Rule2024-22823
New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 15, 2024
Effective
October 15, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) pursuant to the review required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS that are applicable to volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage vessels that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 2023, under a new NSPS subpart, as well as amendments to an existing subpart. In the new NSPS subpart Kc, the EPA is finalizing requirements to reduce the vapor pressure applicability thresholds and revise the volatile organic compound (VOC) standards to reflect the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for affected storage vessels. In addition, the EPA is finalizing degassing emission controls; clarification of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements; additional monitoring requirements; and other technical improvements
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83296-83336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22823]
[[Page 83295]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 199
October 15, 2024
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels); Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 83296]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358; FRL-10655-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV93
New Source Performance Standards Review for Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for Volatile
Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage
Vessels) pursuant to the review required by the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS that are applicable to
volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage vessels that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 2023,
under a new NSPS subpart, as well as amendments to an existing subpart.
In the new NSPS subpart Kc, the EPA is finalizing requirements to
reduce the vapor pressure applicability thresholds and revise the
volatile organic compound (VOC) standards to reflect the best system of
emission reduction (BSER) for affected storage vessels. In addition,
the EPA is finalizing degassing emission controls; clarification of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements; additional
monitoring requirements; and other technical improvements
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 15, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 15,
2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only as
portable document format (PDF) versions that can only be accessed on
the EPA computers in the docket office reading room. Certain databases
and physical items cannot be downloaded from the docket but may be
requested by contacting the Public Reading Room at (202) 566-1744. The
docket office has up to 10 business days to respond to these requests.
With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> or on the EPA
computers in the Public Reading Room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Cantoni III, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5593; and email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5231333c263d3c3b7c3f3b313a33373e123722337c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e4e6e9f3e8e9eea9eaeee4efe6e2ebc7e2f7e6a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
AMEL alternative means of emissions limitation
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AVO audible, visual, and olfactory
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EFR external floating roof
EIA economic impact analysis
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
gal gallons
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
IBR incorporate by reference
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
kg/hr kilograms per hour
kPa kilopascals
LEL lower explosive limit
m3 cubic meters
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTAA National Tribal Air Association
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
ppmv parts per million by volume
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gauge
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
STERPP 2000 U.S. EPA Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership
Program
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCU vapor combustion unit
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VOL volatile organic liquid
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
D. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct?
III. What changes did we propose for the VOL Storage Vessel NSPS?
IV. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for
such decisions?
A. Revised NSPS for VOL Storage Vessels That Commenced
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification After July 23, 1984,
and on or Before October 4, 2023
B. Revised NSPS for VOL Storage Vessels That Commenced
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification After October 4, 2023
C. NSPS Subpart Kc Without Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemptions
D. Testing, Monitoring, and Inspection Requirements
E. Recordkeeping and Electronic Reporting
F. Other Final Amendments
G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the benefits?
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive
[[Page 83297]]
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this final action is
composed of VOL storage vessels (including petroleum liquid storage
vessels) regulated under CAA section 111, NSPS. The 2022 North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for the source category
are 325, 324, and 422710. The NAICS codes serve as a guide for readers
outlining the type of entities that this final action is likely to
affect. The NSPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kc, are directly
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after October 4, 2023. Final amendments
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, are applicable to affected facilities
that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 23,
1984, and before October 4, 2023. Federal, State, local, and Tribal
government entities that own and/or operate VOL storage vessels are
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60,
subparts Kb and Kc, and consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your State air pollution
control agency with delegated authority for NSPS, or your EPA Regional
Office.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum</a>. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final
rule and key technical documents at this same website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) by
December 16, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which
governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary
sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator
to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's
judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA
must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or
reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance
standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of
the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards
should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories in
establishing the standards.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new source performance
standards. However, the Administrator need not review any such standard
if the ``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate
in light of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the
standard. When conducting a review of an existing performance standard,
the EPA has the discretion and authority to add emission limits for
pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source
category.
In setting or revising a performance standard, CAA section
111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are to reflect ``the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The term ``standard of
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to
determine both the best system of emission reduction for the regulated
sources in the source category and the degree of emission limitation
achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must then, under
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new
sources that reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5)
generally precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular technological
system that must be used to comply with a standard of performance.
Rather, sources can select any measure or combination of measures that
will achieve the standard. CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate ``a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination thereof'' if in his or her
judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe
[[Page 83298]]
or enforce a standard of performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides
the circumstances under which prescribing or enforcing a standard of
performance is ``not feasible,'' such as when the pollutant cannot be
emitted through a conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant
or when there is no practicable measurement methodology for the
particular class of sources.
Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2),
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in
the method of operation of, a stationary source that increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15,
``reconstruction'' means the replacement of components of an existing
facility such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon
promulgation.
B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
As noted in section II.A. of this preamble, CAA section 111
requires the EPA to, at least every 8 years, review and, if
appropriate, revise the standards of performance applicable to new,
modified, and reconstructed sources. If the EPA revises the standards
of performance, the standards must reflect the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the BSER considering
the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements. CAA section 111(a)(1).
In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, which may include consideration of the following information:
<bullet> Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
<bullet> Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
<bullet> Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements that indicates that emission
limitations and percent reductions beyond those required by the current
standards are achieved in practice.
<bullet> Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
<bullet> The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
<bullet> Any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can
achieve. The Agency considers these costs in the context of the
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The Agency also
considers cost effectiveness analysis as a useful metric and as a means
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In
general, cost effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant
reductions realized annually.
After the EPA evaluates the statutory factors, the EPA compares the
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is
``best'' and therefore represents the BSER. The EPA then establishes a
standard of performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the implementation of the BSER. In performing this
analysis, the EPA can determine whether subcategorization is
appropriate based on classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may
identify a different BSER and establish different performance standards
for each subcategory. The result of the analysis and the BSER
determination leads to standards of performance that apply to
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification
after the date of publication of the proposed standards in the Federal
Register. Because the NSPS reflect the BSER under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance, in doing its review, the EPA also evaluates
and determines the proper testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance with the emission
standards.
C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
The EPA first promulgated NSPS for petroleum liquid storage vessels
on March 8, 1974 (39 FR 9317). These standards of performance are
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart K, and are applicable to sources
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June
11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978. These standards were amended
several times before 1980, when the EPA proposed to establish revised
NSPS for petroleum liquid storage vessels as NSPS subpart Ka (45 FR
23379; April 4, 1980). In 1982, the EPA published a list of priority
sources for which additional NSPS should be established (47 FR 951;
January 8, 1982), and VOL storage vessels at synthetic organic chemical
manufacturers were included in the priority list.
Pursuant to the EPA's authority under CAA section 111, the Agency
proposed (49 FR 29698; July 23, 1984) and promulgated (52 FR 11420;
April 8, 1987) NSPS for VOL storage vessels (including petroleum liquid
storage vessels) for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after July 23, 1984, as NSPS subpart Kb.\1\ NSPS
subpart Kb regulates storage vessels with a capacity of 75 cubic meters
(m\3\) (~20,000 gallons) or more that store VOLs with a maximum true
vapor pressure (MTVP) greater than or equal to 15.0 kilopascals (kPa)
(~2.18 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)) and from storage vessels
with a capacity of 151 m\3\ (~40,000 gallons) or more that store
organic liquids with an MTVP
[[Page 83299]]
greater than or equal to 3.5 kPa (~0.51 psia). VOC emissions controls
are required on storage vessels with a capacity of 75 m\3\ (~20,000
gallons) or more that store VOLs with an MTVP greater than or equal to
27.6 kPa (~4.0 psia) and from storage vessels with a capacity of 151
m\3\ (~40,000 gallons) or more that store organic liquids with an MTVP
greater than or equal to 5.2 kPa (~0.75 psia). NSPS subpart Kb emission
controls include the use of an external floating roof (EFR), an
internal floating roof (IFR), or a closed vent system and a control
device (see 40 CFR 60.110b(a) and 40 CFR 60.112b(a) and
(b)).<SUP>2 3</SUP> NSPS subpart Kb also specifies testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b
through 40 CFR 60.116b to ensure compliance with the standards. Storage
vessels with an EFR consist of an open-top cylindrical steel shell
equipped with a deck that floats on the surface (commonly referred to
as a floating ``roof'') of the stored liquid. Storage vessels with an
IFR are fixed roof vessels \4\ that also have a deck internal to the
vessel that floats on the liquid surface (commonly referred to as an
internal floating ``roof'') within the fixed roof vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 15, 2003 (68 FR 59328), the EPA finalized
amendments to NSPS subpart Kb to exempt certain storage vessels by
capacity and vapor pressure, exempt process tanks, and add a process
tank definition. At the same time, the EPA also amended the rule to
exempt storage vessels that are subject to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent
Extraction of Vegetable Oil Production.
\2\ All affected storage vessels storing organic liquids with a
true vapor pressure of 76.6 kPa or more must use a closed vent
system and a control device. See 40 CFR 60.112b(b).
\3\ As part of NSPS subpart Kb, the EPA proposed (49 FR 29703;
July 23, 1984) and finalized (52 FR 11421; April 8, 1987) that the
best demonstrated technology for vessels storing VOL liquids with
vapor pressures less than 76.6 kPa ([cong]11.1 psia) consists of an
IFR with a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal and
controlled fittings or an EFR with a liquid-mounted or mechanical
shoe primary seal and gasketed fittings. For vessels with greater
vapor pressures, the EPA determined the best demonstrated technology
to be a closed vent system and control device.
\4\ A fixed roof storage vessel consists of a cylindrical steel
shell with a permanently affixed roof, which may vary in design from
cone or dome-shaped to flat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards set in NSPS subpart Kb for storage vessels with an
EFR or IFR are a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and
operational standards set pursuant to CAA section 111(h). These
standards require, among other things, that a rim seal be installed
continuously around the circumference of the vessel (between the inner
wall of the vessel and the floating roof) to prevent VOC emissions from
escaping to the atmosphere through gaps between the floating roof and
the inner wall of the storage vessel. For IFRs, NSPS subpart Kb allows
a single liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal (to be used
with or without a secondary seal), or a vapor-mounted primary seal in
combination with a secondary seal. For EFRs, NSPS subpart Kb allows
either a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal, both of which
must be used with a secondary seal; vapor-mounted primary seals are not
allowed for EFRs. NSPS subpart Kb also requires numerous deck fittings
\5\ on the floating roof to be equipped with a gasketed cover or lid
that is kept in the closed position at all times (i.e., no visible
gap), except when the device (deck fitting) is in actual use, to
prevent VOC emissions from escaping through the deck fittings. In
addition, NSPS subpart Kb requires owners and operators to conduct
visual inspections to check for defects in the floating roof, rim
seals, and deck fittings (e.g., holes, tears, or other openings in the
rim seal, or covers and lids on deck fittings that no longer close
properly) that could expose the liquid surface to the atmosphere and
potentially result in VOC emission losses through rim seals and deck
fittings.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Numerous fittings pass through or are attached to floating
decks to accommodate structure support components or to allow for
operational functions. Typical deck fittings include, but are not
limited to access hatches, gauge floats, gauge hatch/sample wells,
rim vents, deck drains, deck legs, vacuum breakers, pontoon covers
and guidepoles. IFR storage vessels may also have deck seams, fixed
roof support columns, ladders, and/or stub drains.
\6\ For details about storage vessel emissions, refer to the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Chapter 7: Liquid
Storage Tanks, dated June 2020 which is available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-andquantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-andquantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS subpart Kb includes two primary alternative means of
compliance. Owners or operators may either comply with the consolidated
air rule provisions for storage vessels in 40 CFR part 65, subpart C,
or comply with the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for storage vessels in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW
(NESHAP subpart WW). The substantive control requirements in these
rules are the same as in NSPS subpart Kb although they may have slight
differences in the details of the fitting and inspection requirements.
The EPA proposed the current review of the VOL storage vessels
(including petroleum liquid storage vessels) NSPS subpart Kb on October
4, 2023. We received 29 comments from industry, environmental groups,
State environmental agencies, and others during the comment period.
After the conclusion of the comment period, we received one additional
comment in February 2024. A summary of the more significant comments we
received regarding the proposed rule and our responses are provided in
this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal
and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in New Source
Performance Standards for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels,
Background Information for Final Amendments, Summary of Public Comments
and Responses, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. In this action, the
EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant to CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) review for VOL storage vessels after our considerations of
all the comments received.
D. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct?
As part of this rulemaking, the EPA engaged and consulted with the
public, including communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns,
through interactions such as providing a webinar, offering information
on the website for this rule, and informing the public of the proposed
action by sending notifications with summaries of the action and
information on how to comment. These opportunities allowed the EPA to
hear directly from the public, especially communities potentially
impacted by this final action. The webinar slides can be found in the
docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358).
Prior to proposal publication, the EPA conducted outreach by
providing background on the source category and the existing
requirements of NSPS subpart Kb on the September 19, 2023, EJ National
Community Engagement call and on the August 31, 2023, National Tribal
Air Association (NTAA) call. After publication, the EPA conducted a
community outreach webinar on October 24, 2023, which was focused on
discussing the details of the proposed rulemaking and how to provide
comment on the proposed rule. Additionally, the EPA discussed the
contents of the proposed rule on an October 26, 2023, NTAA call and
encouraged interested parties to submit comments. The EPA received a
request from one Tribe for consultation. On November 8, 2023, the EPA
met with that Tribe for the purposes of discussing NSPS subpart Kc and
other issues but was unable to conduct consultation on this specific
rulemaking.
III. What changes did we propose for the VOL Storage Vessel NSPS?
On October 4, 2023, the EPA proposed the current review of the VOL
Storage Vessel NSPS. In that action, we proposed the following actions
under NSPS subpart Kc:
[[Page 83300]]
<bullet> General applicability thresholds that include VOL storage
vessels greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons (gal).
<bullet> Vapor pressure thresholds for controlled VOL storage
vessels greater than or equal to 40,000 gal (151 m\3\) with MTVPs
greater than or equal to 0.5 psia (3.4 kPa).
<bullet> Vapor pressure thresholds for controlled VOL storage
vessels greater than or equal to 20,000 gal (75.7 m\3\) and less than
40,000 gal (151 m\3\) with MTVPs greater than or equal to 1.5 psia
(10.3 kPa).
<bullet> Improved standards of performance for vessels that have
IFRs, EFRs, and closed vent systems routed to a control device, fuel
gas system, or process designed to achieve an average 98 percent
control efficiency.
<bullet> Updated standards of performance for IFR storage vessels
that include improved seal system requirements, guidepole
configurations reflective of the 2000 U.S. EPA Storage Tank Emission
Reduction Partnership Program (STERPP), and annual lower explosive
limit (LEL) monitoring.
<bullet> Updated standards of performance for EFR storage vessels
that include requirements for welded deck seams, and improved guidepole
requirements.
<bullet> Updated standards for closed vent systems that are routed
to a control device, fuel gas system, or process and include
requirements for preventing emissions venting to atmosphere, annual EPA
Method 21 monitoring, and quarterly audible, visual, and olfactory
(AVO) inspections.
<bullet> Degassing standards of performance for VOL storage vessels
greater than or equal to 1 million gal (3,790 m\3\) with MTVPs greater
than or equal to 1.5 psia (10.3 kPa).
<bullet> Modification provisions dependent upon an increase of the
MTVP from the VOLs previously stored.
<bullet> Improved testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements.
<bullet> Provisions establishing that emission limitations apply at
all times, including during periods of SSM.
<bullet> Improved recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which
include the implementation of electronic reporting.
Additionally, we proposed to add electronic reporting requirements
to the existing subpart, NSPS subpart Kb.
IV. What actions are we finalizing and what is our rationale for such
decisions?
The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for VOL storage vessels
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is promulgating
the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kc. The
new NSPS subpart is applicable to affected sources constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after October 4, 2023.
Under NSPS subpart Kc, we are finalizing standards that reflect the
BSER for affected storage vessels. The rulemaking proposal included
different criteria thresholds for general applicability versus for
storage vessel control. Under the finalized general applicability
provisions, the EPA has included a new exemption for storage vessels
that only store VOL with an MTVP less than 0.25 psia (1.7 kPa) in
response to comments we received asking to eliminate recordkeeping
requirements for storage vessels with vapor pressures well below the
thresholds for which controls are required. We are finalizing the
capacity and vapor pressure thresholds for which controls are required
as proposed. Specifically, we are finalizing control requirements for:
(1) VOL storage vessels greater than or equal to 40,000 gal (151 m\3\)
with MTVPs greater than or equal to 0.5 psia (3.4 kPa); and (2) VOL
storage vessels greater than or equal to 20,000 gal (75.7 m\3\) and
less than 40,000 gal (151 m\3\) with MTVPs greater than or equal to 1.5
psia (10.3 kPa). We are also finalizing modification provisions similar
to those proposed, but we are clarifying that a modification occurs
when a ``. . . storage vessel is used to store VOL that has a greater
maximum true vapor pressure than all VOL historically stored or
permitted.''
In addition to updates involving applicability and modification, we
are finalizing the proposed standards for storage vessels with IFRs,
EFRs, and closed vent systems routed to a control device, fuel gas
system, or process, with minor adjustments based on feedback. Regarding
degassing controls, we are finalizing the provisions with minor
revisions to require controls on nonflammable liquid degassing until
reaching 5,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as methane vapor
space concentration rather than the 10 percent LEL.
We are finalizing testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements
as proposed, with some minor revisions that involve matters such as the
timelines and frequency for completing inspections, LEL monitoring
calibration procedures, inspection requirements, and the MTVP
determinations. Similarly, we are finalizing the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements with minor revisions from the proposal involving
matters such as pressure releases, closed vent system monitoring, and
reporting deadlines.
This action also finalizes standards of performance in NSPS subpart
Kc that apply at all times including during periods of SSM and other
changes such as electronic reporting, as proposed. This action also
finalizes revisions in NSPS subpart Kb to require electronic reporting
as proposed.
A. Revised NSPS for VOL Storage Vessels That Commenced Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification After July 23, 1984, and on or Before
October 4, 2023
We proposed revisions to NSPS subpart Kb to add electronic
reporting requirements. We are finalizing those revisions as proposed.
Our response to major comments received on the proposed NSPS subpart Kb
revisions are provided in this section. Additional public comments
received and our responses to those comments are include in the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses document included in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA has no lawful or
rational basis for not reviewing the flare standards from existing NSPS
subpart Kb to consider whether to revise NSPS subpart Kb itself. The
commenter stated that since the EPA has declined to revise the general
provisions to include specific monitoring requirements to ensure
compliance, the EPA must revise the NSPS subpart Kb provisions to do
so, as expressly required by 40 CFR 60.18(d). The commenter stated that
the EPA's failure to consider whether to revise the NSPS subpart Kb
standards also violates a consent decree that the EPA entered into to
resolve environmental groups' lawsuit regarding the EPA's failure to
comply with its 8-year review obligations under CAA section
111(b)(1)(B) for the flare provisions from NSPS subpart Kb and other
NSPS subparts, as well as its 8-year review obligations for certain
NESHAP subparts.
Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. We reviewed NSPS
subpart Kb and proposed new standards of performance, including new
design, operating, and monitoring requirements for flares, in the new
NSPS subpart Kc under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), which requires that the
EPA ``. . . review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following
the same procedures required by this subsection for promulgating such
standards.''
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) does not require retroactive revisions to
the existing NSPS subpart (i.e., NSPS subpart Kb). Rather, any revision
to an NSPS must follow the same procedures
[[Page 83301]]
for promulgating such standards under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). CAA
section 111 establishes a bifurcated approach to regulating sources.
Under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA is required to promulgate
standards of performance for new sources, which CAA section 111(a)(2)
defines as ``any stationary source, the construction or modification of
which is commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if
earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance
under this section which will be applicable to such source.'' Existing
sources are defined at CAA section 111(a)(6) to mean ``any stationary
source other than a new source'' and are regulated via a State planning
process pursuant to CAA section 111(d). Accordingly, the revisions,
which are being finalized in a new NSPS subpart Kc, apply to sources
that have commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after
October 4, 2023, the proposal date for this action. Sources presently
subject to NSPS subpart Kb are not, by definition under this statutory
provision, new sources that could be subjected to the revised standards
finalized in NSPS subpart Kc. Rather, they are treated as existing
sources relative to the revised standards finalized in NSPS subpart Kc.
Revision of the flare provisions in NSPS subpart Kb consistent with the
changes being finalized with respect to NSPS subpart Kc would be akin
to directly applying a new standard of performance to existing sources,
which would be inconsistent with the statutory structure that subjects
regulation of new and existing sources to separate processes. Further,
NSPS subpart Kc includes standards prescribed in accordance with CAA
section 111(h)(1), for flares and other closed vent systems routed to a
control device designed to achieve a 98 percent reduction in VOC
emissions. Because CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) does not require revisions
to the existing NSPS subpart (i.e., NSPS subpart Kb), which continues
to require 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions when using a flare,
the EPA did not propose in this rulemaking to reopen NSPS subpart Kb to
include the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares that
are needed to assure 98 percent VOC reduction when using a flare.
Moreover, because regulated sources subject to NSPS subpart Kb were
not given notice of any such potential change, altering the flare
requirements in NSPS subpart Kb in the final rule would unfairly put
sources that have been using flares to comply with NSPS subpart Kb in
violation of such requirements upon the effective date of this final
rule. Thus, the EPA is not amending NSPS subpart Kb to reflect the new
operating and monitoring flare requirements that are included in the
new NSPS subpart Kc. The EPA notes, however, that as existing sources
trigger modification, they will become subject to NSPS subpart Kc and
the new flare requirements in the rule.
We disagree with the commenter's assertion that our review findings
violate the consent decree. In that consent decree, the EPA agreed to
review and, if necessary, revise NSPS subpart Kb. In this case, the EPA
proposed these revisions as a new subpart to prevent application of
``new source'' standards to sources that are ``existing'' at the time
of proposal. Thus, our proposal of NSPS subpart Kc reflects our review
of NSPS subpart Kb and the revisions to that standard appropriate for
new sources.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA unlawfully and
arbitrarily failed to revise existing NSPS subpart Kb to specify that
the SSM exemptions from the [40 CFR part 60] general provisions do not
apply. The commenter stated that the EPA has acted outside its
statutory authority in promulgating the unlawful SSM exemptions from
the general provisions, and therefore the Agency must revise NSPS
subpart Kb to make clear that the general provisions' exemptions do not
apply. The commenter noted that although CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
allows the EPA to avoid revising standards when ``review is not
appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy
of such standard,'' the EPA could not lawfully or rationally invoke
that exception, since the application of the general provisions'
exemptions to NSPS subpart Kb is plainly unlawful.
Response: As noted in the previous comment response, we reviewed
the current subpart Kb standards, determined a series of appropriate
revisions, and concluded that these revisions should be completed as a
separate subpart. We disagree with the commenter that additional
revision to NSPS subpart Kb is necessary to remove SSM exemptions in
the 40 CFR part 60 general provisions. First, we note that the
performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b(c) clearly indicate
that the provisions in 40 CFR 60.8 do not apply. As such, objectionable
language regarding performance test results obtained during SSM events
is not applicable under NSPS subpart Kb. Second, the SSM exemption in
40 CFR 60.11(c) is also not applicable to NSPS subpart Kb because NSPS
subpart Kb does not contain opacity limits. Because the sections in the
40 CFR part 60 general provisions that contain potentially unlawful SSM
exemptions are not applicable under NSPS subpart Kb, we found no need
to further revise NSPS subpart Kb at this time.
B. Revised NSPS for VOL Storage Vessels That Commenced Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification After October 4, 2023
This section describes the key technical standards that were
proposed, the major comments received on the proposed requirements, our
responses to those comments, and our rationale for the final
requirements. Additional public comments received on the technical
standards and our responses to those comments are included in the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses document included in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358.
The EPA is finalizing standards of performance that reflect the
BSER as well as alternative compliance standards for controlled storage
vessels. The final standards are consistent with the determinations
explained in the rulemaking proposal (88 FR 68540-47; October 4, 2023)
and the analysis detailed in the memorandum Control Options for Storage
Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358. While the EPA has made
minor adjustments to these standards based on public comment, the BSER
determination remains unchanged. The adjustments incorporated based on
public comment are detailed in sections IV.B.4. and 5. of this
document.
In summary, the finalized BSER analyses for NSPS subpart Kc are
dependent on the MTVP of a stored VOL and follow the precedent
established in NSPS subparts Kb, Ka, and K. In the NSPS subpart K
proposal, the EPA detailed its justification for the use of equipment
specification (or work practice) standards. As part of the original
rulemaking proposal, the EPA explained that equipment specifications
are the most practical method of regulating storage vessel emissions.
Direct emission measurements for storage vessels are often impractical,
and storage vessel emissions are often modeled and dependent on many
distinguishing factors and variables. The EPA believes that equipment
specification standards are less burdensome for the storage vessel
operation and enforcement (38 FR 15406; May 4, 1973). For VOL storage
vessels with an MTVP less than 11.1 psia, the EPA is finalizing the
following BSER as proposed (88 FR 68542;
[[Page 83302]]
October 4, 2023): a fixed roof in conjunction with an internal floating
roof equipped with a liquid-mounted or mechanical shoe primary seal and
a continuous rim mounted secondary seal, either a flexible fabric
sleeve or gasketed sliding cover on pipe columns (if any), specific
STERPP compliant guidepole configurations, and gasketed covers.
The EPA is also finalizing two alternative compliance options for
VOL storage vessels with MTVPs less than 11.1 psia as proposed:
(1) An external floating roof equipped with a liquid-mounted or
mechanical shoe primary seal and a continuous rim-mounted secondary
seal, with welded deck seams and both seals meeting certain gap
requirements, specific guidepole configurations, and gasketed covers;
or
(2) A closed vent system routed to a 98 percent effective control
device, fuel gas system, or process.
For VOL storage vessels with MTVPs greater than or equal to 11.1
psia, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the BSER as a closed vent
system routed to a 98 percent effective control device, fuel gas
system, or process.
1. Vapor Pressure Applicability Thresholds
NSPS subpart Kb established control requirements, at 40 CFR
60.112b(a), for storage vessels based on vessel capacity and VOL vapor
pressures. In our review of NSPS subpart Kb, we assessed the vapor
applicability thresholds for affected facilities and for controls on
affected storage vessels to determine whether these thresholds needed
to be revised for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc. In NSPS subpart Kb there
are two different sets of vapor pressure applicability thresholds: one
for determining affected facilities and one for determining controls.
We proposed to not include specific vapor pressure applicability
thresholds in defining an affected facility under NSPS subpart Kc. As
such, the proposed affected facility under NSPS subpart Kc is any
storage vessel with a capacity of 20,000 gallons or more used to store
a VOL without exclusion for storage vessels under a set vapor pressure.
Based on comments received, we are adding an exemption at 40 CFR
60.110c(b)(8) for storage vessels that only store VOL with an MTVP of
less than 0.25 psia. This revision from proposal helps to limit burden
for storage vessels that only store VOL with very low vapor pressures,
but it does not otherwise impact the control standards proposed for
NSPS subpart Kc.
Based on the BSER analysis, we proposed to revise the vapor
applicability thresholds that require emission controls under NSPS
subpart Kc. Specifically, we proposed to revise the MTVP threshold for
smaller storage vessels (those with capacity of at least 20,000 gallons
but less than 40,000 gallons) to 1.5 psia and for larger storage
vessels (those with capacity of 40,000 gallons or more) to 0.5 psia. We
determined that applying controls for VOL at or above these thresholds
yielded cost-effective emission reductions. We are finalizing these
thresholds as proposed.
2. Other Applicability Provisions
NSPS subpart Kb includes several provisions that exempt specific
groups of VOL storage vessels from applicability under the standard. We
proposed to carry over several of these exemptions, such as exemptions
for: storage vessels that operate at coke oven by-product plants; bulk
gasoline plants; gasoline service stations; pressure vessels; vessels
attached to mobile vehicles; certain vessels at oil and gas production
sites prior to custody transfer; and vessels that store beverage
alcohol. We proposed to remove exemptions under NSPS subpart Kc for
vessels subject to the NESHAP for solvent extraction for vegetable oil
production outlined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG, because the
standards proposed in NSPS subpart Kc are more stringent than the
existing NESHAP subpart GGGG standards. We are finalizing these
applicability provisions as proposed.
We are adding overlap provisions, based on comments received, to
allow storage vessels subject to NSPS subparts K, Ka, or Kb, or NESHAP
subpart WW to comply with the provisions in NSPS subpart Kc because the
final provisions in NSPS subpart Kc are at least as stringent as those
in NSPS subparts Kb, Ka, and K, and NESHAP subpart WW. These overlap
provisions, which were not proposed, allow facilities the operational
flexibility of simply complying with NSPS subpart Kc if they operate
storage vessels covered under the specified existing storage vessel
rules.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should add an
alternative compliance option that complying with NSPS subpart Kc
demonstrates compliance with the floating roof requirements in NESHAP
subpart WW. Another commenter suggested that the EPA should address
overlaps between NSPS subpart Kc and other rules consistent with the
overlap provisions in NSPS subpart Kb.
Response: There are not overlap provisions in NSPS subpart Kb
beyond the alternative means of compliance in 40 CFR 60.110b(e). The
requirements in the rules listed in 40 CFR 60.110b(e) are not
equivalent to the requirements in NSPS subpart Kc, so we removed these
alternative means of compliance from NSPS subpart Kc. We agree with
commenters that including provisions in NSPS subpart Kc to allow
compliance with the provision in NSPS subpart Kc to be considered
compliance with the provisions in NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP subpart WW
is appropriate because the final requirements in NSPS subpart Kc are at
least as stringent as those in NSPS subpart Kb and NESHAP subpart WW.
As such, we have added provisions under 40 CFR 60.110c(h) and 40 CFR
60.110c(i) that allow owners and operators with storage vessels subject
to the standards of NSPS subparts K, Ka, and Kb, and NESHAP subpart WW
to choose to comply with the provisions of NSPS subpart Kc to
demonstrate compliance. This will allow facilities that may be subject
to a NESHAP that references NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP subpart WW but
also subject to NSPS subpart Kc to consolidate their recordkeeping and
reporting requirements and comply only with NSPS subpart Kc.
3. Modification Provisions
For purposes of CAA section 111, modifications are defined as ``. .
. any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of,'' an
existing facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to
which a standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility
or which results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which a
standard applies) into the atmosphere not previously emitted. NSPS
subpart A further provides provisions explaining how a modification is
identified, as well as defining certain exemptions to those general
rules. In particular, 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) states that the ``[u]se of an
alternative fuel or raw material'' is not considered a modification if
the existing facility was designed to accommodate that alternative use.
The EPA proposed, for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc, that a change in the
liquid stored in the storage vessel to a VOL with a higher MTVP does
not constitute a ``use of an alternative fuel or raw material'' and
would be considered a modification under NSPS subpart Kc. Specifically,
the EPA proposed that a modification occurs when a ``storage vessel is
used to store VOL that has a greater maximum true vapor pressure than
the VOL previously stored.''
[[Page 83303]]
We are finalizing modification provisions similar to those
proposed, but we are clarifying that a modification occurs when a ``. .
. storage vessel is used to store VOL that has a greater maximum true
vapor pressure than all VOL historically stored or permitted.''
Commenters were concerned that our proposed language, which referred to
VOL ``previously stored,'' was ambiguous and potentially limited the
modification assessment to the most recently stored VOL. We revised the
text to ``. . . historically stored or permitted . . . ,'' in order to
clarify our intent that a modification occurs when a new VOL is stored
that has a higher MTVP than any of the previously stored or permitted
VOL (and not just the most recently stored VOL). Finally, we are also
clearly stating, consistent with our discussion in section III.G. of
the proposal preamble, that the alternative fuel or raw material
exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) does not apply to storage vessels under
NSPS subpart Kc.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the language ``the VOL
previously stored'' in 40 CFR 60.110c(e) is unclear as to whether any
VOL the storage vessel has previously stored is included, or just the
VOL stored immediately prior to the change. The proposed 40 CFR
60.110c(e) language does not clarify which liquids are different, or
not different, from ``the VOL previously stored.'' Without clarity on
these points, the rule language is subject to a significant range of
interpretations, from any stored organic liquid being the same VOL, to
any de minimis change in liquid properties being a different VOL.
Another commenter stated that the phrase ``the VOL previously stored''
should be removed from 40 CFR 60.110c(e).
Several commenters requested that storing a VOL with a higher MTVP
than the liquid previously stored only be considered a modification if
storing such a liquid would require modification of a facility's
operating permit. One commenter further stated that using a facility's
operating permit to determine modification would place an unreasonable
burden of proof on facility owners or operators. Another commenter
stated that storage vessels are permitted to handle multiple materials,
typically using a worst-case scenario, and changing the liquid stored
in the storage vessel to one above the permitted vapor pressure
threshold would not necessarily increase emissions since emissions are
based on other parameters and conditions, such as changing the hourly
pumping rate, annual throughput, or storage temperature.
Two commenters noted that storage vessels routinely switch between
storing materials with lower and higher vapor pressures at certain
facilities, such as batch chemical plants, refineries, and gasoline
terminals (for example, annual transitions between summer and winter
gasoline). According to the commenters, such routine and other
operational transitions between products do not rise to the level of a
``modification'' triggering performance standards for new sources under
the CAA.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the proposed language
(``the VOL previously stored'') could be misinterpreted to refer only
to the VOL stored immediately prior to the change, and that was not our
intent. For example, if a storage vessel has been used to store both
summer and winter grades of gasoline, we did not intend that the next
switch from summer to winter gasoline would trigger a modification of
the storage vessel. We also agree that owners and operators should not
trigger modification for introducing VOLs that do not exceed the MTVP
of all VOLs that may also exist in a permit. We are clarifying the
regulatory language to match our intent at proposal and reduce burden
by replacing the phrase ``the VOL previously stored'' with the phrase
``all VOL historically stored or permitted.'' In discussions with
industry representatives and the EPA permit specialists, we found that
specific VOLs are not always listed in permits. Therefore, we are not
including revisions suggested by some commenters to limit modification
to only those actions that would require modification of a facility's
operating permit.
We disagree with the commenters who suggested that changing the
volatility of the liquids stored does not increase emissions from the
storage vessel. We note that the emission rate for modification is
expressed in kilograms per hour (kg/hr) and that it is not evaluated on
an annual basis. Even if the facility intends to lower the fill rate to
limit increases in annual emissions, the storage vessel will still have
higher emissions (in kg/hr) during periods when the storage vessel is
not being filled.
Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal that
a change in the liquid stored in the storage vessel to a VOL with a
higher MTVP does not constitute a ``use of an alternative fuel or raw
material'' and thus would instead be considered a change in the method
of operation of a source. According to the commenters, the stored
materials are fuels or raw materials for some customer or downstream
user, and there is no requirement for a material to be used at the
facility where it is being stored for it to be considered a raw
material or a fuel. According to one commenter, the EPA had determined
that changing a liquid, regardless of volatility, is not an operational
change, and another commenter stated that storage vessel service
changes are the kind of event that the EPA intended to address in 40
CFR 60.14(e)(4). Other commenters recommended that the EPA retain its
long-held interpretation that a change of liquids in an existing VOL
storage vessel does not constitute a ``modification'' triggering
applicability of NSPS subpart Kc. Commenters also noted that the
proposed interpretation would arbitrarily apply NSPS subpart Kc to some
storage vessels, and not to other identical vessels, based on their
historic use rather than their design capabilities.
One commenter stated that changing a liquid in a storage vessel is
not a modification if the material could have been previously
accommodated without a physical change or a capital expenditure. Some
commenters requested that the EPA revise proposed 40 CFR 60.110c(e) to
clearly state that changing the material stored is not a modification
if the storage vessel could accommodate the new material without a
physical change or significant capital expenditure. Commenters
requested that the EPA review historical documents related to NSPS
subpart Kb and reconfirm these long-held policies regarding
modification of storage vessels.
One commenter stated that the EPA's reference to FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc. for the proposition that it need only
articulate a ``good reason'' for its ``change in policy'' is misplaced.
According to the commenter, the EPA is not proposing to amend any of
its existing regulations setting forth its policy for NSPS triggering
``modifications.'' Rather, the proposal reflects a reversal of the
EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA and its regulations in 40
CFR 60.2 and 60.14. Unlike a change in policy, the commenter contends,
``an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation that conflicts
with a prior interpretation is entitled to considerably less deference
than a consistently held agency view.'' Advanced Energy United, Inc. v.
FERC (82 F.4th 1095, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quoting Thomas Jefferson
University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994)). Accordingly, it is the
EPA's long-held interpretation of ``modifications''--for nearly 40
years--that is entitled to deference. The commenter asserts that
[[Page 83304]]
this is particularly true where, as here, the EPA has not provided a
justification for the conflicting interpretation or articulated the
scope of changes in volatility of stored liquids that would actually
trigger a ``modification.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with these comments. First, the EPA's
reliance on FCC v. Fox, 556 U.S. 502 (2009), the controlling case on
changes in agency policy, is appropriate here. The quote that
commenters cite above, asserting that an agency's statutory
interpretation which conflicts with a prior interpretation is
``entitled to considerably less deference than a consistently held
view,'' is from Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504
(1994), a 1994 Supreme Court case whose precedent on changes in agency
policy was displaced by FCC v. Fox, in 2009, 556 U.S. 502. Under FCC v.
Fox, ``it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the
statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency
believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course
adequately indicates.'' Id. at 515.
According to the commenters, anything stored in a storage vessel
should be considered an alternative fuel or raw material and therefore
any change in the liquid stored should be exempt from being considered
a modification. We find in this final rule that this interpretation of
the alternative fuel or raw material exemption as applied to storage
vessels is inappropriate and often excludes changes in the stored VOL
that increase emissions and that therefore should trigger additional
control requirements. The EPA explained its rationale for including
additional modification provisions in section III.G. of the proposal
preamble (88 FR 68543; October 4, 2023). The EPA explained that for
purposes of NSPS subpart Kc, a change in the liquid stored in the
storage vessel to an organic liquid with a greater MTVP does not
constitute a ``use of an alternative fuel or raw material'' and would
be considered a change in the method of operation of the storage
vessel. The primary function of this affected facility is the storage
of materials. The VOLs stored in the storage vessel are neither raw
material nor fuel inputs to a process at the affected facility itself.
Furthermore, even had the EPA not revisited its interpretation
regarding the application of 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4), we maintain that
changing the VOL stored to one with a higher MTVP is a modification (a
change in the method of operation that results in an increase in the
emissions rate). The NSPS subpart Kc modification provisions result in
meaningful emission reductions. For these reasons, the final rulemaking
appropriately supersedes the general provisions. As such, the EPA is
finalizing modification provisions such that a change in the liquid
stored, which results in increased VOC emissions, would be a
modification under NSPS subpart Kc and is clarifying in 40 CFR
60.110c(e) that, for the purposes of this source category, the
exemption at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) does not apply.
The precedent of MTVP dependent standards of performance for VOL
storage vessels was established as part of NSPS subpart K and has
informed the establishment of standards for subsequent rulemakings
under NSPS subparts Ka and Kb. Under these standards, a VOL's MTVP
(along with a vessel's capacity) has served as a primary mechanism for
determining suitable standards for control. The amended modification
provisions will provide meaningful emission reductions from storage
vessels that would otherwise go unregulated despite satisfying the
statutory criteria for a modification under CAA section 111(a)(4), as
explained in this section and at III.G. of the proposal preamble (88 FR
68543; October 4, 2023). The modification provision, as amended,
effectively curtails a previously existing loophole which had allowed
owners and operators to circumvent the standards in NSPS subpart Kb.
For example, prior to this rulemaking, an uncontrolled fixed roof
vessel could be constructed and be exempt from NSPS subpart Kb
standards because it was storing a low vapor pressure VOL. The vessel
could then change operation to introduce a new material with a higher
vapor pressure that would otherwise be subject to the NSPS had it been
stored in the tank at the time of construction, but the owner or
operator could continue to operate without meeting the floating roof or
closed vent system and control device standards even if the vessel was
constructed after the Kb applicability date. Similarly, if an owner or
operator built floating roof tanks for VOLs with less than 11.1 psia
and later replaced the liquid stored with a liquid with a vapor
pressure greater than 11.1 psia, they could thereby circumvent the
closed vent system and control device requirements under 40 CFR 60.112b
which are directly dependent on the MTVP of the stored VOL and which
would otherwise apply. As such, the prior NSPS provided significant
leeway for owners and operators to circumvent the regulations intended
to control storage vessel emissions. To address this concern, the EPA
is finalizing modification provisions such that the MTVP can be used as
an indicator to determine that a change in the liquid stored, which
results in increased VOC emissions, would be a modification under NSPS
subpart Kc.
The EPA's decision to consider a change in the liquid historically
stored or permitted to one with a higher vapor pressure to be a
modification is consistent with both the statutory and regulatory
definitions of those terms. CAA section 111(a) defines modification to
mean, ``any physical change in, or change in the method of operation
of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant
emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air
pollutant not previously emitted.'' Similarly, the General Provisions
to 40 CFR part 60 define modification at 40 CFR 60.2 to mean, ``any
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
existing facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to
which a standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility
or which results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which a
standard applies) into the atmosphere not previously emitted.'' And 40
CFR 60.14 provides a more detailed framework for evaluating
modifications, which similarly states at paragraph (a) that: ``Except
as provided under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, any physical
or operational change to an existing facility which results in an
increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to
which a standard applies shall be considered a modification within the
meaning of section 111 of the Act.'' Thus, the CAA and general
provisions for 40 CFR part 60 all rely on the same basic two-step
process: (1) a physical change in, or change in the method of operation
of, a stationary source; and (2) a resulting increase in emissions.
Notably, it is not necessary for there to be a physical change at the
source in the first step if there is a change in the method of
operation. One or the other will suffice. We address each of these
criteria in turn.
First, as proposed, the EPA has determined that a change in the
liquid stored in a storage vessel constitutes a change in the method of
operation of a storage vessel. The primary function of this affected
facility is the storage of materials, and so the only logical ``change
in the method of operation'' that a storage vessel would undergo is a
change in the material stored. In other words, whenever a storage
vessel changes the VOL that is stored, that is a change in that
facility's method of operation. The EPA's interpretation
[[Page 83305]]
regarding what constitutes a change in the ``method of operation'' for
storage vessels has not changed with this rulemaking. In explaining the
applicability of modification under the CAA, in the NSPS subpart Kb
preamble, the EPA affirmed, ``Few, if any, changes in the physical
configuration of the storage vessels that would increase emissions are
anticipated. An operational change that would increase emissions is a
changing of the stored liquid from a VOC non-emitting liquid to a VOC
emitting liquid'' (49 FR 29707; July 23, 1984). Thus, the EPA has long
considered the changing of the stored liquid to meet the statutory
requirements for an operational change. Second, the changing of the
stored liquid can lead to an increase of emissions whenever the MTVP of
the new liquid is greater than the previously stored liquid. Thus, both
statutory criteria for identifying a modification are met.
The EPA agrees that we have historically applied the regulatory
exemption under 60.14(e) for ``use of an alternative fuel or raw
material'' to storage vessels. In making our decision regarding
modifications, we reviewed several documents \7\ and questioned both
industry and enforcement personnel to better understand what changes
are currently considered modifications. In the NSPS subpart Kb
preamble, the EPA explained, ``Section 60.14(e) of the General
Provisions to Part 60 lists several changes that are not considered
modifications. Among these is the use of raw material, if prior to the
date of proposal of the standard, the existing facility was designed to
accommodate that alternative use'' (49 FR 29707; July 23, 1984).
However, the EPA did not provide any further explanation at that time
as to why the Agency believed this exemption applied to this affected
facility, and the Agency has reconsidered the application of that
exemption for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc. As explained in section
III.G. of the proposal preamble, when the affected source is a storage
vessel and not a process unit, we no longer consider a change in the
liquid stored in the storage vessel (to an organic liquid with a higher
MTVP) to qualify as a ``use of an alternative fuel or raw material.''
As discussed above, the primary function of an affected facility in
this source category is the storage of materials, and the VOL stored in
the vessel are neither raw material nor alternative fuel inputs to a
process at the facility itself. While the storage vessel may store
liquids that are used as an alternative fuel or raw material used for
inputs to a process for another facility, it is not reasonable to
extend application of the exemption to mere storage of the alternative
fuel or raw material. Accordingly, we no longer believe that the
exemption should be applied to these factual circumstances by the terms
of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA Applicability Determination Index,
Control Number: 0400015, (referencing 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4)-(5)) and
NSPS subpart Kb Background Information Document (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0358-0012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that, the fact that 40 CFR 60.14(e) is framed as
exempting certain activities from the definition of modification
indicates that, absent these exemptions, the EPA would consider the
exempted activity to meet the statutory definition of modification in
CAA section 111(a)(4). In other words, the EPA created a specific
provision exempting the ``use of an alternative fuel or raw material''
from the regulatory definition of modification because this activity
would, as the EPA proposed, typically be considered an operational
change,\8\ a consideration reinforced by the EPA's discussion on
modification in the NSPS subpart Kb preamble. In this rulemaking, the
EPA confirms that it does not consider a change in the liquid stored to
one with a higher MTVP to qualify under this exemption. Moreover,
irrespective of this determination, the EPA is also finalizing in this
rulemaking that the exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) regarding
alternative fuel or raw material does not apply to storage vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This is bolstered when considering the other exemptions in
40 CFR 60.14(e): a ``replacement'' referred to in (e)(1) and the
addition of a system or device referred to in (e)(5) is a physical
change to a facility, and an increase in production rate or an
increase in hours of operation referred to in (e)(2) or (3) is a
change in the facility's operation. However, the EPA had a rational
basis for exempting these particular physical or operational
changes, as a general matter, from the broader definition of
modification under the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we have determined for purposes of NSPS subpart Kc that a
change in the liquid stored to a liquid with a higher vapor pressure
does not constitute the ``use of an alternative fuel or raw material,''
we note that even if this exemption would otherwise apply by its terms,
this rulemaking supersedes the exemption pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14(f),
because, as explained earlier, we have concluded that it is the better
policy and consistent with the statutory definition of modification
based on the facts of how this affected facility operates. The EPA has
always maintained that there are some sources for which the basic
exemptions from the standard definition of a modification may not be
appropriate, and 40 CFR 60.14(f) was included in the general provisions
to afford the EPA the ability to supersede the general modification
regulations, the exemption provisions in 40 CFR 60.14(e), for those
sources for which these provisions should not reasonably be applied.
The EPA has previously applied specialized interpretations of
modification for other source categories. For example, in NSPS subpart
Ja, we included special provisions for the modification of flares at
petroleum refineries because the basic considerations under 40 CFR
60.14(e), were generally developed considering process unit emission
sources. The intermittent operation of a flare makes it difficult to
use the criteria of 40 CFR 60.14(e) to determine when a flare is
modified (73 FR 35843; June 24, 2008). In our review of NSPS subpart
Kb, we identified similar short-comings regarding the ``process unit-
oriented'' modification exemptions as previously applied to storage
vessels. The specialized modification provision for storage vessels is
consistent with the CAA statutory requirements, the general definition
of modification outlined in 40 CFR 60.2 and 60.14, and previous
determinations that source-specific modification provisions are
justified for certain source categories. Accordingly, in this
rulemaking, the EPA confirms that it does not consider a change in the
liquid stored to one with a higher MTVP to qualify under the exemption
in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4), and, as a matter of clarity, irrespective of
this determination, this rulemaking is superseding the exemption.
With respect to the comment that the proposed definition of
modification would arbitrarily apply differently for identical vessels
based on their historic use rather than their design capabilities, we
disagree. As stated above, the modification provisions are directly
dependent on the MTVP of the stored VOL. The precedent of MTVP
dependent standards of performance for VOL storage vessels was
established as part of NSPS subpart K and has informed the
establishment of standards for subsequent rulemakings under NSPS
subparts Ka and Kb. We are finalizing that storing a VOL with a greater
MTVP than historically stored or permitted is a modification. We
determined the BSER and set standards of performance considering
existing emission controls of modified storage vessels.
The EPA also disagrees with the comment advocating a requirement
for capital expenditure to determine whether there is a modification
and that a capital expenditure clause should be added to the language
proposed at 40 CFR 110c(e). First, we note that the
[[Page 83306]]
statute at CAA section 111(a)(4) contains no such requirement and the
general provisions at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2) only consider whether a
capital expenditure is needed when considering an exemption from the
definition of modification tied to increase in production at the
facility. Critically, neither the statute nor the general provisions
provide that the determination of whether a modification has occurred
must be based on a capital expenditure. Thus, the commenters seek to
impose an additional requirement that is not plainly necessary under
the statute nor anticipated, either by Congress or by the EPA, without
an explanation as to why that would be justified for this source
category. In many cases, a capital expenditure is not needed to change
the liquid stored in a fixed roof tank. Under the commenter's proposed
capital expenditure paradigm, an operator of a fixed roof tank used to
store a low volatility fluid could change to a higher vapor pressure
fluid and argue that no modification occurred even though the storage
vessel has changed its method of operation. This would permit the
resulting emissions increases without the requisite control that the
statute would otherwise anticipate under such circumstances. It is more
consistent with the statutory standard to consider the change in the
liquid stored or permitted as a change in the method of operation and
then assess whether an increase in the vapor pressure of the liquid
stored triggers the need for controls (which would require a capital
expenditure). We found the controls required under proposed NSPS
subpart Kc are cost effective and meet the BSER criteria, and we see no
reason to allow uncontrolled modified storage vessels or less stringent
controls simply because the tank was initially permitted for or stored
a less volatile liquid.
4. Control Standards for IFRs and EFRs
The EPA proposed standards of performance that reflect the BSER for
IFRs as well as alternative compliance standards for controlled storage
vessel EFRs. The EPA proposed a work practice standard that would
require new IFR storage vessels be constructed with either a liquid-
mounted or a mechanical shoe primary seal, a rim-mounted secondary
seal, and fittings on the floating roof that meet certain control
requirements (e.g., gasketed covers, specific guidepole control
configurations) mostly consistent with the requirements of fitting
controls in NSPS subpart Kb. The EPA also proposed that new EFR storage
vessels be constructed with either a liquid-mounted or a mechanical
shoe primary seal, a rim-mounted secondary seal, welded deck seams, and
fittings on the floating roof that meet certain control requirements
(e.g., gasketed covers, specific guidepole control configurations).
Except for the guidepole controls, the fitting controls are mostly
consistent with the requirements of fitting controls in NSPS subpart
Kb.
We are finalizing the control requirements for IFRs and EFRs as
proposed with minor editorial revisions (such as replacing ``roof leg
supports'' with ``roof supports,'' replacing ``bolted'' with ``bolted
or otherwise mechanically secured,'' and using consistent language
regarding requirements for vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder vents). For
EFRs, we are also adding provisions for emergency roof drains to be
provided with a slotted membrane fabric cover that covers at least 90
percent of the area of the opening. As noted by commenters, this
provision is included in NSPS subpart Kb and the IFR drain requirements
were inadvertently copied for EFRs in the proposed rule for NSPS
subpart Kc.
Comment: One commenter stated the proposed NSPS subpart Kc language
refers to the floating roof being supported by legs when the floating
roof is landed, but a common design for IFRs involves suspending the
IFR from the fixed roof of the tank via cables. The commenter stated
that proposed language at 40 CFR 60.112c(b)(1) and (4) should be
revised to accommodate the cable-suspended design alternative.
Similarly, a commenter recommended the EPA revise the definition of the
term ``Vacuum breaker/Automatic bleeder vent'' to avoid restricting
vacuum breakers to the leg-actuated type. Another commenter noted that
since leg operated vacuum breakers must contact the floor prior to the
roof support legs, the EPA should consider setting a maximum opening
distance or clarify that the roof is considered landed when the vacuum
breaker leg lands. One commenter noted that 40 CFR 60.112c(b)(1) reads
``. . . and during those intervals when the storage vessel is
completely emptied or subsequently emptied and refilled'' whereas 40
CFR 60.112c(c)(1) reads: ``. . . and when the storage vessel is
completely emptied and subsequently refilled.'' The commenter suggested
that the requirements for EFRs in 40 CFR 60.112c(c)(1) be revised to be
consistent with 40 CFR 60.112c(b)(1).
Response: We agree with the commenters that the language regarding
roof legs and vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder vents should be
generalized to allow roof supports other than roof legs and vacuum
actuations other than leg actuated devices and that consistent language
should be used for EFRs. While we understand cable suspended roofs are
specific to IFRs, we generalized the language for EFRs in the event
different supports are developed for EFRs and to make the language
consistent between 40 CFR 60.112c(b) and (c). We also revised the use
of the term ``vacuum breaker'' by replacing it with ``vacuum breaker/
automatic bleeder vent'' because that is the defined term for these
devices on a floating roof and to distinguish these from vacuum
breaking devices on a fixed roof. We are also adding a sentence to the
roof landing monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 60.113c(a)(5) and (b)(8)
to clarify that the roof is considered landed when the floating roof
first rests on supports or when the vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder
vent begins to open, whichever is first. This clarifies that the
landing alarm must be set at the height the leg-actuated vacuum
breaker/automatic bleeder vent begins to open the vent, which will be
prior to the floating roof resting on the roof supports.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed NSPS subpart Kc
does not address the emergency roof drains that are utilized with
certain EFRs. The commenter noted that NSPS subpart Kc specifies that
``stub drains'' are not required to be covered at all, which could be
understood as exempting EFR emergency roof drains from control. The
commenter recommended that the EPA clarify, consistent with NSPS
subpart Kb at 40 CFR 60.112(b)(2)(ii), that each emergency roof drain
is to be provided with a slotted membrane fabric cover that covers at
least 90 percent of the area of the opening.
Response: We agree with the commenter that we inadvertently used
the language allowing uncontrolled stub drains for IFRs in the proposed
EFR requirements. We had intended to maintain consistency with the EFR
drain requirements in NSPS subpart Kb. We agree with the commenter that
the reference to stub drains for EFRs is not appropriate as stub drains
are not used for EFRs. In the final rule, we are including the
requirements to use a slotted membrane fabric cover that covers at
least 90 percent of the area of the opening at 40 CFR
60.112c(c)(2)(viii) consistent with the requirements for EFR drains in
NSPS subpart Kb, as suggested by the commenter.
[[Page 83307]]
5. Control Standards for Closed Vent Systems Routed to a Control
Device, Fuel Gas System, or Process
For storage vessels with closed vent systems routed to a control
device, fuel gas system, or process, the EPA proposed certain design
requirements for the storage vessel to prevent pressure releases from
the storage vessel and proposed that control devices must meet 98
percent or greater emission reduction efficiency. The EPA proposed that
non-flare thermal combustion devices must conduct performance tests
initially and at least once every 60 months, in which they establish a
temperature operating limit to which they must comply at all times. For
flares, the EPA proposed that flares must meet the operating and
monitoring requirements consistent with the requirements in the
Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 63.670 and 63.671). We are finalizing
requirements for closed vent systems routed to a control device, fuel
gas system, or process with some revisions from proposal for reasons
noted in the following comments and responses.
First, we are revising the vacuum pressure at which vacuum breaking
devices must close from -0.1 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to -
0.1 inches of water (-0.0036 psig) to better reflect common storage
vessel design requirements. We are also clarifying the language since a
higher vacuum setting would be a lower absolute pressure and the
proposed language was potentially ambiguous. The revised provision
clarifies that any vacuum breaking device on the storage vessel must
close while the storage vessel is still under vacuum of at least -0.1
inches of water (-0.0036 psig or -0.025 kPa gauge). We proposed that
storage vessels that are vented to a closed vent system must be
designed to operate at elevated pressures (1 psig above MTVP plus any
back pressure from the control device) without venting to the
atmosphere. We are retaining this as an option but are adding an option
to design and operate the recovery system to prevent venting from the
storage vessel. In either case, we are retaining requirements
consistent with those proposed that monitoring systems must be
installed to detect pressure releases from each pressure relief device
(PRD) or vacuum breaking device on a storage vessel and each PRD on the
closed vent system. For owner and operators electing to design the
storage vessel and closed vent system to operate at elevated pressures,
we are including provisions that allow the control device to be taken
out of service for maintenance provided that the storage vessels are
operated with no emissions to the atmosphere.
We are retaining requirements for control devices to meet 98
percent control efficiencies as proposed. We allow enclosed combustion
devices to demonstrate on-going compliance with the 98 percent control
efficiency using temperature operating limit, as proposed. However, we
are also finalizing an alternative for enclosed combustion devices, if
elected, to comply with the flare operating limits, consistent with
recent provisions provided for gasoline distribution facilities (40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXa and 40 CFR part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB).
Lastly, we are amending the requirements for open-ended lines to align
with provisions more closely under the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP (MON).
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the pressure constraints on
design operating pressure and vacuum breaking devices are not
technically feasible and could result in significant damage or failures
of the storage vessels, stating that a gauge pressure higher than the
designed pressure of the storage vessel or a vacuum greater than the
design requirements could result in catastrophic failure of the storage
vessel. The commenters noted that the proposed requirements conflict
with American Petroleum Institute (API) Codes 650 and 2000. The
commenters recommended the EPA delete the specific pressure
requirements proposed and replace with general language that
atmospheric vents should be designed to remain closed during normal
operation.
Response: In the proposal, we intended to require the use of low-
pressure storage vessels rather than atmospheric storage vessels so
that the storage vessels would be built to withstand higher pressures.
However, we recognize that this may be a more significant retrofit for
modified storage vessels with gas collection systems designed to
operate at lower pressures such that the pressure in the storage
vessels can remain near atmospheric pressure. However, if the vapor
recovery compressor or fan fails or is shut down for any reason, then
the storage vessel would vent rather than being able to withstand the
buildup of pressure as the headspace in the storage vessel reaches
saturation without venting to the atmosphere like a low-pressure
storage vessel would. We are maintaining the positive pressure
requirements as one compliance option, but we are also finalizing an
option for facilities to design and operate a vapor recovery system in
a manner to prevent atmospheric releases from the storage vessel. As
proposed, any pressure release from the storage vessel is a deviation
of the storage vessel and closed vent system requirements. We are
finalizing monitoring system requirements for the pressure relief
devices and vacuum breaking devices to identify these deviations.
With respect to the vacuum requirements, we reviewed the API 650
standards applicable to low-pressure storage vessels and found in
section 5.10.5.2 that these storage vessels ``. . . may be safely
subjected to a partial vacuum in the gas or vapor space not exceeding 1
ounce per square inch with the operating liquid level in the tank at
any stage from full to empty.'' One ounce per square inch is equivalent
to 0.0625 psi or 2 inches of water, so we agree that the vacuum
requirement proposed is beyond standard design requirements for low-
pressure storage vessels. We also confirmed that the API 650 standard
indicates that the maximum vacuum for atmospheric storage vessels
(without needing additional design considerations) is -0.25 kPa (or -1
inch of water or -0.036 psig). In our proposal, we wanted to ensure
that the vacuum vent is closed while there is still a slight vacuum in
the storage vessel, to prevent venting to the atmosphere from the
vacuum breaking device as the pressure in the storage vessel increases.
In reviewing the storage vessel specifications, we determined that the
value we proposed was higher than needed to achieve this objective. The
vacuum breaking devices must open before the maximum vacuum pressure is
reached, so typical opening pressures are 0.5 inches of water pressure.
Therefore, we are finalizing that the vacuum breaking device must close
while the storage vessel is still under vacuum of at least -0.1 inches
of water (-0.0036 psig or -0.025 kPa gauge) and are finalizing that a
pressure release (deviation) occurs when the vessel reaches atmospheric
pressure and the vacuum breaking device remains open. We are providing
separate paragraphs for the monitoring requirements for PRDs between
storage vessels and closed vent systems and adding monitoring
requirements for the vacuum breaking devices on the storage vessels.
Otherwise, the separate pressure release monitoring requirements we are
finalizing in 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(1)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii) are the same as
proposed for ``each pressure relief device on a storage vessel or in a
closed vent system,'' in 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(2)(iii).
[[Page 83308]]
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA add a 240-hour
planned routine maintenance provision for storage vessels equipped with
a closed vent system routed to a control device to NSPS subparts Kb and
Kc similar to the language in the part 63 NESHAP regulations such as
the MON and Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline) NESHAP.
According to the commenter, if the EPA decides to retain the language
in 40 CFR 60.110c(g) removing the SSM provisions, it is reasonable for
the EPA to include a separate 240-hour planned routine maintenance
provision for control devices in NSPS subpart Kc similar to the
language in the MON (40 CFR 63.2470(d)) and the associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirement similar to the language in 40
CFR 63.998(d)(2) and 63.999(c)(4).
Response: We disagree that we should provide 240 hours for
uncontrolled emissions when using an add-on control device. Similar
provisions are not needed or appropriate for IFRs, which were
determined to be the BSER for storage vessels storing VOLs with an MTVP
less than 11.1 psia. We maintain that a 98 percent control requirement
at all times is necessary for add-on control devices to achieve
emission reductions equivalent to those for IFRs. Even for storage
vessels storing VOLs with an MTVP of 11.1 psia or higher, we maintain
that a 98 percent control requirement is the BSER, and that level of
control cannot be achieved if we allow 240 hours of uncontrolled
emissions. Nonetheless, if the storage vessel is designed to be able to
operate at pressures above the MTVP consistent with the storage vessel
design pressure requirements proposed (and being finalized as one
compliance option), then the control device can be isolated from the
storage vessel, and the closed vent system and the storage vessel can
remain in service without venting to the atmosphere provided that the
storage vessel is not filled to the extent that the pressure limits of
the pressure relief valves on the storage vessel and closed vent system
are exceeded and there is a pressure release. If there is no pressure
release from the storage vessel during the planned maintenance
activity, we agree that planned maintenance can be allowed. Therefore,
we are including provisions at 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(7) to allow owners or
operators to conduct planned maintenance on control devices while
storage vessel affected facilities are still storing VOL under specific
circumstances. Specifically, the storage vessel(s) storing VOL must be
designed to operate above the MTVP of the stored VOL according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(1)(i) and must comply with the
pressure release monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Eliminating pressure releases during the maintenance periods may
require operators to limit VOL addition to the storage vessel (such as
only adding VOL when there is also corresponding withdrawal of VOL from
the storage vessel), but the operator is expected to operate the
storage vessel without a pressure release or atmospheric venting during
the maintenance period.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should define ``vapor
combustion unit'' separately from ``incinerator'' and apply appropriate
monitoring provisions to vapor combustion units (VCUs) to avoid
subjecting VCUs to inappropriate requirements. The commenter stated
that the EPA should allow VCUs to elect to meet the proposed flare
provisions, as was provided in the Gasoline Distribution rules.
Response: In general, we agree with the commenter. We note that we
had proposed specific requirements for ``enclosed combustion devices''
so we elected to define that term. We recognize that some enclosed
combustion devices may operate more like a flare than like an
incinerator (no direct combustion chamber and no means to control the
amount of air entering the device). In similar situations in other
rules (gasoline distribution rules at 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXa, and
40 CFR part 63, subparts R and BBBBBB, and the oil and gas rule at 40
CFR part 60, subparts OOOOb and OOOOc), we have allowed the enclosed
combustion devices to comply with the flare operating limits rather
than with the temperature operating limit. As such, we agree with the
commenter's suggestion to allow enclosed combustion devices to comply
with the flare operating limits. We have added a definition of both
``enclosed combustion device'' and ``flare'' to help distinguish
between these devices (enclosed combustion devices emit pollutants
through a conveyance suitable to conduct a performance test, and flares
have open or shrouded flames and do not emit pollutants through a
conveyance suitable to conduct a performance test). We note that the
implementation of this provision led to revision of several paragraphs
related to control device operating limits and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to allow ``enclosed
combustion devices electing to comply with Sec. 60.112c(d)(5)'' to be
treated differently than other non-flare combustion devices. We are
retaining the requirement for enclosed combustion devices to conduct a
performance test to demonstrate that the enclosed combustion device is
achieving a 98 percent VOC emission reduction regardless of whether the
enclosed combustion device is complying with the flare operating limits
in 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(5) or the temperature operating limits in 40 CFR
60.113c(c)(1)(ii)(E).
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should clarify in the
final NSPS subpart Kc rule, in the closed vent system and bypass line
provisions, that open-ended valves or lines that use a cap, blind
flange, plug, or second valve are not considered to be bypass lines.
According to the commenter, the EPA should add the text that is in 40
CFR 63.2450(e)(6)(v)(B) of the MON rule to 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(2)(ii) to
clearly exempt these open-ended valves or lines from the bypass
requirements.
Response: We agree with the recommendations to align NSPS subpart
Kc more closely with the provisions in the MON regarding open-ended
valves or lines that use a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve,
and have revised to 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(2)(ii) accordingly.
6. Control Standards for Degassing
Based on the analysis presented at proposal, the EPA proposed
emptying and degassing standards in accordance with the BSER applicable
to: (1) storage vessels equipped with a closed vent system routed to a
control device, fuel gas system, or process; and (2) IFR and EFR
storage vessels that have a capacity of greater than or equal to 1
million gallons storing a VOL with an MTVP greater than or equal to 1.5
psia. These vessels must meet certain requirements while the vapors in
the storage vessel are at or above 10 percent of the LEL. The proposed
standards of performance for degassing emissions reflect a 98 percent
VOC reduction efficiency.
Regarding degassing controls, we are finalizing these provisions
with minor revisions to what was proposed. We are finalizing standards
for storage vessels subject to controlling degassing emissions as
proposed. We are finalizing a requirement that controls must be used
until the vapor space concentration is less than 10 percent of the LEL,
as proposed, but we are also finalizing provisions for nonflammable
liquids to comply with a 5,000 ppmv as methane concentration level
based on comments received, because 5,000 ppmv is equal to 10 percent
LEL if the vapors were methane. We are finalizing that the degassing
emissions that must be controlled must be vented to control
[[Page 83309]]
device that achieves a 98 weight percent VOC reduction or greater as
proposed. We are finalizing additional provisions to check LEL
instrument calibration and instrumental offset response each day the
instrument is used and prior to discontinuing controlled degassing
consistent with LEL measurement requirements for IFR monitoring to
ensure the accuracy of the instrument readings. We are also finalizing
provisions that allow the introduction of chemicals or diluents for the
purpose of reducing vapor concentration before or during active
degassing, after considering comments received.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA should incorporate a
concentration limit for the storage vessel degassing emissions in 40
CFR 60.112c(e) since nonflammable chemicals do not exhibit an LEL. The
commenter requested that the EPA include a concentration limit of less
than 5,000 ppmv as methane as an alternative to the LEL requirement,
consistent with the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous
Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry proposal.
Response: We expect that most VOLs with an MTVP above 1.5 psia will
have some flammability, but we agree that a concentration limit of
5,000 ppmv as methane for nonflammable liquids is appropriate because
5,000 ppmv is the 10 percent LEL of methane and it generally provides a
concentration value that is similar to or lower than the 10 percent LEL
level for heavier organics. For example, 10 percent LEL of butane is as
stringent as or more stringent than 1,900 ppmv as butane or about 7,600
ppmv as methane.
Comment: One commenter noted that some companies flood the bottom
of the tank with a low vapor pressure material to facilitate removal of
residual sludges and/or to reduce the concentration of vapors in the
vapor space of the tank prior to or during active degassing. According
to the commenter, while the proposed rule language does not prohibit
bottom flushing, this practice should be expressly accommodated in the
rule language.
Response: We agree that flooding the bottom of the tank with a low
vapor pressure material is a reasonable control measure for degassing.
As such, we are revising 40 CFR 60.112c(e)(1) to expressly allow the
addition of chemical or a diluent for the purpose of reducing vapor
concentration before or during active degassing.
7. Alternative Means of Emission Limitation
We are finalizing the alternative means of emissions limitation
(AMEL) provisions as proposed except for the addition of two
clarifications. First, at 40 CFR 60.114c(a), we are replacing ``any''
with ``the applicable'' when referencing requirements in 40 CFR
60.112c, to clarify that the equivalency must be made for the same type
of control system (IFR, EFR, or closed vent system routed to a control
device, fuel gas system, or process). This clarification prevents
operators that are using an IFR from reducing the fitting control
requirements finalized for an IFR because, for that size of storage
vessel and stored VOL, the required IFR controls achieve greater than a
98 percent reduction or greater reduction than an EFR meeting the final
EFR requirements. Second, we are clarifying that the written
application to the Administrator in 40 CFR 60.114c(c) may include
either actual emissions test results or an engineering evaluation that
the Administrator determines to be accurate, but it does not
necessarily have to include both.
Comment: One commenter noted the proposed NSPS subpart Kc provides
for requesting an AMEL at 40 CFR 60.114c and this section specifies
that a request for approval of an alternative must include an actual
emissions test; however, there are numerous alternative control
measures that have already been tested and for which the EPA has
published emission factors in AP-42. The commenter stated that the EPA
should not arbitrarily require repeated testing for those control
measures that have already been tested and for which the results have
already been accepted by the EPA. The commenter stated that the
language in 40 CFR 60.114c should be replaced with the language in
NESHAP subpart WW at 40 CFR 63.1064.
Response: We have revised 40 CFR 60.114c(c) such that an AMEL
written application must include either an actual emissions test (that
covers the appropriate range of meteorological conditions) or an
engineering evaluation, which may include use of emission factors as
published in the EPA Report No. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. We reviewed the AMEL provision in NESHAP subpart WW.
The NESHAP subpart WW provisions include a listing of test methods but
do not limit the testing to those methods. As such, we are determining
that the language that is included in the final rule is equivalent to
the provisions in NESHAP subpart WW. We also note that the provisions
in 40 CFR 63.1064(c) allow the use of different combinations of rim and
deck fitting controls ``. . . if the alternate emits no more than the
combination specified in the Sec. 63.1063.'' We interpret this
provision to allow comparisons of fitting controls for IFRs to those
required specifically for IFRs. While we consider that the three
control options we provided are equivalent, we acknowledge that,
depending on the size of tank, volatility of the VOL, and prevailing
meteorological conditions, one of the control configurations (IFR, EFR,
or closed vent system routed to a control device, fuel gas system, or
process) will perform better and one configuration will perform worse
than the other options allowed. We did not intend to allow changes to
the specified control provisions to only require the lowest control
efficiency for a given combination of tank size, VOL stored, and
meteorological conditions. Therefore, we are also clarifying,
consistent with our interpretation of the NESHAP subpart WW provisions,
that the AMEL must compare with the ``applicable'' requirement. That
is, for storage vessels with IFRs, you may request an AMEL for a
different set of fittings, but you must show equivalency with the IFR
requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.112c(b). For storage vessels with
EFRs, the AMEL must show equivalency with the EFR requirements
specified in 40 CFR 60.112c(c). For storage vessels with a closed vent
system routed to a control device, fuel gas system, or process, the
AMEL must show equivalency with the control requirements specified in
40 CFR 60.112c(d). With these revisions, we determine that the final
AMEL provisions in NSPS subpart Kc are consistent with the AMEL
provisions in NESHAP subpart WW.
Since control measures that were determined to be equivalent to
NSPS subpart Kb may not be equivalent to controls required under NSPS
subpart Kc, a new AMEL application must be submitted following 40 CFR
60.114c(c) in order to demonstrate that an AMEL is equivalent to the
requirements in NSPS subpart Kc.
C. NSPS Subpart Kc Without Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemptions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are finalizing in NSPS subpart Kc specific requirements at 40 CFR
60.110c(g) that override the general provisions for SSM requirements.
In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA has considered
[[Page 83310]]
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in this
section of the preamble, has not finalized alternate standards for
those periods. The EPA has determined that the reasoning in the court's
decision in Sierra Club applies equally to CAA section 111 because the
definition of ``emission standard'' in CAA section 302(k), and the
embedded requirement for continuous standards, also applies to the
NSPS.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in caselaw
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards,
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner,'' and
no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in
setting CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable''
standards under CAA section 112) has been upheld as reasonable by the
D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
D. Testing, Monitoring, and Inspection Requirements
Because the NSPS reflect the BSER under conditions of proper
operation and maintenance, we also, in performing our review, evaluate
and determine the proper testing, monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance
with the emission standards. This section of the preamble includes our
discussion of the proposed revisions to testing, monitoring, and
inspection requirements, a summary of the significant comments
received, our responses to the comments, and our final determinations
regarding testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements. Changes to
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are included in the section
for recordkeeping and electronic reporting.
Generally, we proposed testing, monitoring, and inspection
requirements consistent with those in NSPS subpart Kb and other Federal
standards that would provide the best clarity for the specific
requirements along with the following enhancements. The EPA proposed
annual LEL monitoring as an enhancement to the monitoring and
inspection requirements for storage vessels with IFRs. The EPA also
proposed equipping floating roof storage vessels with a visual or
audible alarm system to monitor when the floating roof approaches
specified landing heights. For closed vent systems, the EPA proposed
quarterly AVO inspections, annual EPA Method 21 instrument monitoring,
and monitoring of bypasses. The EPA also proposed that storage vessels
using closed vent systems routed to control devices, fuel gas systems,
or processes must equip pressure relief devices with appropriate
monitoring to identify releases. For storage vessels with closed vent
systems routed to a control device, the EPA proposed that performance
tests must be conducted at least once every 60 months rather than rely
on a single initial performance test. Finally, the EPA proposed
enhanced monitoring requirements for flares consistent with the
Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 63.671).
We are finalizing testing, monitoring, and inspection requirements
as proposed except for the revisions outlined here.
<bullet> We revised the specification of the timing of these
requirements to be ``calendar months'' rather than just ``months,'' to
clarify the timing and allow limited flexibility when scheduling the
required testing or inspections.
<bullet> For IFRs, we are amending the requirements to conduct
internal inspections of the floating roof at least once every 120
calendar months. We are retaining this inspection requirement each time
the vessel is emptied and degassed, but we are not requiring storage
vessels to be taken out of service specifically to conduct this
inspection.
<bullet> We are making minor revisions to the LEL monitoring
calibration procedures. We proposed language used from the gasoline
distribution rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart R), which would require the
correction factor to be based on ``gasoline vapor.'' Because NSPS
subpart Kc is applicable to a much broader range of chemicals, we are
revising references to ``gasoline vapors'' to ``vapors of the stored
VOL.'' We are retaining the use of butane as the surrogate if
correction factors are not available for the vapors of the VOL stored.
<bullet> We are adding specific requirements that fittings on EFR
must be visually inspected during annual seal gap measurement
inspections to ensure that covers are closed and gasketed with no
visible gaps and that there are no tears in sleeves, wipers, or similar
controls used for a given fitting during annual seal gap measurement
inspections. Visual fitting inspections were proposed at 40 CFR
60.113c(b)(7) for inspections conducted when the storage vessel is
emptied and degassed but did not specify fitting conditions that would
result in an inspection failure, and we are adding these details to
clarify the fitting inspection requirements based on comments received.
<bullet> For closed vent systems, we are including an additional
reference at 40 CFR 60.113c(c)(2) for the quarterly AVO monitoring as
required under both the proposed and final requirements at 40 CFR
60.112c(d)(2)(i). We are also revising the provision of 40 CFR
60.113c(c)(3) to clarify that emissions detected using visible,
audible, and olfactory methods are leaks triggering corrective action.
<bullet> Regarding MTVP test methods, we are clarifying that owners
and operators must determine the MTVP of the VOL prior to refilling the
storage vessel with a new VOL. The proposed language only referenced
``initial filling'' and may allow facilities to change VOL without
reassessing the MTVP. However, we considered that, when a new VOL is
stored, that would be an initial filling of that VOL. The rephrasing of
that provision helps to clarify this requirement. Additionally, we are
adding a requirement to use a vapor-to-liquid ratio of 4:1 when using
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6378-22. We proposed
this requirement when using ASTM D6377-20 but consider that the same
provision should apply to both of the MTVP test methods. The EPA's
intention to use a vapor-to-liquid ratio of 4:1 when using ASTM D6378-
22 was detailed in the proposal preamble but was erroneously omitted
from the proposed rule text.
<bullet> Additionally, as noted in section IV.B.5. of this
preamble, we are allowing enclosed combustion devices to comply with
the monitoring provisions for flares as an alternative to the
temperature monitoring requirement.
[[Page 83311]]
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposed monitoring
and inspection requirements for floating roof tanks are inadequate and
must be strengthened to make it more likely that the tanks can reduce
98 percent of VOCs. According to the commenter, at a minimum, the EPA
must require monitoring and inspection in keeping with the current
requirements from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 1178. In addition, the commenter stated that the EPA must make it
explicit that, for IFR visual inspections, the entire perimeter of the
floating roof seal must be visually evaluated, even if that requires
opening multiple manways. The commenter stated that the EPA must also
require quarterly forward-looking infrared measurements from tank
decks.
Response: In general, we considered that we had incorporated much
from the SCAQMD Rule 1178 monitoring provisions in our proposal. We
included LEL monitoring provisions for IFR storage vessels and PRD
monitoring provisions for storage vessels with closed vent systems
routed to a control device, fuel gas system, or process that are
reasonably consistent with the monitoring requirements in SCAQMD Rule
1178. However, upon further review of SCAQMD Rule 1178 and our proposed
inspection requirements, we noted that the inspection requirements we
proposed for EFR storage vessels only covered inspections of the
primary and secondary seals. Visual fitting inspections were proposed
for IFR inspections and mentioned in the proposed inspections at 40 CFR
60.113c(b)(7) when the storage vessel is emptied and degassed. However,
no requirement for fitting inspections were proposed during annual gap
measurements, and the inspections proposed at 40 CFR 60.113c(b)(7) did
not specify fitting conditions that would result in an inspection
failure. After our review of SCAQMD Rule 1178 monitoring and inspection
requirements based on this comment, we are adding specific requirements
that fittings on EFR must be visually inspected during annual seal gap
measurement inspections to ensure that covers are closed and gasketed
with no visible gaps and that there are no tears in sleeves, wipers, or
similar controls used for a given fitting. We are also adding the
conditions under which an inspection failure occurs for the inspections
conducted when the EFR storage vessel is emptied and degassed.
We considered optical gas imaging requirements in previous reviews
of storage vessels, which we reviewed again for NSPS subpart Kc, and
concluded that these requirements were not cost-effective. Regarding
manways, we agree with the commenter's assertion that while performing
IFR visual inspections, the entire perimeter of the floating roof seal
must be visually evaluated, even if that requires opening multiple
manways. We have elected not to add specific rule language, because we
believe that having visual access to the entire primary seal, is
already a necessary component of annual IFR inspections both in the
rule language of NSPS subpart Kc and in the existing rule language of
NSPS subpart Kb. As such, except for the specifications for fitting
inspections for EFR storage vessels, we are not adding additional
monitoring requirements to NSPS subpart Kc.
Comment: Numerous commenters requested that the EPA allow in-
service inspections of IFRs either by providing additional language in
40 CFR 60.113c(a)(2) allowing for top-side inspections when there is
visual access to all deck components or by incorporating an alternate
means of compliance option to comply with NESHAP subpart WW [40 CFR
63.1063(d)(1) and (2)]. The commenters noted that in-service
inspections were allowed in NSPS subpart Kb to avoid the costs and
emissions associated with emptying and degassing vessels for
inspection. If in-service inspections are provided, the commenters
noted, rule revisions may also be needed in the notification
requirements at 40 CFR 60.116c(b)(1) and the reporting requirements at
40 CFR 60.116c(c)(2)(ii).
Response: We had proposed language consistent with NSPS subpart Kb
at 40 CFR 60.113b(a)(4) to require more detailed ``out of service''
inspections at least once every 10 years. The EPA agrees with the
commenter's request to allow for in-service inspections to be performed
entirely from the top side of the floating roof. The EPA is
incorporating language into 40 CFR 60.113c(a)(2)(ii) to allow for in-
service inspections to be performed entirely from the top side of the
floating roof, as long as there is visual access to all deck fittings
and rim seal systems specified in 40 CFR 60.112c(b). We are also adding
repair timelines in 40 CFR 60.112c(b), similar to those already
established for the annual visual inspection. We are also specifying
that a 30-day notification must be provided for inspections in 40 CFR
60.116c(b)(1). Also, we are deleting the phrase ``emptied and degassed
and'' from 40 CFR 60.116c(c)(2)(iii) to account for the reporting of
these in-service inspections.
Comment: One commenter stated that the calibration requirements for
the LEL meter in 40 CFR 60.113c(a)(3)(ii) and (iv) that are specified
for demonstrating compliance with the 25 percent LEL limit for IFR
storage vessels are burdensome and should be simplified to be
consistent with the calibration requirements for the LEL meter within
the storage vessel degassing requirements in 40 CFR 60.112c(e). The
commenter stated that following the procedures for ``calibration and
maintenance according to manufacturer's specifications'' should be
adequate for both sections of the rule. The commenter recommended that
the EPA simplify the language in 40 CFR 60.113c(a)(3)(ii) and (iv)
consistent with the LEL calibration requirements in the storage vessel
degassing section. Another commenter noted that the language at 40 CFR
60.113c(a)(3)(iv) references gasoline vapors and should be generalized
to accommodate other stored VOLs.
Response: We disagree that the LEL calibration requirements in 40
CFR 60.113c(a)(3)(ii) and (iv) are burdensome. These paragraphs allow
the use of manufacturers' calibration methods, and they primarily
specify when calibration checks must be made and specify the LEL span
response. Upon review of the two LEL monitoring requirements, we are
adding more specific calibration requirements for the LEL monitoring
instrument used to monitor degassing. Specifically, we are requiring
calibration and zero offset checks each day and at the end of the
degassing event prior to completion to confirm that the final readings
are accurate before controlled degassing can be discontinued.
With respect to the comment regarding the reference to gasoline
vapors in the calibration requirements at 40 CFR 60.113c(a)(3)(iv), we
agree that the proposed language needed to be generalized. We used
calibration language from the gasoline distribution rule (40 CFR part
63, subpart R), which requires the correction factor to be based on
``gasoline vapor.'' Because NSPS subpart Kc is applicable to a much
broader range of chemicals, we are revising references to ``gasoline
vapors'' to ``vapors of the stored VOL.'' We are, however, retaining
the use of butane as the surrogate if correction factors are not
available for the vapors of the VOL stored, because a surrogate is
needed when no published correction factor is available for the VOL,
and butane is considered a reasonable surrogate for any VOL that does
not have a published correction factor.
Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA Method 21 testing is
laborious, costly, and time-consuming for
[[Page 83312]]
facilities. One commenter believes that the sensory monitoring
provisions as proposed would place undue burdens on operators and would
result in redundancy in monitoring and compliance measures. Both
commenters stated that when coupled with the quarterly sensory testing,
the requirement for annual EPA Method 21 testing is unnecessary. One
commenter submitted a 1997 rule interpretation memorandum written by
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which explained
that the EPA Method 21 test under NSPS subpart Kb is not considered a
performance test under 40 CFR 60.8 since the EPA Method 21 is
considered a screening measurement rather than a performance test,
subject to the recordkeeping requirements in the General Provisions of
40 CFR 60.7(f) and not required to be reported by either NSPS subpart A
or Kb. The commenter requested that the EPA discuss whether the EPA
agrees or disagrees with this guidance and whether the interpretation
also applies to NSPS subpart Kc.
Response: We disagree that quarterly AVO monitoring is burdensome.
If a leak is found via AVO monitoring, it triggers corrective action.
Additionally, we disagree that annual EPA Method 21 monitoring is
unnecessary, because EPA Method 21 will detect small emissions sources
that are above 500 ppm but that would remain undetected by AVO
monitoring. The closed vent system is to be operated ``with no
detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument reading of less than
500 ppm above background and visual inspections, as determined in part
60, subpart VV, Sec. 60.485(b).'' In the case of NSPS subpart Kb, 40
CFR 60.113b(c) states: ``The owner or operator of each source that is
equipped with a closed vent system and control device as required in
Sec. 60.112b (a)(3) or (b)(2) (other than a flare) is exempt from
Sec. 60.8 of the General Provisions and shall meet the following
requirements.'' As such, the language in NSPS subpart Kb indicates that
40 CFR 60.8 does not apply.
For NSPS subpart Kc, we used language that the closed vent system
must operate ``. . . with no detectable emissions as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppmv above background . . .'' (see
40 CFR 60.112c(d)(2)), but there is no clear exemption from 40 CFR 60.8
in 40 CFR 60.113c(c)(2). Nonetheless, we agree that the requirements in
40 CFR 60.8 do not apply to EPA Method 21 instrument monitoring under
NSPS subpart Kb. Unlike in NSPS subpart Kb, we proposed and are
finalizing reporting requirements in NSPS subpart Kc for EPA Method 21
instrument monitoring events. In reviewing the proposed NSPS subpart Kc
provisions related to EPA Method 21 and AVO monitoring, we recognized
that we focused on the instrument monitoring requirements when using
EPA Method 21 and inadvertently neglected to mention the AVO inspection
requirements. Therefore, we are adding reference to the monthly AVO
monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 60.113c(c)(2) consistent with the
requirement under the proposed and final requirements at 40 CFR
60.112c(d)(2)(i), and we are revising the provision of 40 CFR
60.113c(c)(3) to clarify that emissions detected using AVO methods are
``leaks'' triggering corrective action. This latter revision also
clarifies that leaks identified from AVO monitoring do not trigger the
need to conduct EPA Method 21 monitoring of an AVO-identified leak. In
our review, we also identified a lack of reporting requirements related
to AVO-identified leaks. Therefore, we have also revised what we
proposed for recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 60.115c(d)(3)(v) and
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 60.116c(f)(8)(ii) to indicate the type
of monitoring conducted and to report information regarding all leaks
identified, not just those identified during EPA Method 21 instrument
monitoring.
Comment: Several commenters requested revisions to the vapor
pressure testing requirements for mixtures of indeterminate or variable
composition to define the term ``variable'' and to not require the
initial and repeat physical testing for liquids whose upper and lower
bounds of vapor pressure are known or are readily calculated using
standard reference texts and good engineering judgment.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the concept of
``variable compositions'' of stored liquid mixtures for which the
proposed rule would require initial and repeat physical testing to
determine MTVP could be applied more broadly than intended. Thus, in 40
CFR 60.113c(d)(1) of the final rule, we are clarifying that for
mixtures of variable composition, if the range of concentrations for
each constituent is known such that the MTVP can be determined from
data and procedures in standard reference texts, then physical testing
is not required. Similarly, under the final rule, physical testing is
not required for crude oils and refined petroleum products for which
Reid vapor pressure is known and MTVP can be determined from nomographs
and other procedures described in reference texts such as AP-42.
Additionally, in 40 CFR 60.113c(d)(2) we have clarified that the
provisions apply to affected storage vessels storing a mixture of
indeterminate composition or a mixture of unknown variable composition.
E. Recordkeeping and Electronic Reporting
The EPA is finalizing a requirement that owners and operators of
new, modified, or reconstructed VOL storage vessels subject to NSPS
subpart Kc maintain records of the results of required testing,
monitoring, and inspections. The EPA is finalizing a requirement that
owners and operators of VOL storage vessels subject to the current and
new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Kb and Kc, submit electronic
copies of required performance test reports and the semiannual excess
emissions and continuous monitoring system performance and summary
reports, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
We are finalizing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
similar to those proposed except that some of the revisions made to the
standards, testing, and monitoring provisions required revision of the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the final rule. The
revisions to the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements and
our rationale for making the revisions are summarized in this section.
<bullet> As noted in section IV.D. of this preamble, we are
revising the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR
60.115c(d)(3)(v) and 60.116c(c)(8)(ii) to include the type of
monitoring conducted and to report information regarding all leaks
identified, including leaks identified using AVO methods.
<bullet> As noted in section IV.B.5. of this preamble, we separated
PRD monitoring requirements to separately address devices on storage
vessels and devices on the closed vent system and included provisions
to monitor vacuum breaking devices on storage vessels. In reviewing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to these provisions,
we noted that we had proposed reporting requirements for PRDs, but we
failed to include recordkeeping requirements for PRDs. Therefore, we
are adding recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 60.115c(d)(3)(vii) for
PRDs or vacuum breaking devices on a storage vessel or closed vent
system that include: the device type; the monitoring device or system
used for the device; data from
[[Page 83313]]
the device or system indicating whether a pressure release occurred;
and the date, time, and duration of each pressure release, if
applicable. We are also adding reporting requirements at 40 CFR
60.116c(c)(12) for each pressure release that occurred as a result of a
vacuum breaking device that failed to close prior to the storage vessel
reaching atmospheric pressure. The added reporting requirements
include: identification of the vacuum breaking device; start date,
start time, and duration (in minutes) of the pressure release; and an
estimate of the mass quantity in pounds of VOL released. These
requirements mimic the pressure release reporting requirements proposed
(and being finalized) for PRDs, and these similar reporting
requirements are needed to document compliance with or deviations from
the requirements for vacuum breaking devices used for storage vessels
using a closed vent system routed to a control device.
<bullet> As noted in section IV.B.5. of this preamble, we are
including alternative provisions that allow enclosed combustion devices
to comply with the flare operating and monitoring requirements. We
include minor revisions to the proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements commensurate with the provided alternative, to specify
which recordkeeping and reporting requirements apply to control systems
``other than flares or enclosed combustion devices electing to comply
with Sec. 60.112c(d)(5)'' and which recordkeeping and reporting
requirements apply to ``flares or enclosed combustion devices electing
to comply with Sec. 60.112c(d)(5).'' We are also adding a reporting
requirement for the initial notification at 40 CFR 60.116c(a)(6) that
includes a requirement to specify the type of control device used and
the compliance option selected, which, if an enclosed combustion device
is used, include whether the device is complying with a temperature
operating limit or is instead electing to comply with the flare
requirements in 40 CFR 60.112c(d)(5). This initial notification
requirement will be useful for EPA permitting and enforcement personnel
to clearly understand the compliance option being elected for the
enclosed combustion device.
<bullet> For EFRs, as discussed in section IV.D. of this preamble,
we added requirements to visually inspect the roof fittings (such as
access hatches, gauge floats, gauge hatch/sample wells, rim vents, deck
drains, deck legs, vacuum breakers, pontoon covers, and guidepoles)
when gap measurements are conducted. We are adding to the list at 40
CFR 60.116c(c)(5)(vi)(A) to include reference to deviations of the
fitting controls outlined in 40 CFR 60.113c(b)(4)(iii)(A) through (D)
to allow reporting of fitting deviations identified during the gap
measurement inspections.
<bullet> As discussed in the comment and response included in this
section of the preamble, we are revising what we proposed for the
timing of semiannual compliance reports to either cover fixed time
periods (from January 1 to June 30 or July 1 to December 31) or align
with established reporting dates based on 40 CFR parts 70 or 71 permit
requirements. The proposed schedule for semiannual reports appeared to
require separate semiannual reports for different affected storage
vessels at a facility depending on when the storage vessel became
affected under NSPS subpart Kc. Because facilities may have several
affected storage vessels under NSPS subpart Kc, having fixed reporting
periods simplifies the reporting requirements for these facilities.
Comment: Numerous commenters requested that the EPA revise NSPS
subpart Kc so that reporting requirements are consistent with other
reporting obligations and establish the same semiannual reporting
deadline for all VOL storage vessels. The commenters noted that, as
proposed, it appeared that each affected VOL storage vessel could have
a separate reporting schedule depending on when the sources became
affected sources under NSPS subpart Kc. The commenters recommended that
the EPA require the annual reports to cover activities in set time
periods (January 1 through June 30 or July 1 through December 31, as
applicable). One commenter also recommended that the EPA include an
alternative that would allow each affected facility subject to
permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR parts 70 or 71 to align the
semiannual reports with established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).
Response: First, we never intended to have different semiannual
compliance report schedules for different storage vessels at a given
facility. We note that the reporting form template was designed to
allow reporting of all storage vessels at the facility in one
semiannual report. However, we agree that, because the affected
facility is each VOL storage vessel, the proposed requirements at 40
CFR 60.116c(d) could be interpreted to impose different reporting
schedules for different storage vessels if they become affected
facilities in different months. Several commenters suggested that the
semiannual reports cover fixed timeframes, specifically January through
June and July through December. This appears reasonable. One commenter
also suggested including reference to semiannual reports under 40 CFR
parts 70 or 71 in the event that the current semiannual reporting
period is different from January through June and July through
December. This also appears reasonable. Therefore, we are providing a
fixed timeframe for the semiannual reports (January through June and
July through December) and providing an alternative timeframe to
harmonize with other semiannual reports as scheduled under 40 CFR parts
70 or 71, if different from the fixed timeframe being finalized. We
clarify that the first semiannual compliance report is triggered by the
date on which the first storage vessel at the facility becomes an
affected facility subject to NSPS subpart Kc and would cover, for
example, April 15 through June 30 if the source becomes an affected
facility on April 15. As new storage vessels become affected facilities
under NSPS subpart Kc, the information for those storage vessels will
be added to the semiannual report. These semiannual reporting
requirements simplify the reporting requirements compared to the timing
proposed and allow alignment of the semiannual reports provided for
NSPS subpart Kc with other reporting requirements that may apply for
the facility.
F. Other Final Amendments
1. Editorial Corrections
We received a number of comments regarding editorial,
typographical, and cross-reference corrections that we agree with and
are finalizing. Additionally, we received comments recommending
clarification of requirement language to reduce misinterpretation.
After reviewing these comments, we are revising some language in the
final rule. We are revising references of ``a control'' to ``a control
device.'' Beyond these changes, the EPA made several revisions
throughout NSPS subpart Kc to improve clarity.
One commenter recommended that the EPA clarify in 40 CFR
60.113c(d)(1) that the requirement to determine MTVP is not a one-time
requirement, as implied by the word ``initial,'' but also applies to
non-anticipated tank service changes. We agree that if the VOL stored
in the storage vessel changes, the MTVP should be reassessed. We are
revising 40 CFR 60.113c(d)(1) to require that this determination be
made prior to the
[[Page 83314]]
initial filling of the storage vessel or to the refilling of the
storage vessel with a new VOL.
One commenter recommended that in 40 CFR 60.115c(d)(5)(i) and 40
CFR 60.116c(c)(10)(i)(A) the EPA should add ``or flare flame'' to any
occurrence of ``pilot flame'' consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR
60.112c(d)(5)(iv) and 40 CFR 60.113c(c)(1)(iv)(B). We are revising 40
CFR 60.115c(d)(5)(i) and 40 CFR 60.116c(c)(10)(i)(A) accordingly.
2. Definitions
We received several comments recommending the inclusion of
definitions that were not included in the proposal. Additionally, we
received comments recommending definition revisions. This section of
the preamble summarizes major comments received concerning definitions
and provides our responses to those comments.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the EPA define the
term ``pressure relief device'' in NSPS subpart Kc and provided a
suggested definition:
Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar
device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of
gas from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or
equipment damage. A pressure relief device discharge can result from
an operator error, a malfunction such as a power failure or
equipment failure, or other unexpected cause. Such devices include
conventional, spring-actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief
valves, pilot-operated relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking,
buckling, or shearing pin devices. Devices that are actuated either
by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch
gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure relief devices.
Response: We agree with the commenters and are including a
definition of ``pressure relief device'' in NSPS subpart Kc similar to
the commenters' suggestion. For storage vessels, we consider
``conservation vents'' to be PRDs. These conservation vents typically
have actuation pressure less than 2.5 psig. As such, the last sentence
in our final definition reflects a change from the last sentence in our
proposed definition to only exclude vacuum breaking devices from the
definition of ``pressure relief devices.'' We are also clarifying that,
if a device has both a pressure relief function and a vacuum breaking
function, such as a conservation vent, the portion of the conservation
vent that acts to relieve pressure is considered a PRD and the portion
of the conservation vent that acts to relieve vacuum is a vacuum
breaking device and not a PRD. We are also adding a definition of
``vacuum breaking device,'' which is specific to the fixed roof portion
of the storage vessel and a vacuum breaker which is a component of a
floating roof.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA define the term
``pressure release.''
Response: We are adding a definition of ``pressure release'' to 40
CFR 60.111c. We are including in the definition of ``pressure release''
emissions of materials resulting from a vacuum breaking device failing
to close prior to the system reaching atmospheric pressure.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA define the terms
``vapor balancing system,'' ``fuel gas,'' ``fuel gas system,'' and
``routed to a process or route to a process.''
Response: We determined that vapor balancing is not appropriate or
equivalent to the BSER identified for VOL storage vessels. As such, we
are not including a definition of ``vapor balancing system'' in NSPS
subpart Kc. We disagree with the commenter's request to define ``fuel
gas'' because the ``fuel gas system'' definition is sufficient. We are
finalizing definitions for ``fuel gas system'' and ``routed to a
process or route to a process'' in NSPS subpart Kc.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA define
``degassing'' with language consistent with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) definition.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter to define
``degassing''; however, the TCEQ definition is insufficient as there
may be other reasons to empty and degas a storage vessel other than
cleaning. While we agree that cleaning may be a step in the process, we
expect degassing to occur for other reasons. We are finalizing a
definition for ``degassing'' in NSPS subpart Kc to clarify this point.
G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the effective date of the
final rule requirements in subpart Kc will be the promulgation date.
Affected sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after October 4, 2023, must comply with all requirements
of subpart Kc no later than the effective date of the final rule or
upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA is finalizing amendments to
NSPS subpart Kb to include electronic submission requirements. Affected
NSPS subpart Kb sources that commence construction, reconstruction, or
modification after July 23, 1984, and before October 4, 2023, must
comply with the updated requirements to submit reports electronically
no later than the effective date of the final rule.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final provisions in NSPS subpart Kc reduce emissions of VOCs,
some of which may also be hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The EPA
estimates that the final standards will reduce VOC emissions by 1,085
tons per year, which includes the impacts from new, modified, and
reconstructed storage vessels. More information regarding the air
quality impacts and emission reductions are included in the memorandum
Control Options for Storage Vessels (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0358-0002).
B. What are the cost impacts?
This final action will cost (in 2022 dollars) approximately $21.1
million in total capital cost and result in a total annualized cost of
$5.38 million per year (including product recovery) based on our
analysis of the final actions in NSPS subpart Kc. More information
about the estimated cost of the final actions can be found in the
memorandum Control Options for Storage Vessels (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2023-0358-0002).
C. What are the economic impacts?
For economic impact analyses (EIA) of rules that directly affect a
single industry or a few industries, the EPA often prepares a partial
equilibrium analysis. In this type of economic analysis, the focus of
the effort is on estimating impacts on a single affected industry or
several affected industries, and all impacts of this rule on industries
outside of those affected are assumed to be zero or so inconsequential
as to not be considered in the analysis. If the compliance costs, which
are key inputs to an EIA, are quite insignificant, then the impact
analysis could consist of a calculation of annual (or annualized) costs
as a percentage of sales for affected companies. This latter type of
analysis is called a screening analysis and is applied when a partial
equilibrium or more complex EIA approach is deemed not necessary given
the expected size of the impacts.
The net present value of the estimated cost impacts of NSPS subpart
Kc is $19.4 million, discounted at a 3 percent rate over a 5-year
analytic timeframe from 2024 to 2028 in 2022 dollars. Using a 7 percent
discount rate, the net present value of the estimated cost impacts is
$17.3 million. The equivalent annualized value in 2022 dollars is a
[[Page 83315]]
cost of approximately $4.1 million using a discount rate of either 3 or
7 percent.
Storage vessels in NSPS subpart Kb are most closely associated with
the petroleum and coal products industry (NAICS 324000), the chemical
products industry (NAICS 325000), and the petroleum bulk stations and
terminals industry (NAICS 424710). While we do not know the precise
distribution of new and modified storage vessels across the affected
sectors, we know that there are affected storage vessels in the sectors
mentioned earlier in this preamble. These sectors contribute gross
value added, ranging from $200 to $501 billion per sector, to the
national economy. In comparison, the requirements in NSPS subpart Kc
have estimated total costs of $21 million. The total cost is the total
incurred collectively amongst numerous sectors, and each of the sectors
examined has sales of at least $200 billion. Thus, the compliance costs
of this action are insignificant relative to the scale for the sectors
affected, and it is appropriate to evaluate the economic impacts by
conducting a screening analysis comparing the costs to entity-level
sales.
Given the results of the analysis, these economic impacts are
relatively low for affected industries and entities impacted by this
final rule, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets
for affected products. The costs of the final rule are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. We also expect
minimal impacts on employment.
D. What are the benefits?
The final provisions in NSPS subpart Kc would reduce emissions of
VOCs, some of which may also be HAPs. Because VOCs react in the
atmosphere to produce ozone, these standards would help to reduce
atmospheric ozone concentrations and reduce health effects associated
with high levels of ozone. Furthermore, the final requirements to
submit reports and test results electronically would improve
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, under Executive Order
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, the EPA relies upon its June
2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it
could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis, U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3--
Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis">https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this action finalizes standards of performance for new,
modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after
October 4, 2023, the locations of the construction of new VOL storage
vessels are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the
existing facilities will be modified or reconstructed in the future.
Therefore, we are unable to quantitatively estimate the potential
environmental justice impact of NSPS subpart Kc. Over the next 5 years,
the EPA estimates that 1,440 new tanks and 30 modified tanks would be
subject to NSPS subpart Kc. We estimate that there are more than 10,000
existing VOL storage vessels, but we do not have a list of specific
storage vessels and their locations. Therefore, we cannot perform a
proximity demographic analysis of populations near existing units as a
proxy for units that may be modified or reconstructed and become
subject to NSPS subpart Kc. Finally, because we based the analysis of
the impacts and emission reductions on model plants, we cannot
ascertain specifically how the potential benefits of this rule would be
distributed across the population. Thus, we are limited in our ability
to estimate the potential EJ impacts of this rule.
The EPA expects that NSPS subpart Kc will ensure compliance via
revised vapor pressure applicability thresholds, stricter seal
requirements on IFR tanks, equivalent control requirements for EFRs,
and strengthened closed vent system standards for vessels routed to a
control device, fuel gas system, or process. This action finalizes
standards of performance that apply at all times (including periods of
SSM) and achieve an average 98 percent control efficiency. The rule
will also increase data transparency through electronic reporting.
Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity to any
future affected sources, including in communities potentially
overburdened by pollution, which are often communities with EJ
concerns, will be minimized due to the compliance with the standards of
performance being finalized in this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2791.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approves them.
The EPA is finalizing requirements for storage vessels, including
periodic inspections based on the type of storage vessel. This
information will be collected to assure compliance with NSPS subpart
Kc.
[[Page 83316]]
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of VOL storage
vessels.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kc).
Estimated number of respondents: 588.
Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
Total estimated burden: 16,394 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,009,357 (per year), includes $528,240 in
annualized capital and no operation or maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses and small governmental jurisdictions that own or operate VOL
storage vessels. The Agency has determined that small entities may
experience an impact of likely below 1 percent relative to sales for
any affected small entity, and an even larger margin before it would
approach a 1 percent impact for a substantial number of small entities.
Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum Economic
Impact Analysis for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Tanks) included in the docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does have Tribal implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. NSPS subpart Kb includes provisions for storage vessels
that already have impacts on Tribal governments that have storage
vessels with at least 20,000 gallons of capacity and that meet the
vapor pressure thresholds for general rule applicability or control
applicability. NSPS subpart Kc includes updates to the VOC standards
and monitoring requirements for storage vessels that meet the revised
vapor pressure thresholds for control. Additionally, basic requirements
for determining a VOL's MTVP, recordkeeping, and good air pollution
control practices are being finalized for all storage vessels greater
than 20,000 gallons that only store VOLs with an MTVP greater than or
equal to 0.25 psia. These changes will only impact storage vessels that
are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after the proposal date.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered government-to-government
consultation with Tribes by sending a letter dated October 3, 2023,
inviting all federally recognized Tribes to request a consultation. The
EPA received one request for consultation. On November 8, 2023, the EPA
met with the Tribe for the purposes of discussing NSPS subpart Kc and
other issues but were unable to conduct consultation on this specific
rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The final rule will reduce emissions
of VOCs, some of which may also be HAPs. These standards will help to
reduce atmospheric ozone concentrations and reduce health effects
associated with high levels of ozone and are projected to improve
overall health, including that of children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action for NSPS subparts Kb and Kc involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. However, the
Agency identified no such standards. Searches were conducted for EPA
Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18,
21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The EPA has decided to
use EPA Methods 21, 22, and 25A. Additional information for the
voluntary consensus standard search and determinations can be found in
the memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Review
of Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels
(Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels). All potential standards
were reviewed to determine the practicality of the voluntary consensus
standards for this rule. Although there were no applicable voluntary
consensus standards identified, we are finalizing the proposal to amend
40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference two ASTM methods as discussed
in section III.M. of the proposal preamble (88 FR 68550; October 4,
2023). These include the following:
<bullet> ASTM D6377-20, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure of Crude Oil: VPCRx (Expansion Method). The method is an
automated device method for measuring vapor pressures for crude oils
samples between 29 kPa and 180 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C. The method is
suitable for testing with a 4:1 vapor-liquid ratio.
<bullet> ASTM D6378-22, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method). The method is
an automated device method for measuring vapor pressures between 7 kPa
and 150 kPa at 37.8 [deg]C for tested samples with boiling points at 0
[deg]C. The method is suitable for volatile organic liquids,
[[Page 83317]]
hydrocarbons and liquid petroleum products sampled at a 4:1 vapor-
liquid ratio.
The ASTM standards are available from ASTM, International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
See <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a>.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the
human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this
action result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities
with EJ concerns. Over the next 5 years, the EPA estimates that 1,440
new tanks and 30 modified tanks will be subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
However, the locations of any new VOL storage vessels that would be
subject to NSPS subpart Kc are not known. Furthermore, there is
insufficient data available regarding the locations of existing VOL
storage vessels. The EPA estimates that there are more than 10,000
existing storage vessels subject to NSPS subpart Kb, but we do not have
a list of specific storage vessels and their locations. Therefore, we
cannot perform a proximity demographic analysis of populations near
existing storage vessels as a proxy for storage vessels that may be
modified or reconstructed and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc.
Finally, because we based the analysis of the impacts and emission
reductions on model plants, we cannot ascertain specifically how the
potential benefits of this rule would be distributed across the
population. Thus, we are limited in our ability to estimate the
potential EJ impacts of this rule.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in section V.E. of this document. All pertinent supporting documents
such as the technical memorandum, Control Options for Storage Vessels
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0358-0002), which discusses the costs
and environmental impacts of the regulatory options considered, is in
the docket.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending part 60 of title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 60.17 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(198) through (233) as (h)(200) through
(235); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (h)(198) and (199).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(198) ASTM D6377-20, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure of Crude Oil: VPCR<INF>x</INF> (Expansion Method),
(Approved June 1, 2020); IBR approved for Sec. 60.113c.
(199) ASTM-D6378-22, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, Hydrocarbons, and
Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method), (Approved
July 1, 2022); IBR approved for Sec. 60.113c.
* * * * *
Subpart Kb--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
July 23, 1984, and On or Before October 4, 2023
0
3. Revise the heading of subpart Kb to read as set out above.
0
4. Amend Sec. 60.110b by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.110b Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the
affected facility to which this subpart applies is each storage vessel
with a capacity greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters (m\3\) that is
used to store volatile organic liquids (VOL) for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification is commenced after July 23, 1984, and
on or before October 4, 2023.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 60.115b by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.115b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(a) After installing control equipment in accordance with Sec.
60.112b(a)(1) (fixed roof and internal floating roof), the owner or
operator shall meet the following requirements.
(1) Furnish the Administrator with a report that describes the
control equipment and certifies that the control equipment meets the
specifications of Sec. 60.112b(a)(1) and Sec. 60.113b(a)(1). Prior to
October 15, 2024, this report shall be an attachment to the
notification required by Sec. 60.7(a)(3). Beginning October 15, 2024,
the owner or operator must submit all subsequent reports in PDF format
following the procedures specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Keep a record of each inspection performed as required by Sec.
60.113b(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). Each record shall identify
the storage vessel on which the inspection was performed and shall
contain the date the vessel was inspected and the observed condition of
each component of the control equipment (seals, internal floating roof,
and fittings).
(3) If any of the conditions described in Sec. 60.113b(a)(2) are
detected during the annual visual inspection required by Sec.
60.113b(a)(2), a report shall be furnished to the Administrator within
30 days of the inspection. Each report shall identify the storage
vessel, the nature of the defects, and the date the storage vessel was
emptied or the nature of and date the repair was made. Beginning
October 15, 2024, all subsequent reports must be submitted in PDF
format following the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) After each inspection required by Sec. 60.113b(a)(3) that
finds holes or tears in the seal or seal fabric, or defects in the
internal floating roof, or other control equipment defects listed in
Sec. 60.113b(a)(3)(ii), a report shall be furnished to the
Administrator within 30 days of the inspection. The report shall
identify the storage vessel and the
[[Page 83318]]
reason it did not meet the specifications of Sec. 60.112b(a)(1) or
Sec. 60.113b(a)(3) and list each repair made. Beginning October 15,
2024, all subsequent reports must be submitted in PDF format following
the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) After installing control equipment in accordance with Sec.
60.112b(a)(2) (external floating roof), the owner or operator shall
meet the following requirements.
(1) Furnish the Administrator with a report that describes the
control equipment and certifies that the control equipment meets the
specifications of Sec. 60.112b(a)(2) and Sec. 60.113b(b)(2), (b)(3),
and (b)(4). Prior to October 15, 2024, this report shall be an
attachment to the notification required by Sec. 60.7(a)(3). Beginning
October 15, 2024, the owner or operator must submit all subsequent
reports in PDF format following the procedures specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(2) Within 60 days of performing the seal gap measurements required
by Sec. 60.113b(b)(1), furnish the Administrator with a report that
contains the following information. Beginning October 15, 2024, all
subsequent reports must be submitted in PDF format following the
procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(i) The date of measurement;
(ii) The raw data obtained in the measurement; and
(iii) The calculations described in Sec. 60.113b(b)(2) and (b)(3).
(3) Keep a record of each gap measurement performed as required by
Sec. 60.113b(b). Each record shall identify the storage vessel in
which the measurement was performed and shall contain:
(i) The date of measurement;
(ii) The raw data obtained in the measurement; and
(iii) The calculations described in Sec. 60.113b(b)(2) and (b)(3).
(4) After each seal gap measurement that detects gaps exceeding the
limitations specified by Sec. 60.113b(b)(4), submit a report to the
Administrator within 30 days of the inspection. The report will
identify the vessel and contain the information specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section and the date the vessel was emptied or the
repairs made and date of repair. Beginning October 15, 2024, all
subsequent reports must be submitted in PDF format following the
procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) After installing a closed vent system and flare to comply with
Sec. 60.112b, the owner or operator shall meet the following
requirements.
(1) A report containing the measurements required by Sec.
60.18(f)(1) through (6) shall be furnished to the Administrator as
required by Sec. 60.8 of the General Provisions. This report shall be
submitted within 6 months of the initial start-up date. Beginning
October 15, 2024, all subsequent reports must be submitted in PDF
format following the procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Records shall be kept of all periods of operation during which
the flare pilot flame is absent.
(3) Semiannual reports of all periods recorded under Sec.
60.115b(d)(2) in which the pilot flame was absent shall be furnished to
the Administrator. Beginning October 15, 2024, all subsequent reports
must be submitted in PDF format following the procedures specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) An owner or operator required to submit notifications or
reports following the procedures specified in this paragraph (e) must
submit notifications or reports to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (<a href="https://cdx.epa.gov/">https://cdx.epa.gov/</a>).
The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available
to the public without further notice to the owner or operator. Do not
use CEDRI to submit information the owner or operator claims as CBI.
Although the EPA does not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if
an owner or operator wishes to assert a CBI claim for some of the
information in the report or notification, the owner or operator must
submit a complete file in the format specified in this subpart,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the
procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information claimed to be CBI. Information not
marked as CBI may be authorized for public release without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims
must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public.
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made
publicly available. The owner or operator must submit the same file
submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the
EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (e).
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80efe1f1f0f3e3e2e9c0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3bcb2a2a3a0b0b1ba93b6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>, and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings, and be flagged to the attention of the NSPS Kb Lead. Owners
and operators who do not have their own file sharing service and who
require assistance with submitting large electronic files that exceed
the file size limit for email attachments should email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af5fbebeae9f9f8f3daffeafbb4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c232d3d3c3f2f2e250c293c2d622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>
to request a file transfer link.
(2) If an owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS
Document Control Officer and NSPS Kb Lead, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W.
Alexander, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711. The mailed CBI material
should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should
not show through the outer envelope.
(f) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the
electronic submittal requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system
outage, owners and operators must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
[[Page 83319]]
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(g) Owners and operators required to electronically submit
notifications or reports through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX may assert a
claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the electronic
submittal requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) An owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) The owner or operator must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the report was submitted.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
6. Amend Sec. 60.116b by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.116b Monitoring of operations.
* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, the owner
or operator of each storage vessel either with a design capacity
greater than or equal to 151 m\3\ storing a liquid with a maximum true
vapor pressure that is normally less than 5.2 kPa or with a design
capacity greater than or equal to 75 m\3\ but less than 151 m\3\
storing a liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure that is normally
less than 27.6 kPa shall notify the Administrator within 30 days when
the maximum true vapor pressure of the liquid exceeds the respective
maximum true vapor pressure values for each volume range. Beginning
October 15, 2024, all subsequent notifications must be submitted in PDF
format following the procedures specified in Sec. 60.115b(e).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 60.117b by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.117b Delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: Sec. Sec.
60.111b(f)(4), 60.114b, 60.116b(e)(3)(iii), 60.116b(e)(3)(iv), and
60.116b(f)(2)(iii), and approval of an alternative to any electronic
reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
0
8. Add subpart Kc consisting of Sec. Sec. 60.110c through 60.117c to
part 60 to read as follows:
Subpart Kc--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
October 4, 2023
Sec.
60.110c Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.111c Definitions.
60.112c Standard for volatile organic compounds (VOC).
60.113c Testing, monitoring, and inspection procedures.
60.114c Alternative means of emission limitation.
60.115c Recordkeeping requirements.
60.116c Reporting requirements.
60.117c Delegation of authority.
Sec. 60.110c Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the
affected facility to which this subpart applies is each storage vessel
with a capacity greater than or equal to 20,000 gallons (gal) (75.7
cubic meters (m\3\)) that is used to store volatile organic liquids
(VOL) for which construction, reconstruction, or modification is
commenced after October 4, 2023.
(b) This subpart does not apply to the following:
(1) Vessels at coke oven by-product plants;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 29.7 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia) (204.9 kilopascals (kPa) absolute) and
without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels permanently attached to mobile vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(4) Vessels with a design capacity less than or equal to 420,000
gal (1,589.874 m\3\) used for petroleum or condensate stored,
processed, or treated prior to custody transfer;
(5) Vessels located at bulk gasoline plants as defined in 40 CFR
63.11100;
(6) Vessels located at gasoline service stations;
(7) Vessels used to store beverage alcohol; or
(8) Vessels that only store VOL with a maximum true vapor pressure
less than 0.25 psia (1.7 kPa absolute).
(c) Storage vessels that are affected facilities according to
paragraph (a) of this section for which construction or reconstruction
commenced after October 4, 2023 are subject to the standards in Sec.
60.112c and the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.113c
through 60.116c as new sources any time they meet the specifications in
either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, regardless of whether
they initially contained VOL with a maximum true vapor pressure below
the applicable threshold in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 40,000
gal (151 m\3\) containing a VOL that, as stored, has a maximum true
vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.5 psia (3.4 kPa).
(2) Storage vessels with a capacity greater than or equal to 20,000
gal (75.7
[[Page 83320]]
m\3\) but less than 40,000 gal (151 m\3\) containing a VOL that, as
stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 1.5
psia (10.3 kPa).
(d) Storage vessels that are affected facilities according to
paragraph (a) of this section for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before October 4, 2023, (``existing storage vessels'')
and are modified after October 4, 2023, are subject to the standards in
Sec. 60.112c and the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.113c
through 60.116c as modified sources any time they meet the
specifications in either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For an existing storage vessel with a capacity greater than or
equal to 40,000 gal (151 m\3\), containing a VOL that, as stored, has a
maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.5 psia (3.4
kPa).
(2) For an existing storage vessel with a capacity greater than or
equal to 20,000 gal (75.7 m\3\) but less than 40,000 gal (151 m\3\),
containing a VOL that, as stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure
equal to or greater than 1.5 psia (10.3 kPa).
(e) For the purposes of this subpart,
(1) The phrase ``change in the method of operation of, an existing
facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant'' in the
definition of modification in Sec. 60.2 or ``operational change to an
existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to
the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies'' in Sec.
60.14(a) means a change in operation occurs if the storage vessel is
used to store a VOL that has a greater maximum true vapor pressure than
all VOL historically stored or permitted; and
(2) The exemption in Sec. 60.14(e)(4) regarding alternative fuel
or raw material does not apply to storage vessels.
(f) Storage vessels that are affected facilities according to
paragraph (a) of this section and do not meet the criteria in either
paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), or (d)(2) of this section are subject
to the requirements in Sec. 60.113c(d), if applicable, and Sec.
60.115c(b).
(g) All standards including emission limitations shall apply at all
times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. As
provided in Sec. 60.11(f), this paragraph (g) supersedes the
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in subpart
A of this part.
(h) Owners or operators may choose to comply with the provisions of
this subpart to demonstrate compliance with subparts K, Ka, and Kb of
this part. Compliance with the provisions of this subpart, including
all control requirements, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
will constitute compliance with the applicable storage vessel
provisions in subparts K, Ka, and Kb.
(i) Owners or operators may choose to comply with this subpart to
demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW for storage
vessels equipped with an internal or external floating roof that is
subject to this subpart and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Compliance with
this subpart, including all floating roof requirements, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements, will constitute compliance with the
applicable storage vessel provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
Sec. 60.111c Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of
this part, or in this section as follows:
Access hatch means an opening in the roof with a vertical well and
a cover attached to it. Access hatch provides passage for workers and
materials through the roof for construction or maintenance.
Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from natural gas that
condenses due to changes in the temperature or pressure, or both, and
remains liquid at standard conditions.
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 vapor from an
emission point to a control device. Closed vent system does not include
the vapor collection system that is part of any tank truck or railcar.
Custody transfer means the transfer of produced petroleum and/or
condensate, after processing and/or treatment in the producing
operations, from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities to
pipelines or any other forms of transportation.
Degassing means the process of removing VOL vapors from a storage
vessel during, or in preparation of, cleaning or when taking the
storage vessel out of service for inspection, repair, or other reason.
Enclosed combustion device means a thermal combustion device used
to mix and ignite fuel, air pollutants, and air to provide a flame to
heat and oxidize air pollutants and that emits the oxidized pollutants
through a conveyance suitable to conduct a performance test. An
enclosed combustion device may have recovery heat to preheat combustion
air, but its primary purpose is for emission control and not to produce
useful heat. Enclosed combustion devices include, but are not limited
to, thermal oxidizers and incinerators. For the purpose of this
subpart, process heaters and boilers are not enclosed combustion
devices.
External floating roof means a pontoon-type or double-deck type
cover that rests on the liquid surface in a storage vessel without a
fixed roof.
Fill means the introduction of VOL into a storage vessel but not
necessarily to complete capacity.
Flare means a thermal combustion device using an open or shrouded
flame (without full enclosure) such that the pollutants are not emitted
through a conveyance suitable to conduct a performance test.
Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and control
system that gathers gaseous stream(s) generated by onsite operations,
may blend them with other sources of gas, and transports the gaseous
stream for use as fuel gas in combustion devices, or in- process
combustion equipment such as furnaces and gas turbines, either singly
or in combination.
Gasoline service station means any site where gasoline is dispensed
to motor vehicle fuel tanks from stationary storage vessels.
Gauge float means a device that is used to indicate the level of
liquid within the storage vessel. The float rests on the liquid surface
and is housed inside a well that is closed by a removable cover.
Gauge hatch/sample port/sample well means an opening in the roof
that provides access for gauging or sampling. A gauge hatch is usually
equipped with a closing cover or a funnel and slit-fabric seal to cover
the opening.
Internal floating roof means a floating roof located in a storage
vessel with a fixed roof. For the purposes of this subpart, an external
floating roof located in a storage vessel to which a fixed roof has
been added is considered to be an internal floating roof.
Liquid-mounted primary seal means a liquid or foam-filled seal
mounted in continuous contact with the liquid between the wall of the
storage vessel and the floating roof around the entire circumference of
the storage vessel.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by the volatile organic compounds (as defined in 40 CFR 51.100)
in the stored VOL at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-
month average of the VOL storage temperature for VOLs stored above or
below the ambient temperature or at the local maximum monthly average
temperature as reported by the National Weather Service for VOLs stored
at the ambient
[[Page 83321]]
temperature, as determined using the procedures specified in Sec.
60.113c(d).
Mechanical shoe primary seal means a metal sheet (the shoe) held
vertically against the wall of the storage vessel by springs or
weighted levels and is connected by braces to the floating roof. A
flexible coated fabric (the envelope) spans the annular space between
the metal sheet and the floating roof.
Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
Petroleum liquids means petroleum, condensate, and any finished or
intermediate products manufactured in a petroleum refinery.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the pressure
relief device or resulting from vacuum breaking device failing to close
prior to the system reaching atmospheric pressure. This release can be
one release or a series of releases over a short time period.
Pressure relief device means a valve, rupture disk, or similar
device used only to release an unplanned, nonroutine discharge of gas
from process equipment in order to avoid safety hazards or equipment
damage. Devices with low opening pressures must be monitored as bypass
lines. A pressure relief device discharge can result from an operator
error, a malfunction such as a power failure or equipment failure, or
other unexpected cause. Such devices include conventional, spring-
actuated relief valves, balanced bellows relief valves, pilot-operated
relief valves, rupture disks, and breaking, buckling, or shearing pin
devices. Devices that are actuated only by a vacuum are not pressure
relief devices. If a device has both a pressure relief function and a
vacuum breaking function, such as a conservation vent, the portion of
the conservation vent that acts to relieve pressure is considered a
pressure relief device and the portion of the conservation vent that
acts to relieve vacuum is a vacuum breaking device and not a pressure
relief device.
Process tank means a tank that is used within a process (including
a solvent or raw material recovery process) to collect material
discharged from a feedstock storage vessel or equipment within the
process before the material is transferred to other equipment within
the process, to a product or by-product storage vessel, or to a vessel
used to store recovered solvent or raw material. In many process tanks,
unit operations such as reactions and blending are conducted. Other
process tanks, such as surge control vessels and bottoms receivers,
however, may not involve unit operations.
Reid vapor pressure means the absolute vapor pressure of volatile
crude oil and volatile nonviscous petroleum liquids except liquified
petroleum gases.
Rim-mounted secondary seal means a secondary seal mounted on the
rim of the floating roof of a storage vessel and forms continuous seal
from the rim of the floating roof to the wall of the storage vessel.
Rim seal system means a primary seal or a primary and secondary
seal, which is mounted above the primary seal, and is attached to the
deck perimeter and contacts the storage vessel wall.
Rim vent means a device consisting of a weighted pallet that rests
on a valve seat. Rim vents are used to release any excess pressure or
vacuum present in the vapor pocket between the seal and the rim area of
a floating roof storage vessel.
Routed to a process or route to a process means the emissions are
conveyed by hardpiping or a closed vent system to any enclosed portion
of a process unit where the emissions are predominately recycled and/or
consumed in the same manner as a material that fulfills the same
function in the process; and/or transformed by chemical reaction into
materials that are not volatile organic liquids; and/or incorporated
into a product; and/or recovered.
Storage vessel means each tank, reservoir, or container used for
the storage of volatile organic liquids but does not include:
(1) Frames, housing, auxiliary supports, or other components that
are not directly involved in the containment of liquids or vapors;
(2) Subsurface caverns or porous rock reservoirs; or
(3) Process tanks.
Vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder vent means a device used to
equalize the pressure of the vapor space across the deck of a floating
roof as the floating roof is either being landed on or floated off its
roof supports. A vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder vent consists of a
well with a cover. The cover is designed to open as the floating roof
is landed. Opening of the cover may be accomplished by mechanisms such
as leg actuation or pressure actuation.
Vacuum breaking device means a device on a fixed roof of a storage
vessel used to prevent mechanical failure of the storage vessel due to
vacuum created as liquids are withdrawn from the storage vessel. If a
device has both a pressure relief function and a vacuum breaking
function, such as a conservation vent, the portion of the conservation
vent that acts to relieve vacuum is considered a vacuum breaking device
and the portion of the conservation vent that acts to relieve excess
pressure is a pressure relief device and not a vacuum breaking device.
Volatile organic liquid (VOL) means any organic liquid which can
emit volatile organic compounds (as defined in 40 CFR 51.100) into the
atmosphere.
Waste means any liquid resulting from industrial, commercial,
mining, or agricultural operations, or from community activities that
is discarded or is being accumulated, stored, or physically,
chemically, or biologically treated prior to being discarded or
recycled.
Sec. 60.112c Standard for volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(a) General storage vessel control requirements. You must equip and
operate each storage vessel affected facility meeting the thresholds in
Sec. 60.110c(c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), or (d)(2) as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable.
(1) For each storage vessel affected facility containing a VOL
that, as stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia
(76.6 kPa), you may elect to install and operate either an internal
floating roof meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section, an external floating roof meeting the requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section, or a closed vent system routed to a
control device, fuel gas system, or process as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(2) For each storage vessel affected facility containing a VOL
that, as stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure of 11.1 psia (76.6
kPa) or more, you must install and operate a closed vent system routed
to a control device, fuel gas system, or process as specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) For each storage vessel affected facility complying with the
closed vent system routed to a control device, fuel gas system, or
process provisions specified in paragraph (d) of this section
regardless of size and for each storage vessel with a design capacity
greater than or equal to 1,000,000 gal (3,790 m\3\) containing a VOL
that, as stored, has a maximum true vapor pressure equal to or greater
than 1.5 psia (10.3 kPa), you must also comply with the requirements in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) You must meet the applicable testing, monitoring, and
inspection requirements specified in Sec. 60.113c, recordkeeping
requirements specified in Sec. 60.115c, and reporting requirements
specified in Sec. 60.116c.
[[Page 83322]]
(b) Requirements for an internal floating roof. You must equip and
operate each internal floating roof as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (16) of this section, as applicable.
(1) The internal floating roof must rest or float on the liquid
surface (but not necessarily in complete contact with it) inside a
storage vessel that has a fixed roof. The internal floating roof must
be floating on the liquid surface at all times, except during initial
fill and during those intervals when the storage vessel is completely
emptied or subsequently emptied and refilled. When the roof is resting
on the roof supports, the process of filling, emptying, or refilling
must be continuous and must be accomplished as rapidly as possible.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(14) of this section, each
internal floating roof must be equipped with the following closure
devices between the wall of the storage vessel and the edge of the
internal floating roof:
(i) Two seals mounted one above the other so that each forms a
continuous closure that completely covers the space between the wall of
the storage vessel and the edge of the internal floating roof. The
lower seal is referred to as the primary seal, and the upper seal is
referred to as the secondary seal.
(ii) The primary seal must be either a mechanical shoe seal or a
liquid-mounted seal. If a mechanical shoe seal is used, it must be
installed so that one end of the shoe extends into the stored VOL and
the other end extends a minimum vertical distance of 6 inches (15
centimeters) above the stored organic liquid surface.
(iii) The secondary seal must be rim-mounted.
(3) Each opening in a noncontact internal floating roof except for
vacuum breaker/automatic bleeder vents and the rim vents is to provi
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 15, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.