existing floating roof
storage tanks, but gives fixed-roof tanks only 3 years to comply due to
the much greater emission reduction achieved for fixed-roof tanks.
Analysis of the emissions created by a tank degassing and cleaning
event were performed under both the Gasoline Distribution and Refinery
rules. We agree that for OLD storage tanks, the net cumulative
emissions from performing a special cleaning and degassing to bring a
floating roof tank into compliance would be greater than from allowing
an OLD operation to wait until a scheduled cleaning event to make these
modifications. Therefore, the final OLD rule includes a provision to
allow a facility up to 10 years to convert the rim seals or deck
fittings on existing floating roof tanks. However, the analysis for the
Refinery rule showed that the emissions from degassing and cleaning
fixed-roof tanks can be balanced within 1 year by the reductions
achieved by applying the subpart WW controls (specific floating roofs
and seals) or a 95 percent efficient control device. Therefore,
existing fixed-roof tanks are required in the final rule to achieve
compliance within 3 years after the effective date.
The final OLD rule is written to be consistent with the overall CAA
goal of reducing HAP emissions. In a situation such as the control of
this type of storage tanks, strictly adhering to the 3-year compliance
timeframe to implement the MACT floor level of control actually results
in increased emissions. Thus, if our goal is to reduce HAP emissions,
we are faced with a choice of allowing facilities more time to comply
with the MACT level of control or not require that they comply at all.
The approach taken achieves more HAP emission reductions than would be
achieved by not requiring facilities to meet the MACT level of control.
D. Notifications, Reports, and Records
Comment: One commenter stated that the provisions of proposed Sec.
63.2386(c)(4) and (d) (information to be included in semiannual
Compliance reports) are too broad and EPA has not indicated why such
broad applicability is needed and what useful purpose repeated
submittal of information will serve.
Similarly, another commenter requested that EPA revise Sec.
63.2386(d) concerning the first Compliance report because the records
requested in Sec. 63.2386(d)(1), (4), and (5) will literally require
the submission of reams of paper with each Compliance report.
Response: We have reviewed the proposed requirements related to the
content of the initial notification of compliance status (NOCS) and
subsequent compliance reports. We agree that, to the extent that the
initial NOCS includes the information necessary to understand the OLD
activities at the site, this information need not be reported again in
subsequent compliance reports unless there are substantive changes
affecting applicability or organic HAP emissions. Therefore, we have
streamlined the referenced paragraphs to eliminate
[[Page 5059]]
duplicated information (but also to require the initial Compliance
report to contain any updated or final facility information that was
not reported in the NOCS).
Comment: One commenter stated that language added April 5, 2002, to
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) of the General Provisions concerning reporting
the number, duration, and a brief description of each SSM is
unnecessarily burdensome for OLD-type operations, where there are many
individual components, any of which can be undergoing SSM activities
independent of the other components. The commenter suggested that the
approach used in the HON offers reasonable relief and that it be used.
Specifically, the commenter recommended that requirements for
recordkeeping and reporting be for ``startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions during which excess emissions occur.''
Two other commenters expressed concern with the immediate SSM
reporting requirement in Table 11 to subpart EEEE of part 63, item 2.
They stated that this requirement should be made consistent with the
HON, which allows these events to be reported in the next semiannual
Compliance report.
Response: The amount of information required in the amended General
Provisions for the SSM reports does not represent an undue burden for
OLD operations. We believe that the additional information required
under the amended General Provisions is useful to the EPA in gaining an
understanding of the frequency, duration, and types of SSM activities
at an affected source. Because sources are required to minimize
emissions to the extent which is consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices during periods of SSM, gaining an
understanding of the overall operation of an affected source is
important. Therefore, we have retained the requirement in Sec.
63.2386(c)(5), which references the General Provisions. We have also
retained the requirement in Table 11 to subpart EEEE of part 63, item
2, which specifies that an immediate SSM report must be submitted if
the owner or operator takes an action that is not consistent with their
SSM plan. We concluded that a failure to follow an approved SSM plan
should not go unreported for a period of time that could be almost 6
months. In those cases where the owner or operator follows their SSM
plan, reporting in the next scheduled compliance report is allowed
under Table 11 to subpart EEEE of part 63.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern with proposed Sec.
63.2378(b), which implies that if the operator starts up or shuts down
a control device and it does not meet the 1-hour average temperature
because it only ran for 15 minutes of a given hour, then the operator
has to report that they did not meet the required temperature even
though the temperature during the actual loading operation may have met
the requirements. One of the commenters stated that this results in
much more recordkeeping and reporting than the HON, Polymers & Resins
MACT rules, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for no environmental or
compliance benefits.
Response: We have written the language in Sec. 63.2378 to clarify
the applicability of the emission limitations during periods of SSM.
While the emission limitations still apply during periods of SSM,
deviations from the emission limitations during these periods are not
automatically considered to be violations if the owner or operator
demonstrates that they have followed the requirements of their approved
SSM plan. Paragraphs (b)(2) require that control devices be operated
during periods of SSM if possible without damaging the devices and
paragraph (b)(3) require that appropriate measures be taken to minimize
emissions during periods of SSM. The final OLD rule does require, in
Sec. 63.2386(d), that deviations from the emission limitations that
occur during periods of SSM be reported in the semiannual compliance
report, even though they are not automatically considered to be
violations of the emission limitations. It should be noted that the
averaging period has been written as daily averages of monitored
parameters and, also, that monitoring is only required during periods
of operation of the emission source. In the commenters example of a
source operating for only 15 minutes, if the monitored parameter meets
the operating limitation during that period of operation, it would not
be considered a deviation.
E. Definitions
Comment: Several commenters felt that EPA should revise the
definition of annual average true vapor pressure in proposed Sec.
63.2406, as there is no good reason to require annual recalculation of
the average ambient temperature. The referenced method for determining
true vapor pressure (API 2517) uses the normal average annual
temperature. This is published by the National Climatic Data Center as
a cumulative average over many years, and thus may be considered a
constant for a given location.
Commenters stated that the temperature basis used for vapor
pressure determination should be related to the actual facility
emission potential and consistent with the regulatory basis. Two of the
commenters stated that the vapor pressure determination for storage
tank applicability should be based on the annual average temperature of
the stored organic liquid.
Response: We agree that the average annual temperature for a given
location is not likely to vary from year to year to the extent that, if
all other factors are unchanged, it will have a noticeable effect on
emissions. Thus, annual recalculation of this temperature is
unnecessary and we have written the definition in the final OLD rule to
reflect this. As suggested by one of the commenters, we have also added
the term ``actual annual average temperature'' to clarify that the
actual liquid temperature should be used in determinations of vapor
pressure.
We have also written the definition of ``annual average true vapor
pressure'' so that it is based on the actual annual average temperature
of the liquid, and annual recalculation of the vapor pressure value is
not needed.
Comment: One commenter suggested that in the definition of black
oil, EPA should delete the word ``hydrocarbon'' and the parentheses
around ``petroleum'' to ensure clarity of intent. It is possible for a
chemical plant to bring onto or ship out from a plant an oily, black
hydrocarbon liquid that could meet the other criteria of this
definition. The commenter believes that EPA intends that black oil be a
technical term related only to petroleum liquids.
Response: We have deleted the term ``black oil'' from the final
rule. All crude oil will now be subject to the requirements under the
final OLD rule.
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA use the proposed Sec.
63.2334(b) definition of ``organic liquid'' in Sec. 63.2406
(Definitions) to specifically exclude ``black oil'' and gasoline.
Another commenter recommended that EPA revise the organic liquid
definition to make clear the intent that the HAP content cutoff (5
percent by weight) applies to liquids other than crude oil.
Response: We have written the definition of ``organic liquid'' to
clarify the intended meaning of this term in the final OLD rule and
have removed the description of organic liquids from Sec. 63.2334(b).
We have included a 5 percent cutoff level for defining non-crude oil
liquids as ``organic liquids.''
Comment: Many commenters suggested changes to the definition of
[[Page 5060]]
storage tank. One commenter stated that EPA should clarify that the
rule only applies to stationary tanks. The proposed definition stated
that the term means a stationary unit, and then cited several examples
of non-stationary units. If these examples were to be interpreted as
constituting the only non-stationary units that are not subject to the
rule, then other portable tanks and containers could be improperly
construed as being subject to the rule. Several commenters recommended
that the storage tank definition should exclude pressure vessels
designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without
emissions to the atmosphere. Three commenters recommended that the
storage tank definition be changed to clearly include blending tanks in
the affected source and that, therefore, storage tanks and transport
vessels used for ``incidental mixing and blending'' are a part of the
OLD affected source. The commenters maintained that it must be clear
that the OLD rule does not exclude from the affected source those
storage tanks that have the ability to practice ``incidental blending
and mixing to maintain product specifications.''
A final commenter recommended that vessels permanently attached to
motor vehicles such as trucks, tank cars, barges, or ships be excluded
from this definition (per the definition in the HON).
Response: We are in agreement with the commenters concerning the
types of tanks intended to be covered by the term ``storage tank.'' We
have written the definition to make it more consistent with other rules
(such as the HON and the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP) and to reflect
suggestions of the commenters.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the definition of transfer
rack be amended by deleting the ``physically separate'' criterion
because the 11.8 million liter (3.12 million gallon) throughput cutoff
in the OLD rule is based on each transfer rack loading position and not
the transfer rack as a whole. The last sentence in the transfer rack
definition was also included in the HON subparts F and G definitions
for loading rack, in Sec.Sec. 63.101 and 63.111. Under the HON, this
sentence was important to enable one to distinguish between the terms
``transfer rack'' and ``loading rack'' when making the Group 1/Group 2
determination. This Group status was based on throughput of the entire
transfer rack and not each transfer rack loading position.
Response: We are retaining the definition as proposed for
``transfer rack,'' including the ``physically separate'' criterion,
because we have written the description of the transfer rack emission
source subject to emission standards from each loading position to the
entire transfer rack, consistent with other air emission control
regulations for volatile organic and petroleum liquid transfer
operations. In the data reassessment we performed after proposal, we
also found that the reported transfer rack data were sufficient to
develop a MACT floor level of control for transfer racks but not for
individual loading positions.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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
(4) raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (ICR No. 1963.02) The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but will not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden to
affected sources for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years
after the effective date of the promulgated rule) is estimated to be
137,170 labor-hours per year, with a total annual cost of $7.5 million
per year. These estimates include a one-time performance test and
report (with repeat tests where needed), one-time submission of an SSMP
with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan
were not followed, semiannual compliance reports, maintenance
inspections, notifications, and recordkeeping.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the
[[Page 5061]]
approved information collection requirements contained in the final
rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has fewer than 100 or 1,500 employees, or a maximum of
$5 million to $18.5 million in revenues, depending on the size
definition for the affected North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that
companies in 42 NAICS codes are affected by the final rule, and the
small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is
that listed in the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards
(13 CFR 121). For more information on size standards for particular
industries, please refer to the economic impact analysis in the docket.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined that six small firms in the industries affected by
the final rule may be affected. Out of the six affected small firms,
none are estimated to have compliance costs that exceed one percent of
their revenues.
In addition, the final rule is likely to increase profits at the
many small firms not adversely affected by the final rule due to the
very slight increase in market prices. The median compliance cost to
sales estimates for the affected small and large firms is virtually
identical (0.02 percent compared to less than 0.01 percent for the
large firms) and no small firms are expected to close in response to
incurring the compliance costs associated with the final rule.
Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, the final rule includes
provisions that will minimize the impact on small entities in several
ways. We chose to set the control requirements at the MACT floor
control level and not at a control level more stringent. The transfer
rack cutoff, based on facilitywide throughput, and tank size cutoffs in
the final rule will reduce the effects on small businesses. We have
identified a list of 98 HAP from the list of 188 in the CAA to be
considered for regulation. Regulated liquids are non-crude oil organic
liquids that contain at least 5 percent by weight of the 98 HAP listed
in Table 1 to subpart EEEE of part 63 and a vapor pressure of at least
0.1 psia, and all crude oil after the first point of custody transfer
after the production field. In addition, we worked with various trade
associations during the development of the rulemaking. These actions
have reduced the economic impact on small entities from the final rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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.
The EPA has determined that today's final rule does 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.
E. 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. The 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
regulation.
The final rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Furthermore, the final OLD
NESHAP do not require these governments to take on any new
responsibilities. Therefore, the requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.
F. 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
[[Page 5062]]
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 final rule does not have tribal implications. It 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 final
rule.
G. 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.
The 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 final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk
analysis was performed 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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). The rule is not a ``significant energy action''
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, and use of energy. The reduction in petroleum
product output, which includes reductions in fuel production, is
estimated at only 0.006 percent, or about 311 barrels per day (about
15,500 metric tons per year). The reduction in coal, natural gas, and
electricity output is expected to be negligible. The increase in price
of petroleum products is estimated to be only 0.001 percent nationwide.
While energy distribution services such as pipeline operations will be
directly affected by the final rule, energy distribution costs are
expected to increase by only 0.1 percent. We estimate that there will
be a slight increase of only 0.001 percent of net imports (imports --
exports), and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with
regard to energy supplies. Given the minimal impacts on energy supply,
distribution, and use as a whole nationally, all of which are under the
threshold screening criteria for compliance with this Executive Order
established by the Office of Management and Budget, no significant
adverse energy effects are expected to occur.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards 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 directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB,
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C,
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 25, 25A, 27, 311, 316 (formaldehyde).
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A,
2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 27, 311, and 316. The search and review results have
been documented and are placed in the docket (docket numbers A-98-13
and OAR-2003-0138) for the final rule.
Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as appropriate
to the final rule. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420-99,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds
by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the final
rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A, for measurement of organic HAP or total organic compounds.
Therefore, the standard ASTM D6420-99 is cited in today's final rule.
Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional EPA Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some
less stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by
EPA Method 18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to
EPA Method 18 only where: the target compound(s) are those listed in
Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99; and the target concentration is between
150 ppbv and 100 ppmv.
For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, 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. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM
D6420-99 does not apply.
As a result, EPA included ASTM D6420-99 in the final rule, and EPA
Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC) option in addition to ASTM
D6420-99. This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other
than GC/MS.
Two additional voluntary consensus standards, ASTM D2879-83
``Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and
Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope,'' and API
Publication 2517 ``Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,
Third Edition, February 1989,'' were already incorporated by reference
in 40 CFR
[[Page 5063]]
Sec. 63.14 and are also being cited in the final rule for measurement
of vapor pressure.
Five voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89,
ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94 are incorporated by
reference in EPA Method 311.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified nine
other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that seven of
these nine standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the
final rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for
this purpose. The reasons for this determination for the seven methods
are discussed in the docket.
Two of the nine voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
Section 63.2362 and Table 5 to subpart EEEE of part 63 list the EPA
testing methods included in the regulation. Under Sec. 63.7(f) and Sec.
63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to
EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect,
the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which
includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2). The final rule will be
effective on February 3, 2004.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) ASTM D2879-83, 96, Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by
Isoteniscope, IBR approved for Sec. 63.111 and Sec. 63.2406.
(c) * * *
(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-
Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for Sec. 63.111
and Sec. 63.2406.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart EEEE to read as follows:
Subpart EEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.2330 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2334 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.2338 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.2342 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards
63.2346 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.2350 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.2354 What performance tests, design evaluations, and performance
evaluations must I conduct?
63.2358 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.2362 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.2366 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.2370 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.2374 When do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance and how do I use the collected data?
63.2378 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.2382 What notifications must I submit and when and what
information should be submitted?
63.2386 What reports must I submit and when and what information is
to be submitted in each?
63.2390 What records must I keep?
63.2394 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.2396 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
63.2398 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.2402 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.2406 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
Table 2 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Operating Limits--High
Throughput Transfer Racks
Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests and Design Evaluations
Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limits
Table 7 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Initial Compliance with Work
Practice Standards
Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limits
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Operating Limits--High Throughput Transfer Racks
Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with Work
Practice Standards
[[Page 5064]]
Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEE
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.2330 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission limitations, operating
limits, and work practice standards for organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emitted from organic liquids distribution (OLD) (non-
gasoline) operations at major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards.
Sec. 63.2334 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) Except as provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, you are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an OLD
operation that is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP
emissions. An OLD operation may occupy an entire plant site or be
collocated with other industrial (e.g., manufacturing) operations at
the same plant site.
(b) Organic liquid distribution operations located at research and
development facilities, consistent with section 112(c)(7) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), are not subject to this subpart.
(c) Organic liquid distribution operations do not include the
activities and equipment, including product loading racks, used to
process, store, or transfer organic liquids at facilities listed in
paragraph (c) (1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Oil and natural gas production field facilities, as the term
``facility'' is defined in Sec. 63.761 of subpart HH.
(2) Natural gas transmission and storage facilities, as the term
``facility'' is defined in Sec. 63.1271 of subpart HHH.
Sec. 63.2338 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
OLD operation affected source.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the
affected source is the collection of activities and equipment used to
distribute organic liquids into, out of, or within a facility that is a
major source of HAP. The affected source is composed of:
(1) All storage tanks storing organic liquids.
(2) All transfer racks at which organic liquids are loaded into or
unloaded out of transport vehicles and/or containers.
(3) All equipment leak components in organic liquids service that
are associated with pipelines, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, and with storage tanks and transfer racks storing,
loading, or unloading organic liquids.
(4) All transport vehicles while they are loading or unloading
organic liquids at transfer racks.
(c) The equipment listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section and used in the identified operations is excluded from the
affected source.
(1) Storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak components
that are part of an affected source under another 40 CFR part 63
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants regulation
(NESHAP).
(2) Equipment leak components associated with pipelines that
transfer organic liquids directly to or from storage tanks subject to
another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP or to or from non-tank process unit
components (e.g., process reactors).
(3) Non-permanent storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak
components used in special situation distribution loading and unloading
operations (such as maintenance or upset liquids management).
(4) Storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak components
used to conduct maintenance activities, such as stormwater management,
liquid removal from tanks for inspections and maintenance, or
changeovers to a different liquid stored in a storage tank.
(d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after April 2, 2002, and you meet
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2334 at the time you commenced
operation.
(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria
for reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.2342 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with this subpart according to the schedule identified in
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable.
(1)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,
if you startup your new affected source on or before February 3, 2004
or if you reconstruct your affected source on or before February 3,
2004, you must comply with the emission limitations, operating limits,
and work practice standards for new and reconstructed sources in this
subpart no later than February 3, 2004.
(ii) For any emission source listed in paragraph Sec. 63.2338(b) at
an affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after
April 2, 2002, but before February 3, 2004, that is required to be
controlled based on the applicability criteria in this subpart, but:
(A) Would not have been required to be controlled based on the
applicability criteria as proposed for this subpart, you must comply
with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice
standards for each such emission source based on the schedule found in
paragraph (b) of this section or at startup, whichever is later; or
(B) Would have been subject to a less stringent degree of control
requirement as proposed for this subpart, you must comply with the
emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards in
this subpart for each such emission source based on the schedule found
in paragraph (b) of this section or at startup, whichever is later, and
if you start up your affected new or reconstructed source before
February 5, 2007, you must comply with the emission limitations,
operating limits, and work practice standards for each such emission
source as proposed for this subpart, until you are required to comply
with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice
standards in this subpart for each such emission source based on the
schedule found in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) If you commence construction of or reconstruct your affected
source after February 3, 2004, you must comply with the emission
limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards for new and
reconstructed sources in this subpart upon startup of your affected
source.
(b)(1) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply
with the emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice
standards for existing affected sources no later than February 5, 2007,
except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Floating roof storage tanks at existing affected sources must
be in compliance with the work practice standards in Table 4 to this
subpart, item 1, at all times after the next degassing and cleaning
activity or within 10 years after February 3, 2004, whichever occurs
first. If the first degassing and cleaning activity occurs during the 3
years following February 3, 2004, the compliance date is February 5,
2007.
(c) If you have an area source that does not commence
reconstruction but increases its emissions or its potential to
[[Page 5065]]
emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions and an
existing affected source subject to this subpart, you must be in
compliance by 3 years after the area source becomes a major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.2382(a)
according to the schedules in Sec. 63.2382(a) and (b)(1) through (3)
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.
Emission Limitations, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.2346 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
(a) Storage tanks. 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), or (3) 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) of this section.
(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart
and comply with the applicable requirements specified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS, for meeting emission limits, except substitute the term
``storage tank'' at each occurrence of the term ``storage vessel'' in
subpart SS.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into the process as
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
(3) Comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (control level 2).
(b) Transfer racks. For each transfer rack that meets the facility-
level organic liquid loading volume and transfer rack organic HAP
content criteria for control in Table 2 to this subpart, items 7
through 9, you must comply with paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this
section.
(1) Meet the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart
and comply with the applicable requirements for transfer racks
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for meeting emission limits.
(2) Route emissions to fuel gas systems or back into the process as
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
(3) Use a vapor balancing system that routes organic HAP vapors
displaced from the loading of organic liquids into transport vehicles
to the appropriate storage tank.
(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 the applicable requirements under
40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level
2), or subpart H. Pumps, valves, and sampling connectors that are
insulated to provide protection against persistent sub-freezing
temperatures are subject to the ``difficult to monitor'' provisions in
the applicable subpart selected by the owner or operator. This
paragraph only applies if the affected source has at least one storage
tank or transfer rack that meets the applicability criteria for control
in Table 2 to this subpart.
(d) Transport vehicles. For each transport vehicle equipped with
vapor collection equipment, you must comply with paragraph (d)(1) of
this section. For each transport vehicle without vapor collection
equipment, you must comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(1) 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) through (i), except substitute
the term ``transport vehicle'' at each occurrence of the term ``tank
truck'' or ``gasoline tank truck'' in those paragraphs.
(2) Ensure that organic liquids are loaded only into transport
vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements in 49 CFR
part 180 for cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 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 organic liquids are routed to the control
device. For each storage tank and low throughput transfer rack, you
must comply with the requirements for monitored parameters as specified
in subpart SS of this part for storage vessels and low throughput
transfer racks, respectively. Alternatively, you may comply with the
operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart.
(f) If you elect to demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction
requirement in Table 2 to this subpart using total organic compounds
(TOC) rather than organic HAP, you must first demonstrate, subject to
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.
(g) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request approval from the
Administrator to use an alternative to the emission limitations,
operating limits, and work practice standards in this section. You must
follow the procedures in Sec. 63.177(b) through (e) in applying for
permission to use such an alternative. If you apply for permission to
use an alternative to the emission limitations, operating limits, and
work practice standards in this section, you must submit the
information described in Sec. 63.6(g)(2).
(h) Emission sources that are part of the affected source as
specified in Sec. 63.2338, but which are not subject to the provisions
of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, are only subject to the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2386(d).
(i) Opening of a safety device is allowed at any time that it is
required to avoid unsafe operating conditions.
(j) If you elect to comply with this subpart by combining emissions
from different emission sources subject to this subpart in a single
control device, then you must comply with the provisions specified in
Sec. 63.982(f).
General Compliance Requirements
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 (4)
is in OLD operation.
(b) 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) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.2354 What performance tests, design evaluations, and
performance evaluations must I conduct?
(a)(1) For each performance test that you conduct, you must use the
procedures specified in subpart SS of this part and the provisions
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For each design evaluation you conduct, you must use the
procedures specified in subpart SS of this part.
[[Page 5066]]
(3) For each performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring
system (CMS) you conduct, you must follow the requirements in Sec.
63.8(e).
(b)(1) 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).
(2) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test on a nonflare control device as specified in Sec.Sec. 63.7(e)(3)
and 63.997(e)(1)(v). Each test run must last at least 1 hour, except as
provided in Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A) and (B).
(3)(i) In addition to EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, to determine compliance with the organic HAP or TOC
emission limit, you may use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. If you use EPA Method 18 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 EPA Method 18. In conducting the performance test, you must analyze
samples collected as specified in EPA Method 18, 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.
(ii) If you use EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 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 EPA Method 18. In conducting the performance test, analyze
samples collected as specified in EPA 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.
(4) If a principal component of the uncontrolled or inlet gas
stream to the control device is formaldehyde, you may use EPA Method
316 of appendix A of this part instead of EPA Method 18 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, for measuring the formaldehyde. If formaldehyde is the
predominant organic HAP in the inlet gas stream, you may use EPA Method
316 alone to measure formaldehyde either at the inlet and outlet of the
control device using the formaldehyde control efficiency as a surrogate
for total organic HAP or TOC efficiency, or at the outlet of a
combustion device for determining compliance with the emission
concentration limit.
(5) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of SSM, as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(c) To determine the HAP content of the organic liquid, you may use
EPA Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or other method approved
by the Administrator. In addition, you may use other means, such as
voluntary consensus standards, material safety data sheets (MSDS), 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 EPA Method 311 or other method approved by the
Administrator. If the results of the EPA Method 311 (or any other
approved method) are different from the HAP content determined by
another means, the EPA Method 311 (or approved method) results will
govern.
Sec. 63.2358 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) You must conduct initial performance tests and design
evaluations according to the schedule in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), or by the
compliance date specified in any applicable State or Federal new source
review construction permit to which the affected source is already
subject, whichever is earlier.
(b)(1) For storage tanks and transfer racks at existing affected
sources complying with the emission limitations listed in Table 2 to
this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations within 180 days after February 5, 2007.
(2) For storage tanks and transfer racks at reconstructed or new
affected sources complying with the emission limitations listed in
Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct your initial compliance
demonstration with the emission limitations within 180 days after the
initial startup date for the affected source or February 3, 2004,
whichever is later.
(c)(1) For storage tanks at existing affected sources complying
with the work practice standard 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 10 years after
February 3, 2004.
(2) For transfer racks and equipment leak components at existing
affected sources complying with the work practice standards in Table 4
to this subpart, you must conduct your initial compliance demonstration
within 180 days after February 5, 2007.
(d) For storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak
components at reconstructed or new affected sources complying with the
work practice standards in Table 4 to this subpart, you must conduct
your initial compliance demonstration within 180 days after the initial
startup date for the affected source.
Sec. 63.2362 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) For nonflare control devices, you must conduct subsequent
performance testing required in Table 5 to this subpart, item 1, at any
time the EPA requests you to in accordance with section 114 of the CAA.
(b)(1) For each transport vehicle that you own that is equipped
with vapor collection equipment and loads organic liquids at an
affected transfer rack, you must perform the vapor tightness testing
required in Table 5 to this subpart, item 2, on that transport vehicle
at least once per year.
(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 pressure test requirements in 49 CFR part
180 for cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars.
Sec. 63.2366 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain a 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 the applicable requirements for CPMS in
subpart SS of this part for the control device being used. If you use a
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), you must comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.8.
(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.
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
[[Page 5067]]
that applies to you as specified in Tables 6 and 7 to this subpart.
(b) You demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits
requirements specified in Sec. 63.2346(e) by establishing the operating
limits during the initial performance test or design evaluation.
(c) You must submit the results of the initial compliance
demonstration in the Notification of Compliance Status according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.2382(b).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
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.
(b) When using a control device to comply with this subpart, you
must monitor continuously or collect data at all required intervals at
all times that the emission source and control device are in OLD
operation, except for CMS malfunctions (including any malfunction
preventing the CMS from operating properly), associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(c) Do not use data recorded during CMS malfunctions, associated
repairs, required quality assurance or control activities, or periods
when emissions from organic liquids are not routed to the control
device in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels. Do not use such data in fulfilling a minimum data
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all of the data
collected during all other periods, including periods of SSM, in
assessing the operation of the control device.
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.
(b) You must follow the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e)(1) and (3)
during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, or nonoperation of
the affected source or any part thereof. In addition, the provisions of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section apply.
(1) The emission limitations in this subpart apply at all times
except during periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. The emission limitations of this subpart
apply during periods of SSM, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section. During periods of SSM, the owner or operator
must follow the applicable provisions of the SSM plan required by Sec.
63.2350(c). However, if a SSM, or period of nonoperation of one portion
of the affected source does not affect the ability of a particular
emission source to comply with the emission limitations to which it is
subject, then that emission source is still required to comply with the
applicable emission limitations of this subpart during the startup,
shutdown, malfunction, or period of nonoperation.
(2) The owner or operator must not shut down control devices or
monitoring systems that are required or utilized for achieving
compliance with this subpart during periods of SSM while emissions are
being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown would
contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items of
equipment. This paragraph (b)(2) does not apply if the item of
equipment is malfunctioning. This paragraph (b)(2) also does not apply
if the owner or operator shuts down the compliance equipment (other
than monitoring systems) to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous SSM
of the affected source or portion thereof. If the owner or operator has
reason to believe that monitoring equipment would be damaged due to a
contemporaneous SSM of the affected source of portion thereof, the
owner or operator must provide documentation supporting such a claim in
the next Compliance report required in Table 11 to this subpart, item
1. Once approved by the Administrator, the provision for ceasing to
collect, during a SSM, monitoring data that would otherwise be required
by the provisions of this subpart must be incorporated into the SSM
plan.
(3) During SSM, you must implement, to the extent reasonably
available, measures to prevent or minimize excess emissions. For
purposes of this paragraph (b)(3), the term ``excess emissions'' means
emissions greater than those allowed by the emission limits that apply
during normal operational periods. The measures to be taken must be
identified in the SSM plan, and may include, but are not limited to,
air pollution control technologies, recovery technologies, work
practices, pollution prevention, monitoring, and/or changes in the
manner of operation of the affected source. Back-up control devices are
not required, but may be used if available.
(c) 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) 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.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.2382 What notifications must I submit and when and what
information should be submitted?
(a) You must submit each notification in subpart SS of this part,
Table 12 to this subpart, and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section that applies to you. You must submit these notifications
according to the schedule in Table 12 to this subpart and as specified
in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b)(1) Initial Notification. If you startup your affected source
before February 3, 2004, you must submit the Initial Notification no
later than 120 calendar days after February 3, 2004.
(2) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or
after February 3, 2004, you must submit the Initial Notification no
later than 120 days after initial startup.
(c) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit the Notification of Intent to conduct the test at least 60
calendar days before it is initially scheduled to begin as required in
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(d)(1) Notification of Compliance Status. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 5, 6, or 7 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status.
(2) The Notification of Compliance Status must include the
information required in Sec. 63.999(b) and in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
through (viii) of this section.
[[Page 5068]]
(i) The results of any applicability determinations, emission
calculations, or analyses used to identify and quantify organic HAP
emissions from the affected source.
(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.
(iii) Descriptions of monitoring devices, monitoring frequencies,
and the operating limits established during the initial compliance
demonstrations, including data and calculations to support the levels
you establish.
(iv) Listing of all operating scenarios.
(v) Descriptions of worst-case operating and/or testing conditions
for the control device(s).
(vi) Identification of emission sources subject to overlapping
requirements described in Sec. 63.2396 and the authority under which
you will comply.
(vii) 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 3.
(viii) If you are complying with the vapor balancing work practice
standard for transfer racks according to Table 4 to this subpart, item
2.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 pounds per square inch gauge (psig).
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 (e) of this section that applies to you.
(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.
(1)(i) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning
on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.2342 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.2342.
(ii) The first Compliance report must be postmarked no later than
July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first
calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your
affected source in Sec. 63.2342.
(2)(i) Each subsequent Compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(ii) Each subsequent Compliance report must be postmarked no later
than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following
the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(3) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A),
you may submit the first and subsequent Compliance reports according to
the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according
to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) First Compliance report. The first Compliance report must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of
this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(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.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) Any changes to the information listed in Sec. 63.2382(d)(1)
that have occurred since the submittal of the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(5) 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).
(6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitation or
operating limit that applies to you and there are no deviations from
the requirements for work practice standards, a statement that there
were no deviations from the emission limitations, operating limits, or
work practice standards during the reporting period.
(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out of
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no
periods during which the CMS was out of control during the reporting
period.
(8) For closed vent systems and control devices used to control
emissions, the information specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii)
of this section for those planned routine maintenance activities that
would require the control device to not meet the applicable emission
limit.
(i) A description of the planned routine maintenance that is
anticipated to be performed for the control device during the next 6
months. This description must include the type of maintenance
necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and lengths of maintenance
periods.
(ii) A description of the planned routine maintenance that was
performed for the control device during the previous 6 months. This
description must include the type of maintenance performed and the
total number of hours during those 6 months that the control device did
not meet the applicable emission limit due to planned routine
maintenance.
(9) A listing of all emission sources that are part of the affected
source but are not subject to any of the emission limitations,
operating limits, or work practice standards of this subpart.
(10) A listing of all transport vehicles into which organic liquids
were loaded at affected transfer racks during the previous 6 months for
which vapor tightness documentation as required in Sec. 63.2390(d) was
not on file at the facility.
(d) Subsequent Compliance reports. Subsequent Compliance reports
must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this
section and, where applicable, the information in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) 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, you must include in the Compliance report
the applicable information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xii) of
this section. This includes periods of SSM.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The dates and times that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) For each CMS that was out of control, the information in Sec.
63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of SSM, or during
another period.
[[Page 5069]]
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percentage of the total
emission source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) 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) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime 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.
(viii) An identification of each organic HAP that was potentially
emitted during each deviation based on the known organic HAP contained
in the liquid(s).
(ix) A brief description of the emission source(s) at which the CMS
deviation(s) occurred.
(x) A brief description of each CMS that was out of control during
the period.
(xi) The date of the latest certification or audit for each CMS.
(xii) A brief description of any changes in CMS, processes, or
controls since the last reporting period.
(2) Include in the Compliance report the information in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) 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.
(ii) For each storage tank controlled with a floating roof, include
a copy of the inspection record (required in Sec. 63.1065(b)) when
inspection failures occur.
(iii) If you elect to use an extension for a floating roof
inspection in accordance with Sec. 63.1063(c)(2)(iv)(B) or (e)(2),
include the documentation required by those paragraphs.
(3) Include in the Compliance report each new operating scenario
which has occurred since the time period covered by the last Compliance
report. For each new operating scenario, you must provide verification
that the established operating conditions for any associated control
device have not been exceeded and that any required calculations and
engineering analyses have been performed.
(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.
Sec. 63.2390 What records must I keep?
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) For each transport vehicle into which organic liquids are
loaded at an affected transfer rack, you must keep the applicable
records in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For transport vehicles equipped with vapor collection
equipment, the documentation described in 40 CFR 60.505(b), except that
the test title is: Transport Vehicle Pressure Test-EPA Reference Method
27.
(2) For transport vehicles without vapor collection equipment,
current certification in accordance with the U.S. DOT pressure test
requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for
tank cars.
(3) You must keep records of the actual annual facility-level
organic liquid loading volume through transfer racks out of the
facility to document the applicability of the emission limitations in
Table 2, items 7 through 10, to this subpart.
Sec. 63.2394 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious inspection and review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). In
addition, on-site records may be stored in electronic form at a
separate location from the site provided they can be accessed and
printed at the site within 1 hour after a request by the applicable
title V permitting authority.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep your files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may keep
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.2396 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant is
subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
(a) Compliance with other regulations for storage tanks.
(1)(i) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you
have a storage tank that is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, not
as the result of another 40 CFR part 63 subpart, and that storage tank
is in OLD operation, you must meet all of the requirements of this
subpart for that storage tank when the storage tank is in OLD
operation.
(ii) If you have a storage tank that is in compliance with 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Kb, as the result of complying with another 40 CFR
part 63 subpart, that storage tank is not subject to this subpart.
(2) After the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you
have a storage tank that is subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, and
that storage tank is in OLD operation, you must meet all of the
requirements of this subpart for that storage tank when the storage
tank is in OLD operation.
(b) Compliance with other regulations for transfer racks. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if you have a transfer rack
that is subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart BB, and that transfer rack
is in OLD operation, you must meet the all of the requirements of this
subpart for that transfer rack when the transfer rack is in OLD
operation.
(c) Compliance with other regulations for equipment leak
components.
(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,
[[Page 5070]]
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 40 CFR part 63,
subpart GGG, 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) [Reserved]
(e) Overlap with other regulations for monitoring, recordkeeping,
or reporting with respect to control devices. After the compliance
dates specified in Sec. 63.2342, if any control device subject to this
subpart is also subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of another 40 CFR part 63 subpart, the owner or operator
must be in compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of this subpart EEEE. If complying with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the other subpart
satisfies the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
this subpart, the owner or operator may elect to continue to comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
other subpart. In such instances, the owner or operator will be deemed
to be in compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must identify the
other subpart being complied with in the Notification of Compliance
Status required by Sec. 63.2382(b).
Sec. 63.2398 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 12 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec.Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.2402 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or eligible tribal agency. If the EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or eligible
tribal agency, then that agency, as well as the EPA, has the authority
to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA
Regional Office (see list in Sec. 63.13) to find out if this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or eligible tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority for this
subpart to a State, local, or eligible tribal agency under 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not
delegated to the State, local, or eligible tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emission
limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards in Sec.
63.2346(a) through (c) under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.2406 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec. 63.2,
and in this section. If the same term is defined in another subpart and
in this section, it will have the meaning given in this section for
purposes of this subpart.
Actual annual average temperature, for organic liquids, means the
temperature determined using the following methods:
(1) For heated or cooled storage tanks, use the calculated annual
average temperature of the stored organic liquid as determined from a
design analysis of the storage tank.
(2) For ambient temperature storage tanks:
(i) Use the annual average of the local (nearest) normal daily mean
temperatures reported by the National Climatic Data Center; or
(ii) Use any other method that the EPA approves.
Annual average true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial
pressure exerted by the total organic HAP in the stored or transferred
organic liquid. For the purpose of determining if a liquid meets the
definition of an organic liquid, the vapor pressure is determined using
standard conditions of 77 degrees F and 29.92 inches of mercury. For
the purpose of determining whether an organic liquid meets the
applicability criteria in Table 2, items 1 through 6, to this subpart,
use the actual annual average temperature as defined in this subpart.
The vapor pressure value in either of these cases is determined:
(1) In accordance with methods described in American Petroleum
Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-
Roof Tanks (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14);
(2) Using standard reference texts;
(3) By the American Society for Testing and Materials Method D2879-
83, 96 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14); or
(4) Using any other method that the EPA approves.
Cargo tank means a liquid-carrying tank permanently attached and
forming an integral part of a motor vehicle or truck trailer. This term
also refers to the entire cargo tank motor vehicle or trailer. For the
purpose of this subpart, vacuum trucks used exclusively for maintenance
or spill response are not considered cargo tanks.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapors from an
emission point to a control device. This system does not include the
vapor collection system that is part of some transport vehicles or the
loading arm or hose that is used for vapor return. For transfer racks,
the closed vent system begins at, and includes, the first block valve
on the downstream side of the loading arm or hose used to convey
displaced vapors.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as a
flare, oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, process heater, or boiler, used
for the combustion of organic emissions.
Container means a portable unit in which a material can be stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled. Examples of
containers include, but are not limited to, drums and portable cargo
containers known as ``portable tanks'' or ``totes.''
Control device means any combustion device, recovery device,
recapture device, or any combination of these devices used to comply
with this subpart. Such equipment or devices include, but are not
limited to, absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, and combustion devices.
Primary condensers, steam strippers, and fuel gas systems are not
considered control devices.
Crude oil means any of the naturally occurring liquids commonly
referred to as crude oil, regardless of specific physical properties.
Only those crude oils downstream of the first point of custody transfer
after the production field are considered crude oils in this subpart.
Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids after
processing and/or treatment in the producing operations, or from
storage tanks or
[[Page 5071]]
automatic transfer facilities to pipelines or any other forms of
transportation.
Design evaluation means a procedure for evaluating control devices
that complies with the requirements in Sec. 63.985(b)(1)(i).
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) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during SSM.
Emission limitation means an emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
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.
Gasoline means any petroleum distillate or petroleum distillate/
alcohol blend having a Reid vapor pressure of 27.6 kilopascals (4.0
pounds per square inch absolute (psia)) or greater which is used as a
fuel for internal combustion engines. Aviation gasoline is included in
this definition.
In organic liquids service means that an equipment leak component
contains or contacts organic liquids having 5 percent by weight or
greater of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
On-site or on site means, with respect to records required to be
maintained by this subpart or required by another subpart referenced by
this subpart, that records are stored at a location within a major
source which encompasses the affected source. On-site includes, but is
not limited to, storage at the affected source to which the records
pertain, storage in central files elsewhere at the major source, or
electronically available at the site.
Organic liquid means:
(1) Any non-crude oil 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 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 liquid with an annual average true vapor
pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia).
Organic liquids distribution (OLD) operation means the combination
of activities and equipment used to store or transfer organic liquids
into, out of, or within a plant site regardless of the specific
activity being performed. Activities include, but are not limited to,
storage, transfer, blending, compounding, and packaging.
Permitting authority means one of the following:
(1) The State Air Pollution Control Agency, local agency, or other
agency authorized by the EPA Administrator to carry out a permit
program under 40 CFR part 70; or
(2) The EPA Administrator, in the case of EPA-implemented permit
programs under title V of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661) and 40 CFR part 71.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining surface property that
is under common control, including surface properties that are
separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control
includes surface properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the
same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination.
Research and development facility means laboratory and pilot plant
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development
into new processes and products, where the operations are under the
close supervision of technically trained personnel, and which are not
engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except in a
de minimis manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2 and 40 CFR 71.2, as applicable.
Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief
valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device that
functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent
deformation to a unit or its air emission control equipment by venting
gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions
resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an OLD affected
source, or portion thereof, required or used to comply with this
subpart, or the emptying and degassing of a storage tank. Shutdown as
defined here includes, but is not limited to, events that result from
periodic maintenance, replacement of equipment, or repair.
Startup means the setting in operation of an OLD affected source,
or portion thereof, for any purpose. Startup also includes the placing
in operation of any individual piece of equipment required or used to
comply with this subpart including, but not limited to, control devices
and monitors.
Storage tank means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily
of nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, or reinforced
plastic) that provide structural support and is designed to hold a bulk
quantity of liquid. Storage tanks do not include:
(1) Units permanently attached to conveyances such as trucks,
trailers, rail cars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Bottoms receiver tanks;
(4) Surge control vessels;
(5) Vessels storing wastewater; or
(6) Reactor vessels associated with a manufacturing process unit.
Tank car means a car designed to carry liquid freight by rail, and
including a permanently attached tank.
Transfer rack means a single system used to load organic liquids
into transport vehicles. It includes all loading arms, pumps, meters,
shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and equipment necessary
for the transfer operation. Transfer equipment and operations that are
physically separate (i.e., do not share common piping, valves, and
other equipment) are considered to be separate transfer racks.
Transport vehicle means a cargo tank or tank car.
Vapor balancing system means a piping system that collects organic
HAP vapors displaced from transport vehicles during loading and routes
the collected vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid being
loaded originated or compresses the vapors for feeding into a chemical
manufacturing process unit.
Vapor collection system means any equipment located at the source
(i.e., at the OLD operation) that is not open to
[[Page 5072]]
the atmosphere; that is composed of piping, connections, and, if
necessary, flow-inducing devices; and that is used for containing and
conveying vapors displaced during the loading of transport vehicles to
a control device or for vapor balancing. This does not include any of
the vapor collection equipment that is installed on the transport
vehicle.
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 EPA Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
For all other transport vehicles, vapor tightness is demonstrated by
performing the U.S. DOT pressure test procedures for tank cars and
cargo tanks.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.
Tables to Subpart EEEE of Part 63
You must use the organic HAP information listed in the following
table to determine which of the liquids handled at your facility meet
the HAP content criteria in the definition of Organic Liquid in Sec.
63.2406.
Table 1 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound name CAS No.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-D salts and esters..................................... 94-75-7
Acetaldehyde............................................... 75-07-0
Acetonitrile............................................... 75-05-8
Acetophenone............................................... 98-86-2
Acrolein................................................... 107-02-8
Acrylamide................................................. 79-06-1
Acrylic acid............................................... 79-10-7
Acrylonitrile.............................................. 107-13-1
Allyl chloride............................................. 107-05-1
Aniline.................................................... 62-53-3
Benzene.................................................... 71-43-2
Biphenyl................................................... 92-52-4
Butadiene (1,3-)........................................... 106-99-0
Carbon tetrachloride....................................... 56-23-5
Chloroacetic acid.......................................... 79-11-8
Chlorobenzene.............................................. 108-90-7
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene (Chloroprene)....................... 126-99-8
Chloroform................................................. 67-66-3
m-Cresol................................................... 108-39-4
o-Cresol................................................... 95-48-7
p-Cresol................................................... 106-44-5
Cresols/cresylic acid...................................... 1319-77-3
Cumene..................................................... 98-82-8
Dibenzofurans.............................................. 132-64-9
Dibutylphthalate........................................... 84-74-2
Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene dichloride) (EDC).......... 107-06-2
Dichloropropene (1,3-)..................................... 542-75-6
Diethanolamine............................................. 111-42-2
Diethyl aniline (N,N-)..................................... 121-69-7
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether.......................... 112-34-5
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether......................... 111-77-3
Diethyl sulfate............................................ 64-67-5
Dimethyl formamide......................................... 68-12-2
Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-)................................... 57-14-7
Dioxane (1,4-) (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)....................... 123-91-1
Epichlorohydrin (1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)................ 106-89-8
Epoxybutane (1,2-)......................................... 106-88-7
Ethyl acrylate............................................. 140-88-5
Ethylbenzene............................................... 100-41-4
Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane).............................. 75-00-3
Ethylene dibromide (Dibromomethane)........................ 106-93-4
Ethylene glycol............................................ 107-21-1
Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether............................. 110-71-4
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether........................... 109-86-4
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate................... 110-49-6
Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether........................... 122-99-6
Ethylene oxide............................................. 75-21-8
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)................. 75-34-3
Formaldehyde............................................... 50-00-0
Hexachloroethane........................................... 67-72-1
Hexane..................................................... 110-54-3
Hydroquinone............................................... 123-31-9
Isophorone................................................. 78-59-1
Maleic anhydride........................................... 108-31-6
Methanol................................................... 67-56-1
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)............................ 74-87-3
[[Page 5073]]
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)....................... 75-09-2
Methylenedianiline (4,4'-)................................. 101-77-9
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate............................ 101-68-8
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) (MEK)..................... 78-93-3
Methyl hydrazine........................................... 60-34-4
Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone) (MIBK)..................... 108-10-1
Methyl methacrylate........................................ 80-62-6
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)............................. 1634-04-4
Naphthalene................................................ 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene............................................... 98-95-3
Phenol..................................................... 108-9-52
Phthalic anhydride......................................... 85-44-9
Polycyclic organic matter.................................. 50-32-8
Propionaldehyde............................................ 123-38-6
Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)................. 78-87-5
Propylene oxide............................................ 75-56-9
Quinoline.................................................. 91-22-5
Styrene.................................................... 100-42-5
Styrene oxide.............................................. 96-09-3
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-)............................... 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene).................... 127-18-4
Toluene.................................................... 108-88-3
Toluene diisocyanate (2,4-)................................ 584-84-9
o-Toluidine................................................ 95-53-4
Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-).................................. 120-82-1
Trichloroethane (1,1,1-) (Methyl chloroform)............... 71-55-6
Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) (Vinyl trichloride)............... 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene.......................................... 79-01-6
Triethylamine.............................................. 121-44-8
Trimethylpentane (2,2,4-).................................. 540-84-1
Vinyl acetate.............................................. 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride (Chloroethylene)............................ 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)................. 75-35-4
Xylene (m-)................................................ 108-38-3
Xylene (o-)................................................ 95-47-6
Xylene (p-)................................................ 106-42-3
Xylenes (isomers and mixtures)............................. 1330-20-7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Services registry number
assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds.
As stated in Sec. 63.2346, you must comply with the emission limits
for the organic liquids distribution emission sources as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own or operate . . . And if . . . Then you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A storage tank at an existing affected a. The stored organic liquid is not i. Reduce emissions of
source with a capacity [ge]18.9 cubic crude oil and if the annual average organic HAP (or, upon
meters (5,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic true vapor pressure of the total Table approval, TOC) by 95
meters (50,000 gallons). 1 organic HAP in the stored organic weight-percent or, as an
liquid is [ge]27.6 kilopascals (4.0 option, to an exhaust
psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 concentration less than or
psia). equal to 20 parts per
million by volume, on a
dry basis corrected to 3%
oxygen for combustion
devices using supplemental
combustion air, by venting
emissions through a closed
vent system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS; OR
........................................ ii. Comply with the work
practice standards
specified in Table 4 to
this subpart, item 1.a,
for tanks storing the
liquids described in that
table.
b. The stored organic liquid is crude i. See the requirement in
oil. item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
this table.
2. A storage tank at an existing affected a. The stored organic liquid is not i. See the requirement in
source with a capacity [ge]189.3 cubic crude oil and if the annual average item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
meters (50,000 gallons). true vapor pressure of the total Table this table.
1 organic HAP in the stored organic
liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored organic liquid is crude i. See the requirement in
oil. item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
this table.
[[Page 5074]]
3. A storage tank at a reconstructed or a. The stored organic liquid is not i. See the requirement in
new affected source with a capacity crude oil and if the annual average item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
[ge]18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) true vapor pressure of the total Table this table.
and <37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). 1 organic HAP in the stored organic
liquid is [ge]27.6 kilopascals (4.0
psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored organic liquid is crude i. See the requirement in
oil. item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
this table.
4. A storage tank at a reconstructed or a. The stored organic liquid is not i. See the requirement in
new affected source with a capacity crude oil and if the annual average item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
[ge]37.9 cubic meters (10,000 gallons) true vapor pressure of the total Table this table.
and <189.3 cubic meters (50,000 1 organic HAP in the stored organic
gallons). liquid is [ge]0.7 kilopascals (0.1
psia) and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored organic liquid is crude i. See the requirement in
oil. item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
this table.
5. A storage tank at a reconstructed or a. The stored organic liquid is not i. See the requirement in
new affected source with a capacity crude oil and if the annual average item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
[ge]189.3 cubic meters (50,000 gallons). true vapor pressure of the total Table this table.
1 organic HAP in the stored organic
liquid is <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
psia).
b. The stored organic liquid is crude i. See the requirement in
oil. item 1.a.i or 1.a.ii of
this table.
6. A storage tank at an existing, a. The stored organic liquid is not i. Reduce emissions of
reconstructed, or new affected source crude oil and if the annual average organic HAP (or, upon
meeting the capacity criteria specified true vapor pressure of the total Table approval, TOC) by 95
in Table 2, items 1 through 5 of this 1 organic HAP in the stored organic weight-percent or, as an
subpart. liquid is [ge]76.6 kilopascals (11.1 option, to an exhaust
psia). concentration less than or
equal to 20 parts per
million by volume, on a
dry basis corrected to 3%
oxygen for combustion
devices using supplemental
combustion air, by venting
emissions through a closed
vent system to any
combination of control
devices meeting the
applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS.
7. A transfer rack at an existing a. The organic HAP content of the i. Reduce emissions of
facility where the total actual annual organic liquid through the transfer organic HAP (or, upon
facility-level organic liquid loading rack is at least 98% by weight. approval, TOC) from the
volume through transfer racks out of the loading of organic liquids
facility is between 800,000 gallons and by venting emissions
less than 10 million gallons. through a closed vent
system to any combination
of control devices
achieving 98 weight-
percent HAP reduction, or
as an option to an exhaust
concentration less than or
equal to 20 parts per
million by volume, on a
dry basis corrected to 3%
oxygen for combustion
devices using supplemental
combustion air; AND
........................................ ii. Vent emissions through
a closed vent system to
any combination of control
devices meeting the
applicable requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, AND
........................................ iii. Comply with the work
practice standards
specified in Table 4 to
this subpart, item 2.
8. A transfer rack at an existing ........................................ i. See the requirements in
facility where the total actual annual items 7.a.i through
facility-level organic liquid loading 7.a.iii of this table.
volume through transfer racks out of the
facility is [ge]10 million gallons.
9. A transfer rack at a new facility a. The organic HAP content of the i. See the requirements in
where the total actual annual facility- organic liquid through the transfer items 7.a.i through
level organic liquid loading volume rack is at least 25% by weight and the 7.a.iii of this table.
through transfer racks out of the transfer rack is used for transferring
facility is less than 800,000 gallons. organic liquids into transport
vehicles.
b. The transfer rack is used for the i. Comply with the
filling of containers with a capacity provisions of Sec.Sec.
equal to or greater than 55 gallons. 63.924 through 63.927 of
40 CFR part 63, Subpart PP-
-National Emission
Standards for Containers,
Container Level 3
controls.
10. A transfer rack at a new facility a. The transfer rack is used for i. See the requirements in
where the total actual annual facility- transferring organic liquids into items 7.a.i through
level organic liquid loading volume transport vehicles. 7.a.iii of this table.
through transfer racks out of the
facility is equal to or greater than
800,000 gallons.
b. The transfer rack is used for the i. Comply with the
filling of containers with a capacity provisions of Sec.Sec.
equal to or greater than 55 gallons. 63.924 through 63.927 of
40 CFR part 63, Subpart PP-
-National Emission
Standards for Containers,
Container Level 3
controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5075]]
As stated in Sec. 63.2346(e), you must comply with the operating
limits for existing, reconstructed, or new affected sources as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Operating Limits--High Throughput
Transfer Racks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each existing, each
reconstructed, and each new You must . . .
affected source using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to Maintain the daily average fire box or
comply with an emission combustion zone temperature greater than
limit in Table 2 to this or equal to the reference temperature
subpart. established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
2. A catalytic oxidizer to a. Replace the existing catalyst bed
comply with an emission before the age of the bed exceeds the
limit in Table 2 to this maximum allowable age established during
subpart. the design evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated compliance with
the emission limit; AND
b. Maintain the daily average temperature
at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater
than or equal to the reference
temperature established during the
design evaluation or performance test
that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit; AND
c. Maintain the daily average temperature
difference across the catalyst bed
greater than or equal to the minimum
temperature difference established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
3. An absorber to comply with a. Maintain the daily average
an emission limit in Table 2 concentration level of organic compounds
to this subpart. in the absorber exhaust less than or
equal to the reference concentration
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing
liquid temperature less than or equal to
the reference temperature established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
c. 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 a. Maintain the daily average
an emission limit in Table 2 concentration level of organic compounds
to this subpart. at the condenser exit less than or equal
to the reference concentration
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the daily average condenser
exit temperature less than or equal to
the reference temperature established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit.
5. An adsorption system with a. Maintain the daily average
adsorbent regeneration to concentration level of organic compounds
comply with an emission in the adsorber exhaust less than or
limit in Table 2 to this equal to the reference concentration
subpart established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Maintain the total regeneration stream
mass flow during the adsorption bed
regeneration cycle greater than or equal
to the reference stream mass flow
established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
c. 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
d. Achieve a pressure reduction during
each adsorption bed regeneration cycle
greater than or equal to the pressure
reduction established during the design
evaluation or performance test that
demonstrated compliance with the
emission limit.
6. An adsorption system a. Maintain the daily average
without adsorbent concentration level of organic compounds
regeneration to comply with in the adsorber exhaust less than or
an emission limit in Table 2 equal to the reference concentration
to this subpart. established during the design evaluation
or performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; OR
b. Replace the existing adsorbent in each
segment of the bed with an adsorbent
that meets the replacement
specifications established during the
design evaluation or performance test
before the age of the adsorbent exceeds
the maximum allowable age established
during the design evaluation or
performance test that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limit; AND
c. Maintain the temperature of the
adsorption bed less than or equal to the
reference temperature established during
the design evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated compliance with
the emission limit.
7. A flare to comply with an a. Comply with the equipment and
emission limit in Table 2 to operating requirements in Sec.
this subpart. 63.987(a); AND
b. Conduct an initial flare compliance
assessment in accordance with Sec.
63.987(b); AND
c. Install and operate monitoring
equipment as specified in Sec.
63.987(c).
8. Another type of control Submit a monitoring plan as specified in
device to comply with an Sec.Sec. 63.995(c) and 63.2366(c), and
emission limit in Table 2 to monitor the control device in accordance
this subpart. with that plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, . . .
[[Page 5076]]
Table 4 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing, a. Comply with the
reconstructed, or new affected source requirements of 40 CFR part
meeting any set of tank capacity and 63, subpart WW (control
organic HAP vapor pressure criteria level 2), if you elect to
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, meet 40 CFR part 63,
items 1 through 5. subpart WW (control level 2
), requirements as an
alternative to the emission
limit in Table 2 to this
subpart, items 1 through 5;
OR
b. Comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.984
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, for routing emissions
to a fuel gas system or
back to the process.
2. Transfer rack at an existing, a. If the option of a vapor
reconstructed, or new affected source balancing system is
meeting the facility-level organic liquid selected, install and
loading volume and transfer rack HAP operate a system that meets
content for organic liquids specified in the requirements in Table 7
Table 2 to this subpart, items 7 through to this subpart, item 3.b;
9. OR
b. Comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.984
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, for routing emissions
to a fuel gas system or
back to the process.
3. Pump, valve, and sampling connection Comply with the requirements
that operates in organic liquids service for pumps, valves, and
at least 300 hours per year at an sampling connections in 40
existing, reconstructed, or new affected CFR part 63, subpart TT
source. (control level 1), subpart
UU (control level 2), or
subpart H.
4. Transport vehicles equipped with vapor Follow the steps in 40 CFR
collection equipment, 60.502(e) to ensure that
organic liquids are loaded
only into vapor-tight
transport vehicles, and
comply with the provisions
in 40 CFR Sec. 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.
5. Transport vehicles without vapor Ensure that organic liquids
collection equipment, are loaded only into
transport vehicles that
have a current
certification in accordance
with the U.S. DOT pressure
test requirements in 49 CFR
180 (cargo tanks) or 49 CFR
173.31 (tank cars).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Table 5 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests and Design Evaluations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
You must conduct According to . . To determine . . following
For . . . . . . . Using . . . . requirements . .
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each existing, a. A performance i. Sec. 63.985(b) (1) EPA Method 1 (A) Sampling port (i) Sampling
each test to (1)(ii), Sec. or 1A in locations and sites must be
reconstructed, determine the 63.988(b), Sec. appendix A of 40 the required located at the
and each new organic HAP (or, 63.990(b), or CFR part 60, as number of inlet and outlet
affected source upon approval, Sec. 63.995(b). appropriate. traverse points. of each control
using a nonflare TOC) control device if
control device efficiency of complying with
to comply with each nonflare the control
an emission control device, efficiency
limit in Table 2 OR the exhaust requirement or
to this subpart, concentration of at the outlet of
items 1 through each combustion the control
9. device; OR 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.
................. ................. (2) EPA Method 2, (A) Stack gas See the
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, velocity and requirements in
or 2G in volumetric flow items
appendix A of 40 rate. 1.a.i.(1)(A) (i)
CFR part 60, as and (ii) of this
appropriate. table.
................. ................. (3) EPA Method 3 (A) Concentration See the
or 3B in of CO2 and O2 requirements in
appendix A of 40 and dry items
CFR part 60, as molecular weight 1.a.i.(1)(A) (i)
appropriate. of the stack and (ii) of this
gas. table.
................. ................. (4) EPA Method 4 (A) Moisture See the
in appendix A of content of the requirements in
40 CFR part 60. stack gas. items
1.a.i.(1)(A) (i)
and (ii) of this
table.
[[Page 5077]]
................. ................. (5) EPA Method (A) Total organic (i) The organic
18, 25, or 25A HAP (or, upon HAP used for the
in appendix A of approval, TOC), calibration gas
40 CFR part 60, or form-aldehyde for EPA Method
as appropriate, emissions. 25A must be the
or EPA Method single organic
316 in appendix HAP representing
A of 40 CFR part the largest
63 for measuring percent by
form-aldehyde. volume of
emissions; AND
(ii) During the
performance
test, you must
establish the
operating
parameter limits
within which
total organic
HAP (or, upon
approval, TOC)
emissions are
reduced by the
required weight-
percent or, as
an option for
nonflare
combustion
devices, to 20
ppmv exhaust
concentration.
b. A design Sec. ................. ................. During a design
evaluation (for 63.985(b)(1)(i). evaluation, you
nonflare control must establish
devices) to the operating
determine the parameter limits
organic HAP (or, within which
upon approval, total organic
TOC) control HAP, (or, upon
efficiency of approval, TOC)
each nonflare emissions are
control device, reduced by at
or the exhaust least 95 weight-
concentration of percent or as an
each combustion option to 20
control device. ppmv exhaust
concentration.
2. Each transport A performance ................. EPA Method 27 in vapor tightness. The pressure
vehicle that you test to appendix A of 40 change in the
own or operate determine the CFR part 60. tank must be no
that is equipped vapor tightness more than 250
with vapor of the tank and pascals (1 inch
collection then repair as of water) in 5
equipment and needed until it minutes after it
loads organic passes the test. is pressurized
liquids at an to 4,500 pascals
affected (18 inches of
transfer rack at water).
an existing,
reconstructed,
or new affected
source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Table 6 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated
For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . initial compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing, Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon Total organic HAP (or, upon
reconstructed, or new affected source approval, TOC) emissions by at least 95 approval, TOC) emissions,
meeting either set of tank capacity and weight-percent, or as an option for based on the results of
liquid organic HAP vapor pressure combustion devices to an exhaust the performance testing or
criteria specified in Table 2 to this concentration of [le]20 ppmv. design evaluation
subpart, items 1 through 6 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 to an exhaust
concentration [le]20 ppmv.
2. Transfer rack at an existing, Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon Total organic HAP (or, upon
reconstructed, or new affected source approval, TOC) emissions by at least 98 approval, TOC) emissions,
meeting the facility-level organic weight-percent, or as an option for based on the results of
liquid loading volume and transfer rack combustion devices to an exhaust the performance testing or
HAP content for organic liquids criteria concentration of [le]20 ppmv. design evaluation
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, specified in Table 5 to
items 7 through 9. this subpart, item 1.a or
1.b, respectively, are
reduced by at least 98
weight-percent or as an
option for combustion
devices to an exhaust
concentration of [le]20
ppmv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5078]]
Table 7 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated
For each . . . If you . . . initial compliance if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing affected a. Install a floating roof or equivalent i. After emptying and
source meeting either set of tank control that meets the requirements in degassing, you visually
capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor Table 4 to this subpart, item 1.a. inspect each internal
pressure criteria specified in Table 2 floating roof before the
to this subpart, items 1 or 2. 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.
b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system i. You meet the
or back to the process. requirements in Sec.
63.984(b) and submit the
statement of connection
required by Sec.
63.984(c).
2. Storage tank at a reconstructed or new a. Install a floating roof or equivalent i. You visually inspect
affected source meeting any set of tank control that meets the requirements in each internal floating
capacity and liquid organic HAP vapor Table 4 to this subpart, item 1.a. roof before the initial
pressure criteria specified in Table 2 filling of the storage
to this subpart, items 3 through 5. 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.
b. Route emissions to a fuel gas system i. See item 1.b.i of this
or back to the process. table.
3. Transfer rack at an existing, a. Load organic liquids only into i. You comply with the
reconstructed, or new affected source transport vehicles having current vapor provisions specified in
that meets the facility-level organic tightness certification as described in Table 4 to this subpart,
liquid loading volume and transfer rack Table 4 to this subpart, item 4.a and item 4.a and item 5.a, as
HAP content for organic liquids criteria item 5.a. applicable.
specified in Table 2 to this subpart,
items 7 through 9.
b. Install and operate a vapor balancing i. You design and operate
system. the vapor balancing system
to route organic HAP
vapors displaced from
loading of organic liquids
into transport vehicles to
the appropriate storage
tank or process unit.
4. Equipment leak component, as defined a. Carry out a leak detection and repair i. You specify which one of
in Sec. 63.2406, that operates in program or equivalent control according the control programs
organic liquids service [ge] 300 hours to one of the subparts listed in Table listed in Table 4 to this
per year at an existing, reconstructed, 4 to this subpart, item 3.a. subpart you have selected,
or new affected source. OR
ii. Provide written
specifications for your
equivalent control
approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Table 8 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each . . . For the following emission limit . . . continuous compliance by .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Storage tank at an existing, a. Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon i. Performing CMS
reconstructed, or new affected source approval, TOC) emissions from the monitoring and collecting
meeting any set of tank capacity and closed vent system and control device data according to Sec.Sec.
liquid organic HAP vapor pressure by 95 weight-percent or greater, or as 63.2366, 63.2374, and
criteria specified in Table 2 to this an option to 20 ppmv or less of total 63.2378; AND
subpart, items 1 through 6. organic HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) in ii. Maintaining the
the exhaust of combustion devices. operating limits
established during the
design evaluation or
performance test.
2. Transfer rack at an existing, Reduce total organic HAP (or, upon See the compliance
reconstructed, or new affected source approval, TOC) emissions from the demonstration in items
that meets the facility-level organic closed vent system and control device 1.a.i and ii of this
liquid loading volume and transfer rack by 98 weight-percent or greater, or as table.
HAP content for organic liquids criteria an option to 20 ppmv or less of organic
specified in Table 2, to this supbart HAP (or, upon approval, TOC) in the
items 7 through 9. exhaust of combustion devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in 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:
[[Page 5079]]
Table 9 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Operating Limits--High Throughput Transfer Racks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each existing, reconstructed, and For the following operating limit . . . continuous compliance by .
each new affected source using . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A thermal oxidizer to comply with an a. Maintain the daily average fire box i. Continuously monitoring
emission limit in Table 2 to this or combustion zone, as applicable, and recording fire box or
subpart. temperature greater than or equal to combustion zone, as
the reference temperature established applicable, temperature
during the design evaluation or every 15 minutes and
performance test that demonstrated maintaining the daily
compliance with the emission limit. average fire box
temperature greater than
or equal to the reference
temperature established
during the design
evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
2. A catalytic oxidizer to comply with an a. Replace the existing catalyst bed i. Replacing the existing
emission limit in Table 2 to this before the age of the bed exceeds the catalyst bed before the
subpart. maximum allowable age established age of the bed exceeds the
during the design evaluation or maximum allowable age
performance test that demonstrated established during the
compliance with the emission limit. design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
b. Maintain the daily average i. Continuously monitoring
temperature at the inlet of the and recording the
catalyst bed greater than or equal to temperature at the inlet
the reference temperature established of the catalyst bed at
during the design evaluation or least every 15 minutes and
performance test that demonstrated maintaining the daily
compliance with the emission limit. average temperature at the
inlet of the catalyst bed
greater than or equal to
the reference temperature
established during the
design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
........................................ ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
c. Maintain the daily average i. Continuously monitoring
temperature difference across the and recording the
catalyst bed greater than or equal to temperature at the outlet
the minimum temperature difference of the catalyst bed every
established during the design 15 minutes and maintaining
evaluation or performance test that the daily average
demonstrated compliance with the temperature difference
emission limit. across the catalyst bed
greater than or equal to
the minimum temperature
difference established
during the design
evaluation or performance
test that demonstrated
compliance with the
emission limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
3. An absorber to comply with an emission a. Maintain the daily average Continuously monitoring the
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level of organic organic concentration in
compounds in the absorber exhaust less the absorber exhaust and
than or equal to the reference maintaining the daily
concentration established during the average concentration less
design evaluation or performance test than or equal to the
that demonstrated compliance with the reference concentration
emission limit; OR established during the
design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit.
b. Maintain the daily average scrubbing Continuously monitoring the
liquid temperature less than or equal scrubbing liquid
to the reference temperature temperature and
established during the design maintaining the daily
evaluation or performance test that average temperature less
demonstrated compliance with the than or equal to the
emission limit; AND reference temperature
established during the
design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
c. Maintain the difference between the Maintaining the difference
specific gravities of the saturated and between the specific
fresh scrubbing fluids greater than or gravities greater than or
equal to the difference established equal to the difference
during the design evaluation or established during the
performance test that demonstrated design evaluation or
compliance with the emission limit. performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit.
[[Page 5080]]
4. A condenser to comply with an emission a. Maintain the daily average Continuously monitoring the
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. concentration level of organic organic concentration at
compounds at the exit of the condenser the condenser exit and
less than or equal to the reference maintaining the daily
concentration established during the average concentration less
design evaluation or performance test than or equal to the
that demonstrated compliance with the reference concentration
emission limit; OR established during the
design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit.
b. Maintain the daily average condenser i. Continuously monitoring
exit temperature less than or equal to and recording the
the reference temperature established temperature at the exit of
during the design evaluation or the condenser at least
performance test that demonstrated every 15 minutes and
compliance with the emission limit. maintaining the daily
average temperature less
than or equal to the
reference temperature
established during the
design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
........................................ ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
5. An adsorption system with adsorbent a. Maintain the daily average i. Continuously monitoring
regeneration to comply with an emission concentration level of organic the daily average organic
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. compounds in the adsorber exhaust less concentration in the
than or equal to the reference adsorber exhaust and
concentration established during the maintaining the
design evaluation or performance test concentration less than or
that demonstrated compliance with the equal to the reference
emission limit. concentration; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
b. Maintain the total regeneration Maintaining the total
stream mass flow during the adsorption regeneration stream mass
bed regeneration cycle greater than or flow during the adsorption
equal to the reference stream mass flow bed regeneration cycle
established during the design greater than or equal to
evaluation or performance test that the reference stream mass
demonstrated compliance with the flow established during
emission limit; AND the design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
c. Before the adsorption cycle Maintaining the temperature
commences, achieve and maintain the of the adsorption bed
temperature of the adsorption bed after after regeneration less
regeneration less than or equal to the than or equal to the
reference temperature established reference temperature
during the design evaluation or established during the
performance test AND design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit
AND
achieve greater than or equal to the Achieving greater than or
pressure reduction during the equal to the pressure
adsorption bed regeneration cycle reduction during the
established during the design regeneration cycle
evaluation or performance test that established during the
demonstrated compliance with the design evaluation or
emission limit. performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
6. An adsorption system without adsorbent a. Maintain the daily average
regeneration to comply with an emission concentration level of organic
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 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 Continuously
monitoring the organic concentration in
the adsorber exhaust and maintaining
the concentration less than or equal to
the reference concentration.
b. Replace the existing adsorbent in i. Replacing the existing
each segment of the bed before the age adsorbent in each segment
of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum of the bed before the age
allowable age established during the of the adsorbent exceeds
design evaluation or performance test the maximum allowable age
that demonstrated compliance with the established during the
emission limit; AND design evaluation or
performance test that
demonstrated compliance
with the emission limit;
AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
[[Page 5081]]
c. Maintain the temperature of the i. Maintaining the
adsorption bed less than or equal to temperature of the
the reference temperature established adsorption bed less than
during the design evaluation or or equal to the reference
performance test that demonstrated temperature established
compliance with the emission limit. 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.
7. A flare to comply with an emission a. Maintain a pilot flame in the flare i. Continuously operating a
limit in Table 2 to this subpart. at all times that vapors may be vented device that detects the
to the flare (Sec. 63.11(b)(5)). presence of the pilot
flame; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
b. Maintain a flare flame at all times i. Maintaining a flare
that vapors are being vented to the flame at all times that
flare (Sec. 63.11(b)(5)). vapors are being vented to
the flare; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
c. Operate the flare with no visible i. Operating the flare with
emissions, except for up to 5 minutes no visible emissions
in any 2 consecutive hours (Sec. exceeding the amount
63.11(b)(4)). allowed; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
d. Operate the flare with an exit i. Operating the flare
velocity that is within the applicable within the applicable exit
limits in Sec. 63.11(b)(6), (7), and velocity limits; AND
(8). ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
e. Operate the flare with a net heating i. Operating the flare with
value of the gas being combusted the gas net heating value
greater than the applicable minimum within the applicable
value in Sec. 63.11(b)(6)(ii). limit; AND
ii. Keeping the applicable
records required in Sec.
63.998.
8. Another type of control device to Submit a monitoring plan as specified in Submitting a monitoring
comply with an emission limit in Table 2 Sec.Sec. 63.995(c) and 63.2366(c), and plan and monitoring the
to this subpart. monitor the control device in control device according
accordance with that plan. to that plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Table 10 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each . . . For the following standard . . . continuous compliance by .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Internal floating roof (IFR) storage a. Install a floating roof designed and i. Visually inspecting the
tank at an existing, reconstructed, or operated according to the applicable floating roof deck, deck
new affected source meeting any set of specifications in Sec. 63.1063(a) and fittings, and rim seals of
tank capacity and vapor pressure (b). each IFR: once per year,
criteria specified in Table 2 to this and each time the storage
subpart, items 1 through 5. tank is completely emptied
and degassed, or every 10
years, whichever occurs
first (Sec. 63.1063(c)(1),
(d), and (e)); AND
ii. Keeping the tank
records required in Sec.
63.1065.
2. External floating roof (EFR) storage a. See the standard in item 1.a of this i. Visually inspecting the
tank at an existing, reconstructed, or table. floating roof deck, deck
new affected source meeting any set of fittings, and rim seals of
tank capacity and vapor pressure each EFR each time the
criteria specified in Table 2 to this storage tank is completely
subpart, items 1 through 5. 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
$63.1065.
3. IFR or EFR tank at an existing, a. Repair the conditions causing storage i. Repairing conditions
reconstructed, or new affected source tank inspection failures (Sec. causing inspection
meeting any set of tank capacity and 63.1063(e)). failures: before refilling
vapor pressure criteria specified in the storage tank with
Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through organic liquid, or within
5. 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).
[[Page 5082]]
4. Transfer rack at an existing, a. Ensure that organic liquids are i. Ensuring that organic
reconstructed, or new affected source loaded into transport vehicles in liquids are loaded into
that meets the facility-level organic accordance with the requirements in transport vehicles in
liquid loading volume and transfer rack Table 4 to this subpart, items 2.a, accordance with the
HAP content for organic liquids criteria 2.b, and 2.c. requirements in Table 4 to
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, this subpart, items 2.a,
items 7 through 9. 2.b, and 2.c.
b. Install and operate a vapor balancing i. Monitoring each
system. potential source of vapor
leakage in the system
quarterly during the
loading of a transport
vehicle 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 3. 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.
5. Equipment leak component, as defined a. Comply with the requirements of 40 i. Carrying out a leak
in Sec. 63.2406, that operates in CFR part 63, subpart TT, UU, or H. detection and repair
organic liquids service at least 300 program in accordance with
hours per year. one of the subparts listed
in item 5.a of this table.
6. Storage tank at an existing, a. Route emissions to a fuel gas system i. Continuing to meet the
reconstructed, or new affected source or back to the process. requirements specified in
meeting any of the tank capacity and Sec. 63.984(b).
vapor pressure criteria specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, items 1 through
6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Table 11 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit the report
You must submit a(n) . . . The report must contain . . . . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report, or Periodic Report. a. The information specified in Sec. Semiannually, and it must
63.2386(c), (d), and (e). If you had a be postmarked by January
startup, shutdown, or malfunction 31 or July 31, in
during the reporting period and you accordance with Sec.
took actions consistent with your SSM 63.2386(b).
plan, the report must also include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
b. The information required by 40 CFR See the submission
part 63, subpart TT, UU, or H, as requirement in item 1.a of
applicable, for pumps, valves, and this table.
sampling connections.
c. The information required by Sec. See the submission
63.999(c). requirement in item 1.a of
this table.
d. The information specified in Sec. See the submission
63.1066(b) including: notification of requirement in item 1.a of
inspection, inspection results, this table.
requests for alternate devices, and
requests for extensions, as applicable.
2. Immediate startup, shutdown, and a. The information required in Sec. i. By FAX or telephone
malfunction report if you had a startup, 63.10(d)(5)(ii). within 2 working days
shutdown, or malfunction during the after starting actions
reporting period, and you took an action inconsistent with the
that was not consistent with your SSM plan; AND
plan. ii. By letter within 7
working days after the end
of the event unless you
have made alternative
arrangements with the
permitting authority (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec.Sec. 63.2382 and 63.2398, you must comply with the
applicable General Provisions requirements as follows:
Table 12 to Subpart EEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart EEEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1............................... Applicability............. Initial applicability determination; Yes.
Applicability after standard established;
Permit requirements; Extensions,
Notifications.
Sec. 63.2............................... Definitions............... Definitions for part 63 standards............. Yes.
Sec. 63.3............................... Units and Abbreviations... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Yes.
Sec. 63.4............................... Prohibited Activities and Prohibited activities; Circumvention, Yes.
Circumvention. Severability.
[[Page 5083]]
Sec. 63.5............................... Construction/ Applicability; Applications; Approvals........ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)............................ Compliance with Standards/ GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply Yes.
O&M Applicability. to area sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)..................... Compliance Dates for New Standards apply at effective date; 3 years Yes.
and Reconstructed Sources. after effective date; upon startup; 10 years
after construction or reconstruction
commences for section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)......................... Notification.............. Must notify if commenced construction or Yes.
reconstruction after proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)......................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)......................... Compliance Dates for New Area sources that become major must comply Yes.
and Reconstructed Area with major source standards immediately upon
Sources That Become Major. 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 this subpart, Yes.
Existing Sources. 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 major must comply Yes.
Existing Area Sources with major source standards by date indicated
That Become Major. in this subpart or by equivalent time period
(e.g., 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)............................ [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)......................... Operation & Maintenance... Operate to minimize emissions at all times; Yes.
correct malfunctions as soon as practicable;
and operation and 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)......................... Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for SSM plan; content of SSM plan; Yes; however, the 2-day reporting
Malfunction (SSM) Plan. actions during SSM. requirement in paragraph Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iv) does not apply.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)......................... Compliance Except During You must comply with emission standards at all Yes.
SSM. times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)..................... Methods for Determining Compliance based on performance test, Yes.
Compliance. operation and maintenance plans, records,
inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)..................... Alternative Standard...... Procedures for getting an alternative standard Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)......................... Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with opacity/VE standards at No.
Visible Emission (VE) all times except during SSM.
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)...................... Determining Compliance If standard does not state test method, use No.
with Opacity/VE Standards. EPA Method 9 for opacity in appendix A of
part 60 of this chapter and EPA Method 22 for
VE in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(ii)..................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(iii).................... Using Previous Tests to Criteria for when previous opacity/VE testing No.
Demonstrate Compliance can be used to show compliance with this
with Opacity/VE Standards. subpart.
Sec. 63.6(h)(3)......................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(h)(4)......................... Notification of Opacity/VE Must notify Administrator of anticipated date No.
Observation Date. of observation.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)-(v)........... Conducting Opacity/VE Dates and schedule for conducting opacity/VE No.
Observations. observations.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii)..................... Opacity Test Duration and Must have at least 3 hours of observation with No.
Averaging Times. thirty 6-minute averages.
Sec. 63.6(h)(6)......................... Records of Conditions Must keep records available and allow No.
During Opacity/VE Administrator to inspect.
Observations.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i)...................... Report Continuous Opacity Must submit COMS data with other performance No.
Monitoring System (COMS) test data.
Monitoring Data from
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(ii)..................... Using COMS Instead of EPA Can submit COMS data instead of EPA Method 9 No.
Method 9. results even if rule requires EPA Method 9 in
appendix A of part 60 of this chapter, but
must notify Administrator before performance
test.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iii).................... Averaging Time for COMS To determine compliance, must reduce COMS data No.
During Performance Test. to 6-minute averages.
[[Page 5084]]
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iv)..................... COMS Requirements......... Owner/operator must demonstrate that COMS No.
performance evaluations are conducted
according to Sec. 63.8(e); COMS are properly
maintained and operated according to Sec.
63.8(c) and data quality as Sec. 63.8(d).
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(v)...................... Determining Compliance COMS is probable but not conclusive evidence No.
with Opacity/VE Standards. of compliance with opacity standards, even if
EPA Method 9 observation shows otherwise.
Requirements for COMS to be probable evidence-
proper maintenance, meeting Performance
Specification 1 in appendix B of part 60 of
this chapter, and data have not been altered.
Sec. 63.6(h)(8)......................... Determining Compliance Administrator will use all COMS, EPA Method 9 Yes.
with Opacity/VE Standards. (in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter),
and EPA Method 22 (in appendix A of part 60
of this chapter) results, as well as
information about operation and maintenance
to determine compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9)......................... Adjusted Opacity Standard. Procedures for Administrator to adjust an Yes.
opacity standard.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14).................... Compliance Extension...... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to Yes.
grant compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)............................ Presidential Compliance President may exempt any source from Yes.
Exemption. requirement to comply with this subpart.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)......................... Performance Test Dates.... Dates for conducting initial performance Yes.
testing; must conduct 180 days after
compliance date.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)......................... Section 114 Authority..... Adminsitrator may require a performance test Yes.
under CAA section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)......................... Notification of Must notify Administrator 60 days before the Yes.
Performance Test. test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)......................... Notification of If you have to reschedule performance test, Yes.
Rescheduling. must notify Administrator of rescheduled date
as soon as practicable and without delay.
Sec. 63.7(c)............................ Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirement to submit site-specific test plan Yes.
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 facilities........... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)......................... Conditions for Conducting Performance tests must be conducted under Yes.
Performance Tests. representative conditions; cannot conduct
performance tests during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)......................... Conditions for Conducting Must conduct according to this subpart and EPA Yes.
Performance Tests. test methods unless Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)......................... Test Run Duration......... Must have three test runs of at least 1 hour Yes; however, for transfer racks
each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean per Sec.Sec. 63.987(b)(3)(i)(A)-
of three runs; conditions when data from an (B) and 63.997(e)(1)(v)(A)-(B)
additional test run can be used. provide exceptions to the
requirement for test runs to be
at least 1 hour each.
Sec. 63.7(f)............................ Alternative Test Method... Procedures by which Administrator can grant Yes.
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 performance test Yes.
Analysis. report; must submit performance test data 60
days after end of test with the notification
of compliance status; keep data for 5 years.
Sec. 63.7(h)............................ Waiver of Tests........... Procedures for Administrator to waive Yes.
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)......................... Applicability of Subject to all monitoring requirements in Yes.
Monitoring Requirements. standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)......................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 Yes.
CFR part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)......................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)......................... Monitoring of Flares...... Monitoring requirements for flares in Sec. Yes; however, monitoring
63.11. requirements in Sec. 63.987(c)
also apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)......................... Monitoring................ Must conduct monitoring according to standard Yes.
unless Administrator approves alternative.
[[Page 5085]]
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)..................... Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements for installing Yes.
Multiple Monitoring monitoring systems; must install on each
Systems. 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 in a manner Yes.
Operation and Maintenance. consistent with good air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)-(iii)................ Routine and Predictable Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs; keep Yes.
SSM. parts for routine repairs readily available;
reporting requirements for SSM when action is
described in SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)..................... Monitoring System Must install to get representative emission or Yes.
Installation. parameter measurements; must verify
operational status before or at performance
test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)......................... CMS Requirements.......... CMS must be operating except during breakdown, Yes; however, COMS are not
out-of control, repair, maintenance, and high- applicable.
level calibration drifts; COMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis
for each successive 10-second period and one
cycle of data recording for each successive 6-
minute period; CEMS must have a minimum of
one cycle of operation for each successive 15-
minute period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)......................... COMS Minimum Procedures... COMS minimum procedures....................... No.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8)..................... CMS Requirements.......... Zero and high level calibration check Yes.
requirements. Out-of-control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)............................ CMS Quality Control....... Requirements for CMS quality control, Yes.
including calibration, etc.; must keep
quality control plan on record for 5 years;
keep old versions for 5 years after revisions.
Sec. 63.8(e)............................ CMS Performance Evaluation Notification, performance evaluation test Yes.
plan, reports.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)..................... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Administrator to approve Yes.
Method. alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)......................... Alternative to Relative Procedures for Administrator to approve Yes.
Accuracy Test. alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)............................ Data Reduction............ COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at Yes; however, COMS are not
least 36 evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 applicable.
hour averages computed over at least 4
equally spaced data points; data that cannot
be used in average.
Sec. 63.9(a)............................ Notification Requirements. Applicability and State delegation............ Yes.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2), (4)-(5)............ Initial Notifications..... Submit notification within 120 days after Yes.
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 comply by date or if Yes.
Extension. installed best available control technology
or lowest achievable emission rate (BACT/
LAER).
Sec. 63.9(d)............................ Notification of Special For sources that commence construction between Yes.
Compliance Requirements proposal and promulgation and want to comply
for New Sources. 3 years after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)............................ Notification of Notify Administrator 60 days prior............ Yes.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f)............................ Notification of VE/Opacity Notify Administrator 30 days prior............ No.
Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)............................ Additional Notifications Notification of performance evaluation; Yes; however, there are no opacity
When Using CMS. notification about use of COMS data; standards.
notification that exceeded criterion for
relative accuracy alternative.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)..................... Notification of Compliance Contents due 60 days after end of performance Yes; however, there are no opacity
Status. test or other compliance demonstration, standards.
except for opacity/VE, which are due 30 days
after; when to submit to Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i)............................ Adjustment of Submittal Procedures for Administrator to approve change Yes.
Deadlines. in when notifications must be submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)............................ Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days after the change... Yes.
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)........................... Recordkeeping/Reporting... Applies to all, unless compliance extension; Yes.
when to submit to Federal vs. State
authority; procedures for owners of more than
one source.
[[Page 5086]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)........................ Recordkeeping/Reporting... General requirements; keep all records readily Yes.
available; keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv)................ Records Related to Occurrence of each for operations (process Yes.
Startup, Shutdown, and equipment); occurrence of each malfunction of
Malfunction. air pollution control equipment; maintenance
on air pollution control equipment; actions
during SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)............... CMS Records............... Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control Yes.
periods.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)................... Records................... Records when under waiver..................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).................. Records................... Records when using alternative to relative Yes.
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)................... Records................... All documentation supporting initial Yes.
notification and notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)........................ Records................... Applicability determinations.................. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)........................... Records................... Additional records for CMS.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)........................ General Reporting Requirement to report......................... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)........................ Report of Performance Test When to submit to Federal or State authority.. Yes.
Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)........................ Reporting Opacity or VE What to report and when....................... Yes.
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)........................ Progress Reports.......... Must submit progress reports on schedule if Yes.
under compliance extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)........................ SSM Reports............... Contents and submission....................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2).................... Additional CMS Reports.... Must report results for each CEMS on a unit; Yes; however, COMS are not
written copy of CMS performance evaluation; 2- applicable.
3 copies of COMS performance evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)............... Reports................... Schedule for reporting excess emissions and Yes; however, note that the title
parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as of the report is the compliance
deviations). report; deviations include excess
emissions and parameter
exceedances.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)................ Excess Emissions Reports.. Requirement to revert to quarterly submission Yes.
if there is an excess emissions and parameter
monitor exceedances (now defined as
deviations); provision to request semiannual
reporting after compliance for 1 year; submit
report by 30th day following end of quarter
or calendar half; if there has not been an
exceedance or excess emissions (now defined
as deviations), report contents in a
statement that there have been no deviations;
must submit report containing all of the
information in Sec.Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8) and
63.10(c)(5)-(13).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii)............. Excess Emissions Report Requirements for reporting excess emissions Yes.
and Summary Report. for CMS (now called deviations); requires all
of the 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 performance test No.
data.
Sec. 63.10(f)........................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Procedures for Administrator to waive......... Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11(b)........................... Flares.................... Requirements for flares....................... Yes; Sec. 63.987 requirements
apply, and the section references
Sec. 63.11(b).
Sec. 63.12.............................. Delegation................ State authority to enforce standards.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.13.............................. Addresses................. Addresses where reports, notifications, and Yes.
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14.............................. Incorporation by Reference Test methods incorporated by reference........ Yes.
Sec. 63.15.............................. Availability of Public and confidential information........... Yes.
Information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5087]]
[FR Doc. 04-2227 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P