National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 65

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871; FRL-9645-1]

RIN 2060-AR00

National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The EPA is proposing National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices, herein referred to as Uniform Standards. The EPA is also proposing supplemental revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions, which were proposed with the National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange Systems, signed by the EPA Administrator on November 30, 2011.

The proposed Uniform Standards would be referenced, as appropriate, in future revisions to new source performance standards and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for individual source categories that are part of the chemical manufacturing and refining industries that have storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks or control devices used to control process vents from reactors, distillation and other operations, as well as from emissions from storage vessels, transfer operations and equipment leaks that are routed to control devices. Establishing these Uniform Standards is consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,

issued on January 18, 2011. In the future, as we periodically review and, if necessary, revise new source performance standards and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, as required by the Clean Air Act, we can direct those rulemakings to the proposed Uniform Standards, provided the Uniform Standards meet the applicable statutory stringency requirements for the specific rulemaking. The proposed Uniform Standards would ensure consistency and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements for facilities with storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks and process vents that must comply with multiple regulations.

DATES:

Comments.

Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.

Public Hearing.

If anyone contacts the EPA by April 10, 2012 requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will hold a public hearing on or about April 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Comments.

Technical comments pertinent to the Uniform Standards should be identified as follows:

• Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871.”

• Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.”

• Uniform Standards for Control Devices should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.”

• Uniform Standards General Provisions or General Comments on the Uniform Standards should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.”

Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No., by one of the following methods:

•

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

•

http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and Radiation Docket Web site.

•

Email:

Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).

•

Fax:

Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).

•

Mail:

Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

). In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.

•

Hand Delivery:

Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:

All submissions must include agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

http://www.regulations.gov

or email. The

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through

http://www.regulations.gov,

your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:

All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information regarding the proposed General Provisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards, contact Brenda Shine, (919) 541-3608, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-3608; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address:

shine.brenda@epa.gov.

For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks, contact Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4607; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address:

howard.jodi@epa.gov.

For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, contact Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-5372; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address:

parsons.nick@epa.gov.

For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards For Control Devices, contact Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4036; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address:

bouchard.andrew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations.

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

AMOS ample margin of safety

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials

API American Petroleum Institute

AWP Alternative Work Practice

BSER best system of emission reduction

CAA Clean Air Act

CAM compliance assurance monitoring

CAR Consolidated Federal Air Rule

CBI Confidential Business Information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CEMS continuous emission monitoring system

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMS continuous monitoring system

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EFR external floating roof

EIIP Emissions Inventory Improvement Program

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

GACT generally available control technology or management practice

gal/yr gallons per year

HAP hazardous air pollutants

HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP

HRVOC highly-reactive volatile organic compound

hr/yr hours per year

ICR information collection request

IFR internal floating roof

in. wc inch water column

kPa kilopascals

LDAR leak detection and repair

MACT maximum achievable control technology

mg/acm milligram per actual cubic meter

MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP

MTVP maximum true vapor pressure

MW megawatts

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NESHAP National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OLD organic liquids distribution

PID photo ionization detector

PM particulate matter

PM

2.5

fine particulate matter

ppm parts per million

ppmv parts per million by volume

PRD pressure relief device

psia pounds per square inch absolute

psig pounds per square inch gauge

PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

QA quality assurance

QIP quality improvement program

SOCMI synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry

SR stoichiometric air ratio

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction

STERPP Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program

TAC total annual costs

TCI Total capital costs

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

U.S. United States

VCS voluntary consensus standards

VOC volatile organic compound

WWW World Wide Web

Organization of This Document.

The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

D. Public Hearing

II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for the proposed Uniform Standards?

B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform Standards?

C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and the referencing subparts?

D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform Standards?

E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?

F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations—Subpart I

A. Summary

B. Rationale

IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Subpart J

A. Summary

B. Rationale

V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices—Subpart M

A. Summary

B. Rationale

VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part 65 Uniform Standards General Provisions—Subpart H

A. Summary

B. Rationale

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule

A. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I?

B. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J?

C. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?

D. What are the cost impacts associated with the proposed reporting requirements for the Uniform Standards?

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health 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

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

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

Regulated Entities

. The proposed rules would establish a series of national uniform emission standards for storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks and control devices.

We expect, in future rulemaking actions, to propose that new source performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for other source categories will also reference and require compliance with Uniform Standards, as appropriate, provided that the referencing subpart rulemakings demonstrate that the Uniform Standards meet the statutory stringency requirements that would apply to the referencing subpart source category, such as Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d), maximum achievable control technology (MACT), section 112(f), residual risk ample margin of safety (AMOS) and section 111(b), best systems of emission reduction (BSER). Examples of categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices include the following:

Category

NAICS

a

code

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Chemical Manufacturing

325

Manufacturing industries, particularly petrochemical, chemical, polymers, plastics and specialty chemicals manufacturing.

Refining

324

Petroleum refineries.

a

North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for readers regarding entities the EPA anticipates are likely to be potentially affected by this action through future, separate rulemaking actions.

The table includes source categories currently subject to NESHAP under subparts in 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 and NSPS under subparts in 40 CFR part 60. The entities listed in the above table are not affected by this action unless and until the EPA proposes in a separate notice to apply a Uniform Standard to their source categories. As proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M would apply to owners or operators expressly referenced to part 65 from future rulemakings that may result in new subparts or revisions to current subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63. The list of categories and entities potentially affected by this proposed action in the future is provided solely to inform owners and operators of facilities in those categories of the potential for future rulemaking and to solicit comments from these entities at this time. If, in future rulemakings, the EPA were to propose to apply these Uniform Standards to a particular source category, there would be another opportunity to comment on the application to a specific industry. Because the EPA believes that establishing Uniform Standards for types of emission points found in a variety of industries will be efficient for facilities, state, local and tribal governments and the public, we seek broad input at this time. In the future, you would determine whether your facility, company, business or organization would be regulated by a proposed action by examining the applicability criteria in the referencing subpart. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative, as listed in the referencing subpart.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through

http://www.regulations.gov

or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, Document Control Officer, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the appropriate person identified in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

2. Docket

The docket numbers for the proposed action regarding the Uniform Standards are as follows:

• Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871.

• Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 65, subpart J) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.

• Uniform Standards for Control Devices (40 CFR part 65, subpart M) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.

• Uniform Standards General Provisions or general comments on the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65,

subpart H) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.

To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number(s) assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. Public Hearing

If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541-7946 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held or to determine the hearing location. If no one contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this proposed rule by April 10, 2012, a hearing will not be held.

II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for the proposed Uniform Standards?

Consistent with the authority under CAA section 301(a)(1) and CAA sections 111 and 112, we are proposing to establish the Uniform Standards as a set of foundational requirements that may be considered and adopted by future rulemakings under CAA sections 111 and 112. Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator “to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under [the CAA].” The proposed Uniform Standards, if finalized, would provide a set of common control requirement subparts describing testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would, if appropriate, be referenced in future CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings. Future rulemakings would include CAA section 112(d) standards, based on MACT determinations and generally available control technology or management practice (GACT) determinations (for area sources), as well as CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews of existing standards and CAA section 112(f) revisions, which take into account the risk to public health remaining after application of the MACT-based standards. The proposed Uniform Standards could also be referenced during CAA section 111(b) rulemakings to establish NSPS for source categories, and as we periodically review and revise these standards, to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. CAA section 111(b) standards require a level of control that historically has been referred to as “Best Demonstrated Technology.” In order to better reflect that CAA section 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that “best systems” may or may not be “technology,” the EPA is now using the term “best system of emission reduction” or BSER.

As foundational requirements, the Uniform Standards would become applicable to a particular source category only if a subsequent rulemaking for that source category references the Uniform Standards. We have previously promulgated similar standards, such as the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions (59 FR 12430, March 16, 1994) and the Consolidated Federal Air Rules (CAR) (65 FR 78267, December 14, 2000), which only become applicable to a source category when referenced by another rulemaking. In this preamble, we refer to subparts that would reference the Uniform Standards as “referencing subparts.” The authority for the referencing standards would be provided under the referencing subpart. The rationale for each determination that the Uniform Standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are equivalent to MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER and comply with all other applicable statutory requirements would be presented in the rulemaking for the individual source category with an opportunity for public comment at that time.

The proposed Uniform Standards are also responsive to Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,

which directs each federal agency to “periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.” The proposed Uniform Standards reflect the EPA's regulatory experience from previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings involving similar kinds of sources and emission points. They incorporate our review of the most current technology and emission reduction practices, as detailed in sections III through V of the preamble, and provide updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that may be referenced by future CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings.

The proposed Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 as subparts I, J and M. The General Provisions for the Uniform Standards and Uniform Standards for Heat Exchange Systems were previously proposed in a separate notice signed by the EPA Administrator on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012) and would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 as subparts H and L, respectively. We are proposing supplemental requirements for the General Provisions (subpart H) to include new provisions applicable to all Uniform Standards, as well as new provisions applicable to individual Uniform Standards in subparts I, J and M. As discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we are maintaining the previously proposed five sections of subpart H and adding eleven new sections. Of the five previously proposed sections, we are proposing to make substantive changes to three sections. The EPA will consider all comments pertaining to the Uniform Standards General Provisions (subpart H) that were submitted in response to the previous proposal (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), and will address those comments as we address the comments on the supplemental provisions proposed in this action.

B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform Standards?

In a number of cases, the EPA has established CAA standards for different source categories that regulate the same kinds of emission points. Standards for a given type of emission point may require application of controls with similar control efficiencies and include similar design, component or operating standards, even though these emission points may be located at different types of sources or facilities. To avoid duplicative or disjointed requirements, and to promote consistency among technical requirements for similar emission points in different source categories, the EPA has established several common control requirement subparts describing testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain emission points

and emission controls that can be referenced from multiple source categories. For instance, we promulgated standard requirements for selected emission points (

i.e.,

containers, surface impoundments, oil-water separators and organic-water separators, tanks, and individual drain systems) in individual subparts under the NESHAP for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (61 FR 34158, July 1, 1996), and we promulgated subparts for selected emission points (

i.e.,

closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas system or a process; equipment leaks; and storage vessels) as part of the Generic MACT program. The Generic MACT standards, which were promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW, were referenced in NESHAP requirements for individual source categories.

Consolidation of compliance requirements under these subparts allows for ease of reference, administrative convenience and consistency in the technical requirements of the air emission control requirements applied to similar emission points under different source category regulations. The 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW are emission point- and emissions control-specific. They specify monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, but generally do not specify emissions reduction performance requirements or applicability thresholds. Instead, the referencing subpart specifies the emissions reduction performance requirements and applicability thresholds.

By establishing these emission point- and emissions control-specific subparts, other source category-specific regulations were able to reference a common set of design, operating, testing, inspection, monitoring, repair, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air emissions controls. This reduced the potential for duplicative or conflicting technical requirements, and promoted consistency of the air emission requirements applied to similar emission points, while allowing specific emission standards to be set within the context of the source category-specific regulations. Additionally, creating emission point-specific and emissions control-specific subparts ensured that all regulations that cross-referenced these subparts could be amended in a consistent and timely manner, through one regulatory action.

We intend to establish, through the proposed Uniform Standards, a workable process for consolidation and a more efficient approach to rulemaking. The Uniform Standards have, in general, been modeled after the emission-point and emissions control-specific subparts of the Generic MACT. We are proposing the Uniform Standards in lieu of revising the Generic MACT because it is our intention to provide a set of common compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that could be applied to emission points referenced from CAA 111 and 112 (NSPS and NESHAP, respectively) rulemakings. The Uniform Standards are designed to apply to chemical and refining facilities regulated under the authority of sections 111 and 112 of the CAA and who may currently be subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. The Generic MACT is currently referenced by NESHAP under the provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and section 112 of the CAA; revising the current Generic MACT to be referenced by sources regulated under NSPS could create confusion regarding regulatory authority. In addition, the Generic MACT currently affects a large number of source categories and referencing subparts; therefore, a large revision of the Generic MACT could potentially be more confusing for regulated sources. Thus, we are proposing to establish the Uniform Standards under 40 CFR part 65 and anticipate, through future notice-and-comment rulemaking, to cross-reference subparts I, J and M from source category emission standards within at least two different parts of title 40 of the CFR—parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS and NESHAP standards, respectively. The process of revising individual referencing subparts to reference the Uniform Standards or develop new subparts that reference the Uniform Standards is a clear-cut process that allows for review of the needs of specific source categories.

C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and the referencing subparts?

This action may affect other source categories with similar emission points if the EPA takes action in the future to propose to apply the Uniform Standards to one or more other source categories for storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks or process vents. However, the EPA will determine applicability of these proposed Uniform Standards for another source category through notice-and-comment rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we will explain that all or a portion of 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are consistent with the CAA requirements at issue for the specific authority in the rulemaking. For example, in the context of an NSPS rulemaking, we could determine that subpart J is BSER for the source category at issue or, alternatively, we could determine that different emission standards should apply, but that recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements of subpart J are appropriate.

We expect to see similar benefits for these Uniform Standards as we have seen for previous emission point- and emissions control-specific subparts, as described above, including the ability to reference a common set of standards for the same type of emission point located at sources within different source categories. This approach will maximize consistency between source categories for each type of emission point.

As with the common control requirement subparts previously promulgated, the proposed Uniform Standards would include technical requirements and would not, in most cases, specify source category-specific applicability thresholds or emissions reduction performance requirements, because these requirements are more properly established in source category-specific rules.

However, we are proposing applicability thresholds, compliance requirements and monitoring frequencies that would apply if the referencing subpart does not specify these parameters. In the rulemaking actions that revise or propose standards to cross-reference 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M, we would address whether the referencing subpart should cross-reference subparts I, J and M in their entirety or cross-reference only a subset of subparts I, J and M. Moreover, we would determine whether the referencing (source category-specific) subpart should include more or less stringent requirements than subparts I, J and M.

As we revise or promulgate source category-specific standards that have emission points addressed by a uniform standard for storage vessels, transfer operations, equipment leaks and/or control devices, we would propose whether and to what extent we would reference the Uniform Standards in the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M. In making that decision, we would consider the applicable CAA requirements, analyses of the individual source category and the similarity of emission characteristics and applicable controls. We would consider factors such as: (1) The volume and concentration of emissions; (2) the type of emissions; (3) the similarity of emission points; (4) the cost and

effectiveness of controls for one source category relative to the cost and effectiveness of controls for the other source category; (5) whether a source has unusual characteristics that might require different analytical methods; and (6) whether any of the sources have existing emission controls that are dissimilar and more stringent than controls required for similar sources outside the source category. These factors would be considered on a source category-specific basis to ensure that sources are appropriately similar, and that emissions control technologies and reductions demonstrated outside of a source category are achievable for new and existing sources in an applicable source category.

In future rulemakings, the referencing subpart would establish the source category-specific requirements, including the regulated materials, appropriate applicability thresholds or tiers, emissions limit requirements (including the format and units of measure) and other source category-specific requirements. Additionally, the referencing subpart would provide rationale for the use of surrogates, if the use of surrogates is appropriate for the source category; for example, the referencing subpart could establish limits on particulate matter (PM) to achieve control of non-volatile metallic hazardous air pollutants (HAP), yet refer to the Uniform Standards for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For any provisions of the Uniform Standards not cross-referenced by a source category-specific subpart, the requirement would be expressly addressed in the source category-specific (referencing) subpart. A portion of 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and/or M could be cross-referenced and exceptions could be made within the referencing subpart, as necessary, to ensure that the proposed requirements are appropriate to the source category in light of the applicable CAA requirements. For example, the referencing subpart could specify a monitoring frequency other than that contained in the Uniform Standards if we determine that a different monitoring frequency is appropriate for the regulated emission point in that source category. A referencing subpart with applicability thresholds, for instance, may only direct to a portion of the Uniform Standards or not direct to the Uniform Standards at all for certain thresholds. Because the proposed Uniform Standards could be referenced in this manner, we believe that the requirements in subparts I, J and M would not inhibit the flexibility to address source category-specific needs.

The rationale for each determination that the provisions of 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M should be cross-referenced for an individual referencing subpart in light of the applicable CAA requirements, would be addressed in the rulemaking for the individual subpart at the time of proposal, and we would provide an opportunity for public comment at that time. A description of the analyses performed as part of that review would be presented in the rulemaking for the individual subpart and an opportunity for comment would be provided. We would also assess the costs, emission reduction, economic and other impacts as they relate to the specific source category at issue at that time.

In light of these considerations, we have determined that the proposed Uniform Standards would promote the EPA's ability to simplify, clarify and improve implementation of the rules with which source owners or operators must comply, consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,

and resulting in a cost and burden reduction for both the public and private sector.

D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform Standards?

This action proposes the Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I), Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 65, subpart J) and Control Devices (40 CFR part 65, subpart M), and revisions to the General Provisions for the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart H).

This action is based on the EPA's review of the current requirements for equipment leaks, storage tanks and transfer operations and control devices used to control process vents in light of over 20 years of regulatory implementation experience. The benefits of the proposed Uniform Standards include:

• Providing one-stop requirements for equipment leaks, storage tanks and control devices for the chemical manufacturing and refining industries;

• Providing strengthened control and monitoring requirements based on cost-effective advances in technology that could be considered for adoption in future rulemakings;

• Enhancing compliance and enforcement to ensure that the standards achieve the intended emissions reductions required for MACT, GACT or BSER; and

• Reduction of unnecessary and unproductive regulatory burden.

These benefits also support the objectives of Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.

Examples of the changes we are proposing that accomplish each of these objectives are below.

The proposed Uniform Standards provide the benefit of one-stop compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for specific emission points that would be referenced in future rulemakings for the chemical manufacturing and refining industries. The EPA desires to facilitate implementation and compliance by making requirements easier to understand, incorporating streamlined compliance approaches and applying these approaches across industry sectors. Currently, the chemical manufacturing and refining industries may be subject to multiple NSPS and NESHAP, including the Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW); the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (68 FR 63851, November 10, 2003) (MON); the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994) (HON), the Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (69 FR 5038, February 3, 2004); the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (60 FR 43260, August 18, 1995); the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) rules (Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (52 FR 11429, April 8, 1987); Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (48 FR 48335, October 18, 1983); and SOCMI Reactor Processes (58 FR 45962, August 31, 1993)). Several of these rules cover similar emission points, such as storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks or process vents that route to a control device. As a result, facilities subject to two or more of these rules may have overlapping or confusing compliance requirements for the same emission point. Additionally, facilities may have burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements for multiple subparts to which they are subject. The proposed Uniform Standards revise and streamline the compliance approach for future rulemakings by applying a set of control and compliance methods that may be referenced from multiple subparts. In particular, the proposed Uniform Standards are structured so that facilities regulated under NSPS and NESHAP could reference the same cost-effective monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for storage tanks,

transfer racks, equipment leaks and process vents that route to a control device, provided the Uniform Standards are determined to be appropriate for the NSPS and NESHAP source categories (see section II.C of this preamble). By providing a consistent set of compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the proposed standards would reduce the burden to the chemical manufacturing and refining industries. Additionally, applying these common emission point-specific requirements provides the benefit of easing the enforcement burden for government agencies.

The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M also provide the groundwork for future rulemakings as a set of strengthened control and monitoring requirements that may be considered for use in future referencing subparts to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER. The proposed standards are based on a consolidation of existing requirements, but have been augmented where appropriate based on our survey of available technology and a review of existing regulations for each emission point. For example, under the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, we are proposing to specify situations when landing a floating roof is allowable and the amount of time that a storage vessel with a landed floating roof may be left standing idle. These changes reduce the amount of time during which volatile regulated materials are exposed to the atmosphere and may be released. To improve detection of leaks on fixed roof storage tanks and thereby minimize emissions, we are also proposing to require monitoring for leaks from closure devices, pressure/vacuum vents and other potential leak interfaces on fixed roof storage vessels using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or optical gas imaging instead of visual inspections for defects. We are also proposing to include different delay of repair provisions in the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks which specify that if a valve or connector cannot be repaired within 15 days, “low leak technology” must be used to repair the equipment when it is technically feasible to do so. “Low leak technology” that is available and cost effective includes replacing the valve packing, flange gaskets or the entire valve or connector. These requirements provide additional emissions reductions and could be referenced by future rulemakings as a means to meet applicable CAA requirements. The proposed Uniform Standards for Control Devices include strengthened provisions that require owners and operators of closed vent systems to provide monitoring for each bypass for pressure relief devices (PRD), low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves or lines. We are proposing that this equipment is subject to the bypass line requirements to have a flow monitor or a car seal on each bypass line that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere, thereby minimizing emissions from these points. The proposed requirements under 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M have been designed to reflect advanced practices and control methods and provide robust air emissions control. This allows us to consider these proposed standards as a basis for review in future rulemakings for source categories with similar emission points. Further discussion of these provisions and other strengthened requirements under the Uniform Standards are included in the discussions for each individual subpart in sections III, IV and V of this preamble.

The proposed Uniform Standards also provide the benefits of improved compliance and enforceability. We are proposing to facilitate implementation and compliance by clarifying current requirements that were vague or confusing. For example, current equipment leak rules require facilities to equip open-ended valves or lines with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve to prevent emissions. We have retained that requirement in the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks, but we have added a requirement to check that the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve is installed or closed properly using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 at least once a year to ensure compliance with the standard. The EPA is also proposing to clarify requirements in the Uniform Standards that were confusing during implementation of previous rules, such as the monitoring requirements for small boilers and process heaters that are not part of a fuel gas system (see discussion in section V.B.3 of this preamble). As another example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks include all the types of equipment for which sensory monitoring is required in one section, which makes clear that the sensory monitoring requirements for all applicable types of equipment are identical. In other current standards, these requirements are spread throughout the rule, and slight differences in wording make it difficult to tell if the requirements are supposed to be the same. These clarifications are intended to improve compliance and enforceability as the Uniform Standards are considered during CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings and incorporated into future referencing subparts. Further clarifications are discussed in the individual subparts in sections III, IV and V of this preamble.

The proposed Uniform Standards also provide benefits as they reduce unproductive burden within the chemical and refining sectors. For example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks include provisions to use optical imaging to monitor for leaks (where appropriate and allowed by the referencing subpart) instead of instrument monitoring. Because the optical gas imaging device can monitor many more pieces of equipment than conducting instrument monitoring in the same period of time, these provisions are expected to reduce the cost of labor required to meet the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks. In particular, we have focused on simplifying recordkeeping and reporting requirements throughout each proposed subpart. For example, under the proposed General Provisions, we have specified that certain reports that are required to be submitted will be done so electronically, as discussed in sections II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble. We are also proposing a revised record retention policy that allows that records can be maintained in electronic format and accessible within 2 hours of a request for the 5-year record retention period. We have not included different retention periods for onsite and offsite records because the ability to maintain electronic records removes the need for specifying the storage location. An electronic record can be stored either onsite or offsite, but still be quickly accessible from onsite.

Furthermore, we have developed the proposed Uniform Standards in keeping with the objectives of Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,

issued January 18, 2011. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, the proposed standards are based on a thorough review of current regulations and reduce regulatory burden by consolidating and simplifying requirements, including eliminating duplicative requirements. These proposed standards further facilitate implementation and compliance by clarifying and improving current requirements, using new and streamlined compliance approaches and applying these approaches broadly. The proposed Uniform Standards also implement cost-effective control strategies without compromising environmental protection, and have

taken into consideration the latest control techniques. Finally, these standards provide a flexible, streamlined process for future rulemakings that will reduce burden and increase efficiency for both government regulators and industry.

E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?

In keeping with previous emission point-specific and emissions control-specific subparts, we have structured the proposed Uniform Standards for 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M to provide a common set of monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We intend the proposed Uniform Standards to provide common standards for environmental control that may be referenced from multiple regulations and that may be useful for a broad range of source categories. It is our view that the Uniform Standards will decrease inconsistencies between rulemakings for similar types of industries and reduce burden for both industry and government regulators.

In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13563,

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,

we reviewed the current Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW; the MON (68 FR 63888, November 10, 2003); the HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994); and other recent rules in the development of the proposed Uniform Standards. The Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW were chosen as a starting point for the Uniform Standards because they were previously developed for the purpose of providing consistent requirements for storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks and control devices used to control process vents that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP subparts, and they already incorporate technical improvements based on the EPA's experience with implementation of other subparts, such as the National Emission Standards for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart CC) and the HON. We augment these provisions in the proposed Uniform Standards by adding requirements from recent rulemakings, clarifying unclear requirements and incorporating alternative technologies and compliance approaches. As part of this process, we have investigated current practices and advances in technology and examined the cost effectiveness of applying certain technologies for control. Additionally, we reviewed the applicability determination index database, test reports, title V permit requirements, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance experience and recent EPA decisions to identify cost-effective technological, monitoring and compliance approaches that would reduce burden across source categories. In this proposal, we are referring to the existing flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flare compliance and are not proposing new flare requirements. We are continuing to gather data, review flare research papers and test reports, and investigate operating conditions that may influence the performance of a flare. Based on this information, we may in the future propose to add new flare requirements to the Uniform Standards.

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we expect that applying a common set of monitoring, testing and recordkeeping and reporting requirements to multiple source categories would be feasible because several source categories within the chemical and refining industries use similar process operations and have similar emission points. Specifically, various industries require the regulation of air emissions from storage vessel and transfer operations, equipment leaks and control devices. Although these industries may have variations in their process operations and the regulated materials used, these emission sources are generally amenable to similar methods for control and demonstration of compliance.

Our review of current regulations for storage vessel and transfer operations, equipment leaks and process vents found that these emission points often have similar requirements for the demonstration of compliance. In general, the mechanisms for release of emissions to the atmosphere from these emission points or emissions controls are similar, regardless of the specific regulated materials involved. With the knowledge of these similarities, we expect that compliance methods that have been determined to be cost effective for control of a specific amount of a given regulated material at one of the proposed emission points would generally be cost effective for the same regulated material at similar emission points, regardless of the source category. Specifically, the compliance methods proposed with the Uniform Standards have been developed with the consideration that they may be applied to emission points in a broad range of source categories. Although we considered how the proposed requirements would apply to petroleum refineries and chemical plants, we have structured the Uniform Standards to provide flexible compliance methods that could be useful for multiple industries. In determining the best and most cost-effective compliance methods, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the proposed standards, we examined and drew guidance from current rules from many different source categories that contain storage vessel, transfer operations, equipment leaks, process vents, and a variety of control devices. These guiding rules are discussed further in sections III, IV and V of this preamble. While the current rules provide requirements for individual source categories with slight variations for the specific regulated materials and process methods used in the regulated industry, we propose that the Uniform Standards, which would consolidate consistent, cost-effective requirements from a wide range of compliance methods for the same emission points, could be easily and effectively applied to additional industries.

Because the proposed Uniform Standards are intended to supply general requirements for source category-specific subparts, we expect that as current NSPS and NESHAP are periodically reviewed for technology advancements, they may refer to the Uniform Standards for compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions. Review of both NSPS and NESHAP under the CAA authorizes us to consider the cost impacts of control. Therefore, in reviewing the current requirements for these emission points across source categories, we examined the cost effectiveness of the compliance methods. For example, we have considered the cost effectiveness of control methods for equipment leaks on a volatile organic compound (VOC) basis. The majority of the emissions from equipment leaks are the result of gases or vapors escaping through leaks, either because the process fluid itself is a gas or vapor or because the process fluid is a liquid that volatilizes easily. Therefore, VOC are a class of compounds that are representative of these types of emissions. The proposed Uniform Standards, as a whole, reflect our determination of the best and most cost-effective compliance and control options for the regulated materials generally expected at the proposed emission points.

To account for the differences between individual source categories, the proposed standards generally provide limited technical requirements for monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting for the identified emission points. Overall, we have determined that the regulated materials, applicability requirements, emission

limits or control levels are best determined on a source category basis, as discussed in section II.C in this preamble, to reflect the specific needs of the source category. However, we are proposing applicability thresholds for the Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks (including size and vapor pressure) and control levels for the Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks (including thresholds at which leaking equipment must be repaired, or “leak definitions”). These thresholds are provided for consideration in future referencing subpart rulemakings, and would only apply if the referencing subpart does not specify an applicability threshold and/or control level. The referencing subpart may choose to refer to these thresholds in the Uniform Standards or may establish more appropriate thresholds for a specific source-category (overriding the Uniform Standards), as discussed in section II.C.

F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?

Electronic reporting is becoming an increasingly common element of modern life (as evidenced by electronic banking and income tax filing), and the EPA is beginning to require electronic submittal of certain environmental data. Electronic reporting is already common in environmental data collection and many media offices at the EPA are reducing reporting burden for the regulated community by embracing electronic reporting systems as an alternative to paper-based reporting.

One of the major benefits of reporting electronically is standardization, to the extent possible, of the data reporting formats, which provides more certainty to users of the data required in specific reports. For example, electronic reporting software allows for more efficient data transmittal and the software's validation mechanism helps industry users submit fewer incomplete reports. This alone saves industry and regulatory agencies report processing resources and reduces transaction times. Standardization also allows for development of efficient methods to compile and store much of the documentation required to be reported under this rule.

We are proposing that certain reports required to be submitted through the Uniform Standards would be submitted electronically. These reports would include all performance test reports, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) performance evaluation reports, the 40 CFR part 65, subparts I and J portions of the Notification of Compliance Status, and semiannual periodic reports specified in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M. All other reports would be submitted in hard copy or other method mutually agreed to between the source and the delegated authority. We have reasoned that reporting elements that are descriptive and contain a high level of detail would not be easily incorporated into the electronic reporting system at this time. For a discussion of each of these various types of reports, see sections III, IV, V and VI of this preamble.

The availability of electronic reporting for sources subject to the Uniform Standards will provide efficiency, improved services, better accessibility of information and more transparency and accountability. Additionally, submittal of these required reports electronically provides significant benefits for regulatory agencies, industry and the public. The compliance data electronic reporting system is being developed such that once a facility's initial data entry into the system is established and a report is generated, subsequent data submittal would only consist of electronic updates to existing information in the system. Such a system would effectively reduce the burden associated with submittal of data and reports by reducing the time, costs and effort required to submit and update hard copies of documentation. State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies could also benefit from more streamlined and accurate electronic data submitted to them. Electronic reporting would allow for an electronic review process rather than a manual data assessment, making review and evaluation of the source-provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Electronic reporting would also benefit the public by generating a more transparent review process and increasing the ease and efficiency of data accessibility. Furthermore, electronic reporting would reduce the burden on the regulated community by reducing the effort involved in data collection and reporting activities. With the complete information provided in electronic reports, we anticipate there will be a need for fewer and less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews. We anticipate that using electronic reporting for the required reports will result in an overall reduction in reporting costs; specifically, we estimated potential savings in reporting costs for an existing chemical plant to be approximately $6,780 (or a 42-percent cost reduction in hard copy reporting required by existing rules). For further discussion of the economic and cost impacts of electronic reporting, see section VII.D of this preamble.

Another benefit of the proposed electronic data submittal is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that the updated emission factors become available to represent the most current range of operational practices.

We are proposing that data entry of these electronic reports would be through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (

www.epa.gov/cdx

). Data transmitted electronically through CEDRI will be stored in CDX as an official copy of record. Once you have accessed CEDRI, you will select the applicable subpart for the report that you are submitting. You will then select the report type being transmitted, enter the data into the form and click on the submit button. In some cases, such as with submittal of a Notification of Compliance Status Report, you will select the report type, enter basic facility information and then upload the report in a specified file format.

In addition, we believe that there will be utility in allowing other reporting forms to be developed and used in cases where the other reporting forms can provide an alternate electronic file consistent with the EPA's form output format. This approach has been used successfully to provide alternatives for other electronic forms (

e.g.,

income tax transmittal). The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that will be supported by the electronic reporting tool (ERT) which can be accessed at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.

The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site listed above. A generic form is also available for test methods that are not specifically supported by ERT and you may submit performance tests with non-

listed test methods using the generic form.

In CEDRI, the user must then upload the ERT file. CEDRI transmits a copy of the ERT project data file directly to WebFIRE, where the data are made available. Where performance test reports are transmitted, WebFIRE notifies the appropriate state, local or tribal agency contact that an ERT project data file was received from the source.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with these reports would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations—Subpart I

A. Summary

We are proposing new Uniform Standards for control of emissions from storage vessels and transfer operations. These Uniform Standards would apply to a storage vessel or transfer operation only if that storage vessel or transfer operation is subject to a regulation that references such standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart I for control of air emissions from these sources. In section III of this preamble, the term “we” refers to the EPA and the term “you” refers to owners and operators of sources affected by the proposed standards. Additionally, “subpart I” refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart I. Section III.B provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.

1. What parts of my plant are affected by the proposed rule?

Proposed subpart I would apply to atmospheric storage vessels, pressurized vessels and transfer operations for which another subpart references such standards in this subpart for air emission control. Different vessel size and stored material maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) thresholds are specified for the different control requirements for storage vessels. Different throughputs and transferred material MTVP thresholds are specified for the different control requirements for transfer operations. We are not proposing to specify a compliance timeline in this subpart, since the compliance period would depend upon the proposal and final rule effective dates of the referencing subpart; thus, the compliance timeline for implementing these standards, as specified in the referencing subpart, would apply for that source category.

As in current storage vessel rules, the proposed rule for storage vessels is based on design requirements, inspection requirements and emission standards. Current rules specify the size and vapor pressure thresholds that define which storage vessels must comply with the requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in proposed subpart I. As in current transfer operations rules, the proposed Uniform Standards for transfer operations are based on loading requirements, inspection requirements and emission standards. Current rules specify the size and vapor pressure thresholds that define which transfer operations must comply with the requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in proposed subpart I.

2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this subpart?

Your storage vessels and transfer operations would be subject to some or all of the requirements of subpart I when another subpart references the use of such requirements in subpart I for air emission control. In addition, you would be required to meet the general provisions applicable to 40 CFR part 65 (

i.e.,

subpart A of 40 CFR part 65) and the general provisions applicable to the referencing subpart (

i.e.,

subpart A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63).

Atmospheric storage vessels.

Under proposed subpart I, you would be required to control emissions from each atmospheric storage vessel that contains regulated material (and is part of a regulated source subject to a referencing subpart). The type of control would depend on the size of the storage vessel and the MTVP of the stored regulated material. We are proposing four compliance approaches for each storage vessel that meets the capacity and MTVP thresholds presented in Table 1 of this preamble (and Table 1 of proposed subpart I). These approaches are: (1) Operate and maintain either an internal floating roof (IFR) or an external floating roof (EFR), provided the MTVP of the stored regulated material is less than 11.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia); (2) operate and maintain a vapor balancing system on a fixed roof tank; (3) vent emissions from a fixed roof tank through a closed vent system to a control device according to the requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M; or (4) route emissions from a fixed roof tank to a fuel gas system. For each storage vessel that does not meet either set of thresholds described above, you would be required to operate and maintain a fixed roof (or you may elect to comply with the requirements for larger tanks that store regulated material with higher MTVP). Inspections and repair of defects and leaks would also be required for all storage vessels. Each of the four compliance approaches is discussed in further detail in sections III.A.4 through 7 of this preamble.

Table 1—Control Thresholds for Atmospheric Storage Vessels

Comply with

If the storage capacity is

And the MTVP is

Requirements for fixed roof storage vessels in § 65.310

<20,000 gal, or

<40,000 gal, or

≥40,000 gal

Any level.

<1.9 psia.

<0.75 psia.

Any one of four compliance approaches specified in §§ 65.315, 65.320, 65.325 or 65.330

≥20,000 gal, or

≥40,000 gal

≥1.9 psia.

≥0.75 psia.

Transfer operations. If you own or operate a transfer rack that loads regulated material into transport vehicles (

i.e.,

cargo tanks or tank cars) or containers, you would have to control emissions from the transfer operations as specified in proposed subpart I. The specific control requirements would differ depending on the amount of regulated material transferred and the MTVP of the stored material. Details are discussed in sections III.A.9 and 10 of this preamble. The proposed rule does not specify requirements for loading regulated material into barges, which are currently regulated by the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and would remain so covered.

3. What are the proposed requirements for fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels that are small or store material that has a low vapor pressure?

For fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels that are smaller than 20,000 gallons, smaller than 40,000 gallons and store material with a MTVP less than 1.9 psia or greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and store material with a MTVP less than 0.75 psia, you would have to meet specified equipment, operating, inspection and repair requirements. The proposed equipment requirements are to: (1) Install the fixed roof in a manner that would avoid creating open spaces between roof section joints or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall; and (2) equip each opening in the fixed roof with a closure device that, when secured in the closed position, allows no open spaces in the closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure device. You would be required to operate the fixed roof with each closure device secured in the closed position except during those periods when access is needed. A conservation vent or similar device would be allowed to vent to the atmosphere when diurnal temperature changes or filling of the storage vessel cause pressure in the storage vessel to exceed the design range for the storage vessel (i.e., normal breathing and working emissions).

To demonstrate compliance with the equipment and operating requirements, you would be required to conduct initial and periodic monitoring of the fixed roof and its closure devices for leaks. For parts of the fixed roof that you determine are unsafe to monitor, you would have to develop a written plan in which you document why those parts are unsafe to monitor and that specifies a schedule for monitoring when it is safe to do so.

We are proposing two monitoring options. One option would be to use Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. This monitoring would be required annually, and you would detect a leak each time you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The second option would be to use optical gas imaging. This monitoring would be required semiannually, and the instrument would have to be capable of detecting at least one of the compounds emitted from the storage vessel. A leak would be detected each time the instrument detects an image. This option also would reference a protocol for other requirements. We are currently developing the protocol and expect to propose it as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Public comment on the content of the proposed protocol will be requested in the

Federal Register

notice for the proposed protocol. In addition, we intend to provide an opportunity to comment on the application of appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging provisions in these Uniform Standards. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, the protocol would also apply to optical gas imaging for equipment leaks. See section IV.A.5 of this preamble for a discussion of the information that we are planning to include in the protocol. Note, however, that the proposed bimonthly monitoring frequency for equipment leaks would not apply to monitoring of fittings on storage vessels.

If leaks are discovered in a storage vessel during an inspection, you have to either complete repairs or completely empty the storage vessel within 45 days, although you would be allowed up to two extensions of up to 30 days each. If you use an extension, you must maintain records that document your use of the extension. These records must indicate that alternative storage capacity was unavailable and list the actions you took in an effort to repair or empty the tank in the allowed period before the extension.

4. What are the proposed requirements to control atmospheric storage vessels with a floating roof (“floating roof approach”)?

If you elect to use a floating roof to control emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel that meets the size and MTVP thresholds for such control, you would have to comply with the proposed equipment, operating, inspection and repair requirements for floating roofs specified in this rule.

The proposed rule includes rim seal equipment requirements that are consistent with current rules. If you use an IFR, you would be required to equip the IFR with a liquid-mounted seal, mechanical shoe seal or two seals mounted one above the other. If you use an EFR, you would have to equip the EFR with a liquid-mounted seal and secondary seal, or with a mechanical shoe seal and secondary seal.

The proposed rule includes design and operation specifications for closure devices and other fittings for each type of opening through the deck of the floating roof. Most of these design and operational requirements for deck fittings are consistent with requirements in current rules. One difference is that the proposed rule explicitly specifies requirements for slotted ladder legs that are comparable to requirements for slotted guidepoles. Another difference is that the proposed rule defines automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vent) to include both devices that are activated by pressure and vacuum differences across the floating roof and devices that are activated when an extension leg contacts the floor of the storage vessel. The proposed rule also includes additional control options for slotted guidepoles that were developed for the Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program (STERPP) (65 FR 19891, April 13, 2000).

The proposed rule would require that you equip each storage vessel with an alarm system that signals when the floating roof: (1) Is about to land on its legs or other support devices; or (2) is close to being overfilled. Each time the floating roof is landed, you would be required to estimate, record and report the amount of regulated material emitted during the time the roof was landed. Similarly, if the storage vessel is ever overfilled, you would be required to estimate, record and report the amount of regulated material spilled and emitted to the atmosphere.

The proposed rule would require that the floating roof be floating on the liquid surface at all times except for certain instances when the floating roof is being supported on leg supports or other support devices (landed). We are proposing to limit both the total amount of time and the circumstances under which the floating roof may be landed to: (1) During the initial fill; (2) when necessary for maintenance, inspection or to support a change to an incompatible liquid, provided you either begin refilling the storage vessel or begin actions to completely empty the storage vessel within 24 hours; (3) when actions to completely empty the storage vessel begin within 24 hours after the roof is landed in order to take the storage vessel out of service; or (4) if the vapors are routed through a closed vent system to a control device from the time the roof is landed until the roof is within 10 percent by volume of being refloated. Typically, once you begin refilling the storage vessel, you would not be allowed to suspend refilling or withdraw liquid until after the roof is refloated. The requirement for continuous refilling until the roof is refloated would not apply to a storage vessel that is used to store product from a batch process if the quantity of product from one batch is insufficient to refloat the roof, and the roof will be refloated when product from additional batches is added to the storage vessel. However, withdrawal of liquid from the storage vessel would still not be permitted until after the roof is refloated.

The proposed rule would require that you inspect the floating roof deck, deck fittings and rim seals. One option would be to conduct visual inspections, measure gaps in rim seals for an EFR and measure gaps between gaskets and the surfaces they are intended to seal for deck fittings on both IFR and EFR. The proposed rule also specifies that Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 may be used as an alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement requirements for either type of floating roof and the rim-seal gap measurements on EFR. Another proposed alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement requirements is optical gas imaging. Requirements for monitoring using optical gas imaging would be the same as discussed in section III.A.3 of this preamble for monitoring of fixed roofs. Monitoring using either optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 would be required while the floating roof is floating on the stored liquid. The proposed rule lists the conditions that would be considered inspection failure (

i.e.,

stored liquid on the floating roof; holes or tears in the primary or secondary seal; floating roof deck, deck fittings or rim seals that are not functioning as designed; failure to comply with the operational requirements; and excessive gaps).

The proposed rule includes inspection frequency requirements for both IFR and EFR. For IFR, you would have to inspect: (1) Before the initial fill of the storage vessel; (2) at least annually (tank top inspection only); and (3) each time the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed (but no later than 10 years after the previous such inspection or no later than 5 years for IFR equipped with two rim seals). For EFR, you would have to inspect: (1) The primary and secondary rim seals and deck fittings within 90 days after the initial fill of the storage vessel; (2) the secondary seal, deck fittings and EFR at least annually; and (3) the primary seal no later than 5 years after the previous primary seal gap inspection. Delays in IFR and EFR inspection would be allowed if the storage vessel is out of service on the date 5 or 10 years after the last inspection, as applicable, provided the inspection is conducted prior to filling the storage vessel.

If you determine that it is unsafe to perform the EFR inspections specified in the rule, you would have to either perform the inspections no later than 30 days after making this determination, or remove the storage vessel from service no later than 45 days after making this determination. You may use up to two extensions (up to 30 days each) if the storage vessel cannot be emptied within 45 days, provided you document this decision, explain why it was unsafe to perform the inspection, document that alternative storage capacity is unavailable and provide a schedule of actions taken in an effort to completely empty the storage vessel during the extension period. Not completely emptying the storage vessel before the end of the second extension period would be a deviation.

In the event of an inspection failure, the proposed rule requires repair to correct the failure. In addition, if at times when you are not specifically conducting an inspection as required by the proposed rule, but you notice a condition that constitutes an inspection failure, you would be required to make the necessary repairs just as if the condition had been noted during a scheduled inspection. If you performed the inspection while the storage vessel was not storing liquid, you would have to complete repairs before refilling the storage vessel with liquid. If you performed the inspection while the storage vessel was storing liquid, you would have to complete repairs or remove the vessel from service within 45 days, but you would be allowed up to two extensions (up to 30 days each), as long as you document your decision to use the extension. The documentation would include a description of the failure, documentation that alternative storage capacity is unavailable and a schedule of actions taken in an effort to either repair or completely empty the storage vessel before the end of the applicable extension period. Not repairing or completely emptying the storage vessel before the end of the second extension would be a deviation.

You have the option to request the substitution of an alternate device for any of the seals and fittings specified in the floating roof approach, as long as the alternate device has an emission factor less than or equal to the emission factor for the specified device and the emission factor for the alternate device was determined under tests that accurately simulated the conditions under which the device will operate (

e.g.,

wind speed, temperature, pressure and filling rates).

5. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels if I use vapor balancing (“vapor balancing approach”)?

If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof atmospheric storage vessel by using vapor balancing, you would have to comply with the proposed design, operating, monitoring and repair requirements for vapor balancing specified in this rule. You would have to operate, maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in section III.A.3 of this preamble. Unlike current rules, the proposed rule contains no requirements for offsite facilities that clean and/or reload the transport vehicles and barges.

Under the proposed vapor balancing approach, you would have to design and operate the vapor balancing system to route the vapors displaced from storage vessel loading to the transport vehicle used to fill the storage vessel. Each transport vehicle would have to have a current certification of pressure testing conducted in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, and you would have to keep records of these certifications. Barges would have to be pressure tested annually in accordance with procedures in the proposed rule; these procedures are consistent with requirements in the Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and the Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart BB). You would be required to maintain copies of documentation showing that the required testing was performed. The fixed roof would have to meet the design and operating requirements described in section III.A.3 of this preamble.

Under the proposed operating requirements, liquid may be unloaded only when the transport vehicle's vapor-collection equipment is connected to the storage vessel's vapor balancing system. Also, no PRD on the storage vessel, transport vehicle or barge may be open during loading, and PRD on the storage vessel would not be allowed to open at any time as a result of diurnal temperature changes (

i.e.,

breathing losses would not be allowed). You would have to set PRD on storage vessels no lower than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) in order to prevent breathing losses, unless you provide a rationale for a lower value in your notification of compliance. In addition, you would have to keep records of the pressure relief vent settings that prevent breathing losses from the storage vessel. All vapor connections and lines on the storage vessel would have to be equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect.

Most of the proposed requirements for inspecting, monitoring and repairing equipment in the vapor balancing system and the fixed roof are the same as for closed vent systems as described in section III.A.6 of this preamble. The only difference is that for vapor balancing systems you may elect to

comply with the alternative monitoring frequencies for batch operations in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J if your vapor balancing system operates less than 75 percent of the hours during the year.

6. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device (“closed vent system approach”)?

If you elect to vent emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel through a closed vent system to a control device, you would have to comply with the proposed equipment, operating, inspection and repair requirements specified in this rule for these systems.

If your storage vessel and closed vent system are not in vacuum service, you would have to operate, maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in section III.A.3 of this preamble, except that normal breathing and working emissions would not be allowed to vent to the atmosphere. Monitoring would not be required if the storage vessel and closed vent system are in vacuum service, but you would be required to demonstrate that vacuum is maintained by installing a pressure monitoring device and alarm as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.

For the closed vent system, you would have to comply with the bypass line requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, and you would be required to comply with requirements for equipment in regulated material service in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. Either equipment controls (

e.g.,

caps on open ended lines) or leak detection and repair (LDAR) would be required, as specified in 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427 of proposed subpart J, except that sensory monitoring in 40 CFR 65.428 of proposed subpart J would be allowed for connectors if your referencing subpart does not require instrument monitoring for connectors. Note that the option in proposed subpart J to conduct sensory monitoring for equipment in regulated material service less than 300 hours per year (hr/yr) would not apply to equipment in the closed vent system. The proposed leak detection monitoring methods include either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or optical gas imaging in accordance with proposed 40 CFR 65.450 (provided your referencing subpart specifies that optical gas imaging is allowed for LDAR). Required monitoring and inspections would have to be conducted either when an affected storage vessel is being filled or at any other time the equipment in the closed vent system is in regulated material service. Any other potential sources of vapor leakage (

e.g.,

an access hatch) that are not defined as equipment would be subject to sensory monitoring and related repair requirements as specified in 40 CFR 65.428 and 65.430 of proposed subpart J.

For a non-flare control device, you would be required to comply with the provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the applicable control device and reduce regulated organic material emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet concentration of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. To demonstrate initial compliance with this emission limit, proposed subpart I would allow you to conduct a design evaluation as an alternative to the performance test (note that the performance test is the default requirement in proposed subpart M). You would be required to comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flares used to comply with the referencing subpart.

For those periods when you conduct planned routine maintenance of the control devices for your storage vessels, the proposed rule would require that you add no material to the storage vessel during those periods and limit the periods to a total of no more than 360 hr/yr. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, you would have to keep a record that explains why the extension was needed and describes how you minimized the amount of time beyond 240 hours. In addition, you would need to keep records of when the planned routine maintenance periods begin and end and the type of maintenance performed.

7. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions to a fuel gas system (“fuel gas system approach”)?

If you elect to control storage vessel emissions by routing displaced vapor to a fuel gas system, you would be required to comply with the requirements for fuel gas systems, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. Specifically, you would be required to: (1) Submit a statement in your Notification of Compliance Status that the emission stream is connected to the fuel gas system; (2) meet the requirements for equipment in regulated material service in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J for all equipment in the fuel gas system; (3) comply with proposed 40 CFR 65.724 for any small boilers or process heaters in the fuel gas system; and (4) not route halogenated streams to the fuel gas system. In addition, you would be required to operate, maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in section III.A.3 of this preamble. The proposed procedures for inspecting or monitoring the equipment also are the same as for equipment in a closed vent system as described in section III.A.6 of this preamble.

8. What are the proposed requirements for pressure vessels?

The proposed rule defines a pressure vessel as a storage vessel that is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of compression of the vapor headspace in the vessel during filling of the vessel to its design capacity. The proposed rule would require all openings in a pressure vessel to be equipped with closure devices. In addition, you would be required to conduct annual performance tests using either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or optical gas imaging to show pressure vessels operate with an instrument reading less than 500 ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or no emissions are imaged by the instrument (for optical gas imaging). Each time you obtain an instrument reading equal to or greater than 500 ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or emissions are imaged (for optical gas imaging), it would be a deviation of the emission limit, and you would be required to estimate, record and report the amount of regulated material emissions during the time the pressure vessel is out of compliance with the emission limit.

The proposed rule would require that all purge streams be routed through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces regulated material emissions by at least 98 percent or to an outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. Inert material purging is a short duration maintenance procedure required by good engineering practice to ensure proper operation of this type of storage system. The closed vent system would be subject to the same bypass line requirements and monitoring and inspection requirements as for a closed vent system that conveys emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel to a control device; see section III.A.6 of this preamble for details. The proposed compliance requirements for a control device would be the same as for a control device that controls emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel; see section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.

9. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer operations to load transport vehicles?

For each transfer rack that you use to load transport vehicles, you would be required to transfer the regulated material to the transport vehicles using submerged loading or bottom loading.

In addition, you would be required to control displacement emissions of regulated materials from the transport vehicles if you transfer more than 35 million gallons per year (gal/yr) of liquids with a weighted average MTVP greater than 4 psia. The proposed rule includes three compliance approaches for these emissions. One approach is to route the displaced emissions from the transport vehicle through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices. In this case, the proposed requirements are the same as those proposed for closed vent systems and control devices used to control emissions from storage vessels; see section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.

A second approach is to route the displaced emissions from the transport vehicle to a fuel gas system. Again, the proposed requirements are the same as the proposed requirements for storage vessels that are controlled by routing emissions to a fuel gas system.

The third approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing system to route vapors that are displaced from loading regulated liquids into transport vehicles back to the storage vessel or to another storage vessel that is connected to a common header. The proposed vapor balancing approach includes the following requirements: (1) Designing the vapor balancing system to prevent any regulated material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing to another transfer rack; (2) equipping all vapor connections and lines in the vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system with closures that seal upon disconnect; (3) ensuring PRD in the system do not open while the transport vehicle is being filled with regulated material; (4) conducting the same LDAR procedures for equipment in the vapor balancing system as for equipment in a closed vent system; and (5) complying with the same bypass line requirements as in the proposed requirements for closed vent systems. You would not be allowed to use the vapor balancing approach if the applicable storage vessel has a floating roof.

Each transport vehicle that you load with regulated material that has a MTVP of regulated material greater than 4 psia would be required to pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. All other transport vehicles that you load with regulated material must either pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or have a current certification in accordance with DOT pressure test requirements for cargo tanks or tank cars. You would be required to keep records of the DOT certifications and tests conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. You also would be required to take actions to assure that your vapor balancing system, closed vent system or fuel gas system is connected to the transport vehicle's vapor-collection equipment during each transfer of regulated material to transport vehicles.

10. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer operations to load containers?

For each transfer of regulated material to a container at a transfer rack that loads only containers, you would be required, at a minimum, to use either submerged fill or fitted opening/transfer line purging. Whenever a container contains a regulated material, you would also be required to install and secure all covers and closure devices in the closed position, except when you need to access the container (e.g., for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning). You would also be required to demonstrate annually that containers, 55 gallons and larger, that are loaded and then used for onsite storage are vapor tight by using one of two approaches. One approach is to use Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, under the same test conditions specified for testing transport vehicles, and the second approach is to monitor each potential leak interface on the container for leaks using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. When monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv would constitute a leak that you would be required to repair within 15 days.

We are proposing three more effective compliance approaches that you may elect to comply with as an alternative to conducting submerged filling. The first approach is to route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device in accordance with the same requirements that apply to closed vent systems and control devices that are used to control emissions from transfers to transport vehicles. The second approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing system that routes displaced vapors back to the storage vessel from which the transferred liquid originated. The requirements would be the same as for the vapor balancing approach for controlling emissions from transfers to transport vehicles. For example, vapor connection and lines in the vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system would have to be equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect. Any PRD on the container would have to remain closed while the container is being filled, and you would be required to comply with the same bypass line requirements and LDAR requirements for equipment in the vapor balancing system that are being proposed for closed vent systems. The third approach is to conduct the transfer operations inside a permanent total enclosure (meeting the criteria specified in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B) that is vented through a closed vent system to a control device. The requirements for the closed vent system and control device would be the same as in the first approach described above.

11. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Recordkeeping.

Proposed subpart I would require records related to both storage vessels and transfer operations. For each storage vessel that contains a regulated material, you would be required to record the vessel dimensions, storage capacity and type of stored material. In addition, proposed subpart I would require records related to each type of storage vessel and each compliance approach. Many of these records would require documentation of the dates and results of inspections (for fixed roofs, floating roofs, closed vent systems, fuel gas systems and vapor balancing systems), including descriptions of repairs or actions taken to remedy leaks or inspection failures.

Other records related to storage vessels would require documentation of: (1) The start and end dates of floating roof landing events and the procedure used to refloat the roof; (2) decisions to use extensions for inspections and repair/removal from service; (3) dates of each overfill event; (4) DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests for transport vehicles used to comply with the vapor balancing approach; (5) vapor tightness test results for barges used to comply with the vapor balancing approach; (6) date and time when periods of planned routine maintenance of a control device begin and end; and (7) identification of each potential source of vapor leakage in a closed vent system that is not defined as a piece of “equipment.” If you comply with closed vent system and control device requirements or fuel gas system

requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, you would also be required to keep applicable records as specified in proposed subpart M. Similarly, if you comply with equipment monitoring requirements for a closed vent system or fuel gas system, or if you operate a closed vent system in vacuum service, you would be required to keep records that are related to these provisions, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. If you comply with the vapor balancing approach, you would be required to keep a record of the setting on the PRD that prevents breathing losses from the storage vessel. You would also be required to keep records of your estimates of emissions from: (1) Each spill caused by overfilling a storage vessel; (2) a storage vessel while the floating roof is landed; and (3) a pressure vessel that does not comply with the required emission limit.

For transfer operations, you would be required to keep records of vapor tightness tests of transport vehicles that are loaded with liquid that has a regulated material vapor pressure greater than 4 psia and DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests for other transport vehicles that are loaded with regulated material. If you comply with the approach to route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device or the fuel gas system approach, you would be required to keep records of monitoring, inspections and leak repairs, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, and you would be required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, for the applicable control device. If you comply with the approach to load containers inside an enclosure, you would be required to keep records of the most recent calculations and measurements performed to verify that the enclosure meets the criteria of a permanent total enclosure, as specified in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.

Notification of Compliance Status.

In the Notification of Compliance Status required by the referencing subpart and proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H, you would be required to include the identification of each storage vessel, its storage capacity and the liquid stored in the storage vessel. You would also be required to include identification of each transfer rack that loads regulated material into transport vehicles or containers. In addition, if you comply with the vapor balancing approach for a storage vessel (

i.e.,

proposed 40 CFR 65.320), and any PRD on that storage vessel is set to relieve at less than 2.5 psig, you would be required to provide rationale for why that setting is sufficient to prevent breathing losses from the storage vessel. Finally, if you comply with any provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or 40 CFR part 65, subpart M of the Uniform Standards, you must comply with any notification requirements related to those provisions that are specified in subpart J or subpart M.

Semiannual periodic report.

Semiannual periodic reports must include: (1) Documentation of the date when a storage vessel was emptied or repaired if the action was not conducted before the end of a second extension period, as required in proposed 40 CFR 65.310(d) or 65.315(d); (2) storage vessel identification and the start and end dates of each floating roof landing that does not meet one of the criteria in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1); (3) a copy of the inspection report for a pressure vessel when you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or an image of emissions when monitoring using optical gas imaging; and (4) any information required in semiannual periodic reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you comply.

Annual periodic reports.

Annual periodic reports required by the referencing subpart must include the following information: (1) Inspection results for fixed and floating roofs when a failure or leak is detected; (2) estimated emissions each time a floating roof is landed; (3) estimated emissions each time a storage vessel is overfilled; (4) estimated emissions each time a pressure vessel fails a performance test; and (5) any information required in annual periodic reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you comply.

Other reports.

We are proposing that you notify the Administrator at least 30 days prior to each planned inspection of rim seals and deck fittings in storage vessels. If an inspection is unplanned and you could not have known about the inspection 30 days in advance, then you would be required to notify the Administrator at least 7 days before the inspection. A delegated state or local agency may waive the requirement for notification of inspections.

B. Rationale

We developed the proposed requirements in subpart I based on a review of requirements in current federal and state rules, a survey of technology for controlling and monitoring emissions from storage vessels and transfer operations and an analysis of the cost impacts of various compliance approaches.

The rules listed in Table 2 of this preamble include many provisions that we have developed as the most effective provisions for controlling emissions from storage vessels and transfer operations. These provisions form the backbone of proposed subpart I. In addition, the Generic MACT subparts were already organized to be referenced from source category-specific subparts. One difference between the Generic MACT rules and the proposed rule is how the storage vessel and transfer rack operating condition thresholds for a particular control requirement are specified. The Generic MACT relies on the referencing subpart to specify the range of characteristics that a storage vessel or transfer rack must possess to be subject to a particular control requirement. Conversely, proposed subpart I specifies both the thresholds and control requirements that would apply to storage vessels and transfer racks at any facility that is subject to a referencing subpart that incorporates those Uniform Standards provisions. If, while developing a referencing subpart, we identify a reason to select a different threshold for that source category (such as a difference driven by a prior MACT, AMOS or BSER decision for that subcategory), we would specify that threshold in the referencing subpart and indicate it applies in place of the threshold specified in proposed subpart I. The proposed subpart I thresholds and corresponding control requirements were determined based on the survey of technology and the cost impacts analysis; typically, the proposed requirements represent the best level of emission reduction for which we determined the costs are reasonable for model storage vessels and transfer racks.

Another overarching difference between proposed subpart I and the Generic MACT subparts is that proposed subpart I was organized to be consistent with the “plain language” format that we have adopted since the Generic MACT rules were promulgated. The following sections describe the rationale for the proposed provisions in subpart I.

Table 2—Rules Used To Develop Requirements in Proposed Subpart I

Provisions in proposed subpart I

Current rule used as starting point for the proposed provisions

Floating roofs

National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW; “Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2”)

Fixed roofs

National Emission Standards for Tanks—Level 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart OO; “Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1”)

Vapor balancing

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF; “MON”)

Pressure vessels

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart DD)

Transfer to transport vehicles

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE; “OLD NESHAP”)

Transfer to containers

National Emission Standards for Containers (40 CFR part 63, subpart PP; “Generic MACT for Containers”)

1. How is the EPA proposing to define the term “storage vessel?”

We are proposing a definition of “storage vessel” that is generally consistent with the definition in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, in that it means “a stationary unit that [* * *] is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids or other materials.” The definition also contains many of the same elements as definitions in many rules in 40 CFR part 63. For example, the proposed definition excludes vessels permanently attached to a motor vehicle, vessels containing regulated material only as impurities and wastewater tanks. Differences between the proposed definition and the definition in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 and most other rules in 40 CFR part 63 are that the proposed definition specifically excludes process tanks, and it does not exclude pressure vessels. We excluded process tanks from the proposed definition because such vessels are in operation only when the process is operating, and they generally operate at process temperatures without the potential for significant emissions due to diurnal temperature changes. As a result, their emissions are more like other process vent emissions than storage tank emissions. We are proposing to include pressure vessels as a subset of storage vessels because we are proposing requirements for pressure vessels that differ from the requirements for atmospheric storage vessels. Proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H also defines both “pressure vessel” and “atmospheric storage vessel.”

We request comment on the clarity of this definition and the effect it would have if it were to apply in place of the current definitions in rules that could someday reference proposed subpart I for storage vessel requirements. In particular, we are interested in identification of any types of materials stored that could become subject to a rule that are not currently subject under a current rule's definition.

2. How did the EPA determine the applicability thresholds and control approaches for atmospheric storage vessels?

As discussed in section III.A.2 of this preamble, any one of four specified compliance approaches would be required to control emissions from each atmospheric storage vessel that exceeds any pair of tank capacity and regulated material MTVP thresholds in Table 1 of proposed subpart I. Emissions from all other storage vessels that contain regulated material would have to be controlled using either any of these same four approaches or by equipping the storage vessel with a fixed roof that meets specified design and operation criteria.

As part of our survey of technology, we estimated impacts for several control options for typical fixed roof storage vessels and EFR storage vessels. One purpose of the analysis was to determine applicable thresholds above which the costs for each control option are reasonable. Consistent with requirements in current rules, the thresholds we examined were the vessel size and the vapor pressure of the stored material.

All of the control options that we evaluated involved variations in the requirements for floating roofs or changes to the storage vessel. We focused on floating roof controls because these are the most common controls currently in use, and the only feasible options for baseline EFR storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for the other compliance approaches for fixed roof storage vessels for various reasons. We did not estimate the costs to connect fixed roof storage vessels to a closed vent system and control device because these costs have been shown in previous analyses to exceed the costs of floating roofs (

e.g.,

see EPA-450/3-81-003a, EPA-450/3-80-025 or the memorandum titled

MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Storage Tanks at Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities,

in item II-B-28 in docket A-96-04). Many atmospheric fixed roof storage vessels are designed to operate at pressure much lower than the 2.5 psig set pressure for PRD that is required in vapor balancing options. Therefore, we did not estimate costs for vapor balancing because this approach is technically feasible for only a subset of atmospheric storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for routing storage vessel emissions to a fuel gas system because this option would not be available at some facilities. Furthermore, the performance of these other control techniques is expected to be the same or only marginally superior to the performance of IFR, particularly for larger storage vessels and storage vessels storing material with higher vapor pressures.

In the impacts analysis for fixed roof storage vessels, Control Option ST1 was installation of a typical IFR with typical rim seals and deck fittings, except that we varied the type of guide pole (none, solid and slotted). We assumed typical IFR are constructed from bolted aluminum panels, that the deck floats on pontoons and that the rim seal is a mechanical shoe seal. Based on information in AP-42 chapter 7, we assumed that even without a regulatory driver, roof legs, sample wells, stub drains and vacuum breakers typically are controlled in a manner consistent with the requirements in current rules such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. Control Option ST2 was to upgrade other fittings, as necessary, with gasketed covers, wipers and other features needed to meet requirements in current rules such as subpart WW. Additional controls were applied under control Option ST2 only for column wells, ladder wells, guidepoles,

automatic gauge float wells and access hatches. Current rules allow a variety of control options for slotted guidepoles. In this analysis, we assumed for Option ST2 that controlled slotted guidepoles in IFR storage vessels are equipped with a gasketed cover, pole sleeve and pole wiper. Note that Control Option ST2 is also a control option for a storage vessel that is currently equipped with a typical IFR.

We assumed the baseline EFR storage vessel is equipped with a single rim seal (mechanical shoe) and typical fittings, except that we varied the type of guide pole (either solid or slotted). For such vessels, Control Option ST3 was to install a secondary rim seal, which we assumed would be rim-mounted. Control Option ST4 was to upgrade fittings, like in Control Option ST2 for fixed roof storage vessels. In this case, additional controls were applied under Control Option ST4 only for guidepoles and automatic gauge float wells because other fittings typically would be controlled to current regulatory levels in the absence of a regulatory driver. For this analysis we assumed that controlled slotted guidepoles in EFR storage vessels are equipped with gasketed covers and flexible enclosures. Proposed subpart I would allow a variety of compliance approaches for slotted guidepoles; we elected to evaluate a flexible enclosure in the impacts analysis because it shows a net cost savings even for the most costly approach. Control Option ST5 was to install a dome over storage vessels that meet the Control Option ST4 requirements.

We estimated baseline and controlled emissions using the AP-42 procedures. Inputs for the analysis included meteorological conditions for Houston, Texas, and typical throughputs obtained from a survey of the chemical manufacturing industry (see EPA-450/3-80-025). Costs were obtained from vendors. Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the cost- effectiveness estimates of the two control options for three sizes of model fixed roof storage vessels storing materials with a range of vapor pressures. Table 4 of this preamble shows the cost-effectiveness estimates of the three control options for model EFR storage vessels. Table 4 of this preamble also shows that the cost of Control Option ST5 (adding a dome over an EFR storage vessel that is already complying with Control Options ST3 and ST4) are unreasonable for all model vessels in the analysis; therefore, we rejected this control option from further consideration. Although we evaluated a variety of guide pole scenarios, as discussed above, the results in Table 3 of this preamble are for model storage vessels with a solid guide pole, and the results in Table 4 of this preamble are for model storage vessels with a slotted guide pole; the results for the other guide pole scenarios were not significantly different, and they would not lead to different conclusions. See the memorandum titled

Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control Options,

in the docket for proposed subpart I for a more detailed discussion of how these impacts were developed.

Table 3—Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST1 and ST2 for Model Fixed Roof Storage Vessels

Model storage vessel size

(gal)

Cost effectiveness

a

($/ton)

Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius (psia)

0.5

0.75

1.9

3.0

Control Option ST1

20,000

16,300

8,800

2,100

1,100

40,000

6,300

3,300

1,300

730

200,000

1,100

600

140

70

Control Option ST2

20,000

18,900

12,000

4,200

2,500

40,000

17,900

11,800

4,600

2,900

200,000

19,000

12,000

4,200

2,500

a

The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST2 are incremental relative to Control Option ST1.

Table 4—Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST3, ST4 and ST5 for Model EFR Storage Vessels

Model storage vessel size

(gal)

Cost effectiveness ($/ton)

a

Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius (psia)

0.5

0.75

1.9

3.0

Control Option ST3

20,000

13,500

9,200

3,800

2,500

40,000

13,000

8,600

3,300

2,100

200,000

10,500

6,800

2,600

1,600

Control Option ST4

20,000

(450)

(580)

(760)

(800)

40,000

(360)

(510)

(720)

(780)

200,000

(5)

(260)

(610)

(700)

Control Option ST5

20,000

100,000

71,000

32,000

21,000

40,000

110,000

74,000

31,000

20,000

200,000

120,000

78,000

33,000

21,000

a

The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST4 are incremental relative to Control Option ST3, and the cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST5 are incremental relative to Control Option ST4.

Current rules specify requirements comparable to the combined requirements in Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 for atmospheric storage vessels, but the size and vapor pressure thresholds in the rules vary. For comparison purposes, the HON requires control of emissions from storage vessels with a capacity of at least 40,000 gallons that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 0.75 psia, and storage vessels with a capacity of at least 20,000 gallons that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 1.9 psia. Tables 3 and 4 of this preamble show the incremental cost impacts for storage vessels at these thresholds range from a cost savings for Control Option ST4 to $12,000/ton for storage vessels storing material with a vapor pressure of 0.75 psia under Control Option ST2.

Although cost effectiveness is an important consideration in establishing thresholds for proposed subpart I, we also considered the practicality of setting thresholds less stringent than the thresholds in the HON and other current rules. This would be impractical because, when those rules are amended to reference the Uniform Standards, they would have to override such thresholds in order to satisfy statutory MACT, AMOS and other regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have decided to propose the thresholds that are used in the HON (see Table 1 of this preamble). These thresholds are widely applicable because many current rules reference the HON, and we think they represent the best choice as defaults for the Uniform Standards. We request comment on this decision.

For most chemical manufacturing facilities, the costs to comply with the combined requirements of Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 for atmospheric storage vessels above the proposed thresholds are expected to be zero or minimal because they are already subject to current rules that have the same or similar thresholds and control requirements. However, many storage vessels at petroleum refineries are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, which does not require control of deck fittings (

i.e.,

Control Options ST2 and ST4). Based on information provided by petroleum refiners in response to an information request, we determined that nationwide there are approximately 2,400 storage vessels with an EFR and 1,400 storage vessels with an IFR that meet or exceed the proposed thresholds in Table 1 of this preamble and about 60 percent of these storage vessels have slotted guidepoles (see the petroleum refinery database in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682). About 50 percent of the IFR storage vessels that have slotted guidepoles are controlled, and about two-thirds of the EFR storage vessels that have slotted guidepoles are controlled. We assumed all of the other fittings have typical controls (

i.e.,

consistent with Control Options ST1 and ST3). We also assumed each EFR is equipped with two rim seals, as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and in Control Option ST3. To estimate current annual emissions, we first represented each storage vessel with one of four model sizes. Each model storage vessel also was assigned one of four model liquids, depending on the reported vapor pressure of the actual stored liquid. Storage vessels containing liquids with the lowest vapor pressures were represented with methyl ethyl ketone. The other storage vessels were organized into three groups, each of which was represented with a different grade of gasoline.

We estimated the current and controlled emissions for each model-refinery storage vessel using the AP-42 procedures and other assumptions, as described above in the discussion of the analysis to establish thresholds for control. We estimated costs to upgrade fittings for each storage vessel using the same information that we used in the analysis to establish thresholds for control. We also applied a product recovery credit of $500/ton of VOC to the prevented emissions. The emission reductions associated with upgrading the deck fittings on EFR storage vessels, particularly slotted guidepoles, resulted in a product recovery credit that exceeded the estimate of all costs associated with Control Options ST2 and ST4. Thus, the nationwide impacts of the control options for petroleum refineries is a cost savings of about $350/ton of VOC controlled. See the memorandum titled

Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control Options,

in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional discussion of how these impacts were developed.

3. How did the EPA determine the control and compliance requirements for fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels?

All atmospheric storage vessels below the capacity and MTVP thresholds noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble would have to be equipped with a fixed roof. Although most current rules do not specify standards for such storage vessels, we expect that storage vessels at facilities that may in the future be subject to rules that reference the Uniform Standards already meet this proposed requirement. Thus, we do not expect any cost or emission impacts to meet this requirement. We request comment on the accuracy of this assumption.

The design and operating requirements that we are proposing for fixed roofs are based on the requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1. However, we are proposing the seven changes to the requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, described below, to control more effectively fugitive emissions, simplify requirements and enhance consistency with requirements for storage vessels that may be subject to other sections in proposed subpart I.

First, we are not proposing to specify suitable materials for the fixed roof and closure devices. We decided that these decisions are best left to you and the storage vessel manufacturer. You would have the flexibility to choose whatever materials work best in your situation, provided you meet the design and operational requirements in proposed subpart I.

Second, like the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I would allow opening of a closure device or removal of the roof when needed to provide access. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies that the closure devices may be opened to provide access for “performing routine inspection, maintenance, or other activities needed for normal operations” and “to remove accumulated sludge or other residues from the bottom of the tank.” In proposed subpart I, we use an edited version of these statements to clarify that the opening is allowed for “manual operations that require access such as inspections, maintenance, sampling, and cleaning.” A related difference between the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 and the proposed rule is that the proposed rule does not explicitly state that the closure device must be secured in the closed position or the roof reinstalled when the activity that requires access is complete. Such a statement is unnecessary, because the inverse of the provision allows openings when access is needed. The proposed rule clearly states that closure devices must be closed at all times except when access is needed.

Third, as in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I would allow you to route emissions from an opening through a closed vent system to a control device as an alternative to equipping the opening with a closure device. However, the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 does not specify compliance procedures for this control option. To ensure that emission reductions are consistent and quantifiable when a control device is used, we are proposing to require compliance with the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 65.325 for closed vent systems and control devices.

Fourth, the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies at 40 CFR 63.902(c)(3) that opening of a safety device is allowed at any time. This provision was not included in proposed subpart I because the referencing subparts will address malfunctions.

Fifth, we are proposing delay of repair provisions that differ from the requirements in the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1. The primary difference between the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1 and proposed subpart I is the time allowed to complete repair. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 allows delay as long as the owner or operator demonstrates that alternative tank capacity is not available to accept the regulated material from the tank that needs to be repaired, whereas the proposed rule would allow a maximum delay of 105 days (45 days plus up to two extensions of up to 30 days each). We have determined that 105 days is sufficient time to empty the tank, either to other existing tanks on site or to temporary storage, if necessary. Furthermore, current rules (and proposed subpart I) already include such requirements for repair of any floating roof, and applying the same requirements for fixed roof storage tanks would promote consistency and reduce the likelihood of inadvertent compliance errors. Sixth, we are proposing to require periodic monitoring of each potential source of vapor leakage from the fixed roof and fittings on the roof instead of annual visual inspections for defects. The monitoring could be conducted annually using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 or semiannually using optical gas imaging (after promulgation of the protocol that we are developing for 40 CFR part 60, appendix K). See sections III.A.3 and IV.A.5 of this preamble for discussions of the protocol. Repairs would be required for each leak. A leak would be defined as any instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or any emissions imaged when using an optical gas imaging instrument. We are proposing this monitoring change to better control fugitive emissions. As documented in the docket for proposed subpart I, EPA inspectors have often found significant leaks from fittings by sensory means (particularly olfactory) and optical gas imaging when visual inspections indicate the gaskets and other elements of closure devices appear to be sound, and the conservation vent is not actively releasing to relieve increased pressure caused by diurnal temperature changes or filling the storage vessel (see the memorandum titled

Leaks Observed From Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings,

in the docket for proposed subpart I).

The estimated annual costs, emission reductions and cost-effectiveness values for the three monitoring options are shown in Table 5 of this preamble. The estimated cost-effectiveness values for monitoring using either optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 are less than $230/ton per storage vessel, which we determined is reasonable. Note that the emission reductions for these two options are relative to estimated uncontrolled emissions. We lack the data needed to attempt to quantify the reductions for the visual inspections option, but we expect the reductions to be significantly less than for the other two options given the results of agency inspections noted above.

The impacts were estimated for a representative fixed roof storage vessel with eight fittings on the roof (an access hatch, gauge hatch, conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and four other miscellaneous types of valves and instruments). Costs were estimated assuming a visual inspection takes an average of 30 minutes and the other monitoring options take between 40 minutes and an hour, depending on the size of the facility at which the storage vessel is located. Based on the results of agency inspections, we estimated that initial optical gas imaging would find about 0.5 leaking fittings per storage vessel, and that monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, would find an average of about 1 leaking fitting per storage vessel. We assumed that subsequent monitoring would find about 5-percent leaking fittings if optical gas imaging is conducted semiannually and monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, is conducted annually. As in equipment leak analyses, repair costs were estimated assuming 75 percent of the leaks could be eliminated by a simple adjustment to the fitting and that 25 percent of the fittings would require a more extensive repair or replacement. Recordkeeping costs were estimated assuming 1 hr/yr to document the results of visual inspections and 0.5 hr/yr to document the results of the other monitoring options. Reporting costs were estimated assuming 0.5 hour per reporting period, to include records in annual periodic reports of inspections of each storage vessel for which a leak was found, and that 40 percent of the storage vessels have one leaking fitting each year (

i.e.,

5 percent of the fittings are found to be leaking, and each tank has an average of eight fittings). Uncontrolled emissions for the conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and miscellaneous valves were estimated using average emission factors from the

Protocol for Equipment Leaks Emission Estimates

(EPA-453/R-95-017) for such equipment in the SOCMI. Uncontrolled emissions for access hatches and gauge hatches were approximated using AP-42 factors for such fittings on EFR

(unbolted, gasketed cover for access hatches and gasketed, weighted mechanical actuation gauge hatches). Controlled emissions were estimated assuming the percent reduction in emissions equals the percent reduction in the number of fittings found to be leaking.

Table 5—Estimated Impacts of Monitoring Options for Fixed Roof Storage Vessels

Monitoring option

Total annual cost

($/yr)

Emission

reduction

relative to

uncontrolled

(tpy)

Cost

effectiveness

($/ton)

Incremental cost effectiveness

($/ton)

Visual

120

unknown

unknown

N/A

EPA Method 21

170

1.1

150

unknown

Optical gas imaging

260

1.1

230

undefined

tpy means tons per year.

N/A means not applicable.

We request comment, with supporting rationale, on all aspects of the proposed requirements for fixed roof storage vessels that store regulated material. We are particularly interested in comment on the proposed monitoring requirements. For example, itemized cost estimates, data on mass emissions from leaks and information about the types of initial repairs that would be needed and the expected frequency of replacements would be useful. Comparisons of results obtained using both Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and optical gas imaging are requested.

4. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for atmospheric storage vessels that are controlled using an IFR or EFR?

As noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble, we are proposing four different compliance approaches for atmospheric storage vessels that exceed specified capacity and MTVP thresholds. One of these approaches is to use a floating roof. The requirements that we are proposing for this approach in proposed 40 CFR 65.315 are essentially the same as the requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. We are proposing additional requirements and clarifications as described below.

Rim seal design.

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies alternative rim seal configurations for IFR and EFR storage vessels at 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, if certain conditions are met, 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(C) specify that full compliance with these configurations is not required for existing tanks until the next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed or 10 years after promulgation of the referencing subpart, whichever occurs first. The storage vessel provisions in 40 CFR 63.119(b) and (c) of the HON contain the same provision. We are not proposing this delayed compliance provision because we expect most rules that reference the Uniform Standards will be amended versions of current rules, and these amended rules will not reference the Uniform Standards until more than 10 years after their original promulgation. Thus, all existing storage vessels that are subject to a referencing subpart should already be equipped with the required rim seals before they become subject to the Uniform Standards.

One of the objectives of rim seals is to help fill the annular space between the rim of the floating roof and the wall of the storage vessel thereby minimizing evaporative losses from this area. To meet this objective, rim seals must be constructed of a material that is impermeable to the stored material or any components of the stored material. A rim seal that is saturated with (or has been plasticized by) stored liquid would constitute an inspection failure because the rim seal would not be functioning as designed. In proposed subpart I, this requirement is specified in section 65.315(c)(1)(iii). We request comment on whether explicitly stating in subpart I that rim seal material saturated with (or plasticized by) stored liquid constitutes an inspection failure would help clarify this requirement. We also request comment on other possible approaches for clarifying this requirement. In addition, we are interested in strategies that could minimize repeated use of seal materials that are demonstrated to be less reliable than others. For example, we request comment on the feasibility and potential effectiveness of requiring more frequent inspections if a seal that failed during the first 5 years of use is replaced with a seal made from the same material.

Sample well requirements.

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies at 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(v) that each sample well and each deck drain that empties into the stored liquid may be equipped with a slit fabric seal or similar device that covers at least 90 percent of the opening instead of a deck cover. In other rules, such as the CAR, the HON and 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 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb; “NSPS Kb”), the option for sample wells to use a slit fabric cover applies only for IFR. Therefore, to clarify the requirement, we are proposing to split the requirements for sample wells and deck drains into two paragraphs in subpart I. As an alternative to using a gasketed deck cover, proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(v) specifies that sample wells in IFR may be equipped with a slit fabric seal (or similar device) that covers at least 90 percent of the opening. Proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(vi) specifies that each opening for a deck drain (in any floating roof) that empties into the stored liquid must be equipped with a slit fabric (or similar device) that covers at least 90 percent of the opening.

Control requirements for guidepoles.

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(vii) that each unslotted guide pole shall be equipped with a gasketed cap on the top of the guide pole. We are proposing an alternative to this provision for proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(viii) to indicate that a welded cap is an acceptable alternative to a gasketed cap for anti-rotational devices. The cap may be welded on an unslotted guide pole because such a guide pole is not used for gauging the liquid level. Emissions reductions are expected to be the same for both types of caps.

As part of the STERPP, we offered to enter into agreements with companies that have installed or will install controls to reduce their slotted guide pole emissions from storage vessels that

are subject to Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978, and Prior to July 23, 1984 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka) or NSPS Kb. During development of the program, we identified two additional slotted guide pole control options that are not included in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. The STERPP included these options because their performance was determined to be comparable to the performance of other control options already specified in the rules. One of the new options is to use a flexible enclosure device that completely encloses the slotted guide pole and a cover on the top of the guide pole. The second new option is to install an internal guide pole sleeve, a pole wiper and a cover on the top of the guide pole. We are proposing to include both of these options in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(ix). As discussed above for unslotted guidepoles, the cover may be either gasketed or welded. There is no cost impact associated with these control options because these options are providing compliance flexibility without imposing new requirements.

Control requirements for slotted ladder legs.

Many IFR tanks have a ladder with one slotted leg so that the leg can also be used for gauging and/or sampling. Current rules specify that ladder wells must have gasketed sliding deck covers, and slotted guidepoles must be controlled using any one of several techniques. However, current rules do not explicitly specify requirements for slotted ladder legs. Therefore, we are proposing to require any one of three options for this type of fitting. One option is to use a pole float in the slotted leg and pole wipers for both legs. A second option is to use a ladder sleeve and pole wipers for both legs. The third option is to use a flexible device that completely encloses the ladder and either a gasketed or welded cap on the top of the slotted leg. Each option also includes the requirement to have a gasketed sliding deck cover. These controls are similar to the controls for slotted guidepoles, and they have been accepted in equivalency determinations for numerous storage vessels that are subject to current rules. Thus, the costs to comply with proposed subpart I would be the same as costs to comply with current rules.

Delayed compliance date for deck fitting requirements.

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) that deck fitting requirements do not apply for an existing IFR or EFR until the next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed or 10 years after the promulgation date of the referencing subpart, whichever occurs first. We have not included this provision in proposed subpart I for the same reason described above regarding a similar provision for rim seals (i.e., all existing storage tanks that may in the future be subject to rules that reference the Uniform Standards should have already complied with the deck fitting requirements before they become subject to the Uniform Standards).

Operational requirements.

The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 requires that the floating roof float on the stored liquid surface at all times, except for times when the floating roof is supported by its leg supports or other support devices such as hangers from the fixed roof (“landings”). Once the floating roof lands, “the process of filling to the point of refloating the floating roof shall be continuous and shall be performed as soon as practical” (40 CFR 63.1063(b)(2)), and you must keep records of the date the roof landed and the date it was refloated (40 CFR 63.1065(c)). The language at 40 CFR 63.1063(b)(2) is similar to the language in the CAR (40 CFR 65.43(b) and 65.44(b)), and the preamble to the CAR has clarified that the intent of this language is “to prevent the liquid level [in the storage vessel] from rising and falling while the roof is resting on the supports” (63 FR 57768, October 28, 1998). However, neither the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 nor the CAR place any limits on the number of landings or the amount of time that a floating roof may be landed. The lack of limits is a concern because the standing idle emissions can be significant, especially relative to the emissions and emissions reductions for deck fittings while the roof is floating. For example, Table 6 of this preamble presents estimated emissions from typical gasoline storage tanks equipped with an EFR and standing idle for 2 or 5 days. These emissions were estimated using AP-42 procedures for a storage vessel in Corpus Christi, Texas. The landed height of the roof was assumed to be 5 feet above the floor of the storage vessel, and the liquid level was assumed to be 0.75 feet above the floor of the storage vessel.

Table 6—Estimated Standing Idle Emissions From Gasoline Storage Vessels That are Equipped With an EFR

Size of storage vessel

(gal)

Stored contents

Number of days standing idle

Estimated

standing idle

emissions

(lb)

2,000,000

gasoline

2

830

5

2,100

7,000,000

gasoline

2

1,500

5

3,900

Other rules (e.g., NSPS Kb) allow floating roof landings only if the storage vessel is being completely emptied, and both the emptying and refilling processes must be continuous and as rapid as possible. This requirement has been interpreted as requiring the storage vessel to be emptied each time the floating roof lands. However, as we clarified in the preamble to the CAR (63 FR 57768), emptying the storage vessel every time the roof lands is undesirable because it increases the vapor space, which in turn increases emissions. Thus, emptying the storage vessel when landings are inadvertent or other times when emptying is not needed for operational reasons is counterproductive.

To minimize emissions from landings and clarify the requirements, we are proposing several differences relative to the requirements in current rules. For example, instead of requiring the floating roof to be floating on the liquid surface at all times except when it is landed on its supports, we are proposing to list specific situations under which the floating roof is not required to be floating on the stored liquid (proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1)). We are proposing to allow the roof to be landed during the

initial fill because the landed height is typically several feet above the floor of the storage vessel. We are not proposing to require control of emissions in displaced gases during the initial fill because the average concentration of regulated materials in the vapor space over the course of the fill is relatively low, and the costs to vent such emissions to a control device are not reasonable. Like current rules, however, the proposed rule typically would require filling to the point of refloating the roof to be conducted continuously and as rapidly as practicable to minimize the amount of time a vapor space is present below the floating roof. The only exception to the proposed requirement for continuous filling until the roof is refloated would be for storage vessels that are used to store product from batch processes. The exemption would apply if the quantity of product from one batch is insufficient to refloat the roof, but sufficient product from additional batches to refloat the roof will be added before any material is withdrawn from the storage vessel.

We also recognize that landings are required in order to take the storage vessel out of service, and they are often required in order to perform inspections, maintenance or before filling the storage vessel with a liquid that is incompatible with the liquid currently stored in the storage vessel. Therefore, we are proposing to allow roof landings in these situations, provided the time spent standing idle is limited to no more than 24 hours. After 24 hours, you would be required to either begin actions to completely empty (and clean, if necessary) or refill the storage vessel. These requirements clarify that you would not be required to empty a storage vessel when the storage vessel does not need to be empty in order to conduct maintenance or inspections. The limited number of situations when landings are allowed is intended to eliminate unnecessary or convenience landings, and the 24-hour limit is intended to prevent emissions from unnecessary time spent standing idle. We request comment on the suitability of the 24-hour limit. In particular, we request comment on specific situations where a storage vessel does not need to be completely emptied to perform maintenance or inspection, but the maintenance or inspection activity cannot be completed in less than 24 hours. We also request comment on the proposed list of circumstances under which floating roof landings would be allowed, in particular whether there are other circumstances that would require a floating roof landing or whether the list allows landings in situations where they are unnecessary.

We are also proposing to allow landings if you elect to route emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces emissions by at least 90 percent while the roof is landed because this control technique will also reduce standing loss emissions relative to uncontrolled landings. To prevent liquid from being drawn into the closed vent system, control would be required only when the liquid fills less than 90 percent of the volume under the landed roof. We are not proposing to require control of displaced emissions during refill after these events because the cost to control, considering the estimated emissions reduction, would not be reasonable except for very large storage vessels that store highly volatile material. We request comment on the technical feasibility and cost of this control option. In particular, we are interested in test data showing the gas flow rate and inlet mass emissions to a control device that was used as we proposed; please also provide related supporting information, such as the diameter of the storage vessel, the height of the landed roof, the average height of the liquid, the type of material stored and the pressure drop across the floating roof. We also request comment on whether the rule should limit the number of days operating in this manner so that the total controlled emissions do not exceed the standing idle emissions from one day. We also request comment on whether any facilities would have no choice but to comply with this control option because it would not be possible to limit landings to the situations described in the paragraph above; please provide a description of any such facilities and explain why limiting landings would not be possible.

Proposed subpart I would require you to estimate regulated material standing idle emissions from each landing and to submit the results in your next periodic report. As in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, you would also be required to keep records documenting the start and end times of all roof landing events. We have determined that maintaining information on the occurrence, time span and quantity of standing idle emissions for landings is needed to demonstrate compliance with the proposed limits on when landings are allowed. This information will also help inform decisions about where to target compliance inspections. We request comment on the feasibility and burden of estimating emissions from landings.

Monitoring and alarm systems.

Under the proposed rule, an inadvertent landing of a floating roof would be a deviation of the operating requirements described above. To minimize the number of unintended landings of floating roofs (and the additional emissions generated as a result), we are proposing to require that you equip each affected storage vessel with a system that provides a visual or audible signal when the floating roof is about to land on its legs (or other support devices). This monitoring is intended to alert you in time to take action to prevent an inadvertent landing and the resulting deviation. We are soliciting comment on the prevalence of such monitoring systems in use with existing storage vessels and the burden to add them to storage vessels that are not already so equipped. We estimated the cost to plan, purchase and install the required monitors to be about $2,000 per storage vessel. We estimated the annual costs, including costs to estimate emissions for each landing and related recordkeeping and reporting, to be about $900/year per storage vessel. These estimates assume each floating roof will be landed an average of two times per year, and that one of the landings will be inadvertent.

IFR and EFR inspections.

The proposed inspection requirements are consistent with the inspection requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(c) and (d), except for the six proposed changes discussed below. First, in an effort to improve clarity, we are proposing to tabulate many of the inspection and frequency requirements (see Tables 2 and 3 in proposed subpart I). The intent is not to change the requirements except as discussed below.

Second, we are proposing to specify how an inspector is to demonstrate when a gap constitutes an inspection failure for a deck fitting. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies at 40 CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) that a gap of more than

1/8

inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal or wiper, and the surface that it is intended to seal is an inspection failure. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 does not, however, explicitly specify how an inspector is to determine whether gaps exceed this amount. Therefore, we are proposing to specify in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i) that an inspector must use a

1/8

-inch diameter probe, and each location where the probe passes freely constitutes a gap. This procedure is consistent with the currently specified procedure for monitoring rim seal gaps in EFR tanks.

Third, we are proposing an editorial change to the language from 40 CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) that is incorporated in

40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i). In the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, 40 CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) specifies that the gap limit for deck fittings applies to “any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper.” The use of the word “seal” in this sentence may be misinterpreted as meaning the provision applies to rim seals because the design requirements for deck fittings refer only to gaskets and wipers. Therefore, to eliminate confusion and improve clarity, we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i) to specify that the gap limit applies to each deck fitting gasket or wiper.

Fourth, to increase compliance flexibility and possibly emissions reductions, we are proposing to allow optical gas imaging or monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 as an alternative to measuring rim seal gaps for EFR and deck fitting gaps for both IFR and EFR. The monitoring would be required on the same schedule as the otherwise applicable gap measurement requirements. An inspection failure would occur if you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or when you obtain an image of emissions when using optical gas imaging. Conditions causing an inspection failure would have to be repaired. To ensure consistent and reliable results when using optical gas imaging, we are also proposing two additional requirements: (1) Optical gas imaging would be allowed only if at least one compound in the emissions from the storage vessel can be detected by the optical gas imaging instrument and (2) monitoring would be required in accordance with a new protocol for optical gas imaging. As discussed in sections III.A.3 and III.A.4 of this preamble, we are currently developing a protocol for using optical gas imaging instruments, and we expect that the protocol will be proposed as appendix K in 40 CFR part 60. We anticipate that compliance with either of the proposed monitoring alternatives would result in lower emissions than compliance with the conventional gap measurement requirements because agency personnel using an optical gas imaging instrument have often seen images of emissions from seals and fittings that appear to be in good condition upon visual inspection (see the memorandum titled

Leaks Observed from Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings,

in the docket for proposed subpart I). We have not estimated cost effectiveness to conduct optical gas imaging or monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, because such monitoring is only an alternative to gap measurements, not a requirement. However, monitoring costs and burden for optical gas imaging may be lower if several fittings can be monitored simultaneously. We request comment on the technical feasibility, performance and costs of both proposed alternatives to gap measurement requirements.

Fifth, we are proposing to require inspections of an EFR deck and fittings annually rather than at least every 10 years, as specified in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 requires annual secondary seal gap measurements, but complete inspections of the EFR, rim seals and deck fittings are required only when the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed, or every 10 years, whichever occurs first. A commenter on the proposed changes to storage vessel requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (73 FR 66694, November 10, 2008), which would have referenced the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, stated that the annual inspection for EFR should be expanded to include inspection of the roof and deck fittings as well as the secondary seal because defects in the roof or fittings are often clearly visible during the secondary seal inspections (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0176). Furthermore, the commenter noted that, under the current rule, it is unclear whether any such defects noted during the annual inspection are to be repaired, reported or ignored until the next complete inspection. Upon review, we have determined that annual inspections of the EFR deck and fittings are reasonable because: (1) An inspection for other failures can readily be accomplished each time an inspector is measuring secondary seal gaps; (2) conducting such failure inspections annually would more closely align the EFR inspection requirements with the current IFR inspection requirements; and (3) we estimated the additional burden and costs to be minimal. Measurement of gaps between deck fitting gaskets and the surfaces they are intended to seal is not required for IFR. However, given that EFR have a greater potential for emissions due to wind effects, we think the minimal additional time and cost to perform such measurements of EFR fittings is reasonable in light of the potential for reduced emissions. We estimated the additional labor costs for visual inspections, measurement of deck fitting gasket gaps and associated recordkeeping to be about $100/year. The additional burden was estimated to be about 2 hours per storage vessel.

As noted above, we are proposing to allow monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 and optical gas imaging as alternatives to gap measurement requirements. We estimated the costs and burden to conduct annual monitoring of EFR deck fittings using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to be about the same as for annual to measurement of gaps at each fitting because an inspector has to check each fitting individually in both cases. Theoretically, costs and burden to conduct optical gas imaging could be slightly less (assuming the facility is using a camera that has already been purchased for monitoring equipment leaks) because several emission points can be monitored simultaneously with an optical gas imaging instrument, but we assumed the same amount of time because time is needed to prepare the camera and to obtain images from multiple locations. See the memorandum titled

Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control Options,

in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional discussion of how these costs and burden estimates were developed. We request comments that assess the effectiveness and burden of the proposed annual EFR inspections relative to the inspection requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2.

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.