[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40740-40791]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05900]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 130

July 7, 2020

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology
Review; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 130 / Tuesday, July 7, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074; FRL-10006-88-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT86

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
(OLD) source category regulated under National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the storage tank requirements
as a result of the RTR. In addition, we are taking final action to
correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); add requirements
for electronic reporting of performance test results and reports,
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of
Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; add operational requirements for
flares; and make other minor technical improvements. We estimate that
these amendments will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from this source category by 186 tons per year (tpy), which
represents an approximate 8 percent reduction of HAP emissions from the
source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 7, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Neil Feinberg, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding
the risk assessment, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. Jon Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 564-1395; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
APCD air pollution control device
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CF Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
CRA Congressional Review Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, also
known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
LEL lower explosive limit
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDL method detection limit
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NHVcz net heating value in the combustion zone gas
NHVvg net heating value of the flare vent gas
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDS safety data sheet(s)
SOCMI synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TAC Texas Administrative Code
The Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
VPX vapor pressure

    Background information. On October 21, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the OLD NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074. A ``track changes''
version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in
this action is available in the docket.

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the OLD source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the OLD source category in
our October 21, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the significant changes since proposal?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the OLD source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the OLD source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA Section
112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD source category?
    E. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OLD source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the OLD Source Category
    C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2) and (3) for the
OLD Source Category
    D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM
    E. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NESHAP and source category               NAICS \1\ code(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-       3222, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3259,
 Gasoline).                               3261, 3361, 3362, 3399, 4247,
                                          4861, 4869, 4931, 5622.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. The final
standards are directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal,
state, local, and tribal government entities are not affected by this
final action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources
Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57
FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial
Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992),
the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to, those
activities associated with the storage and distribution of organic
liquids other than gasoline, at sites which serve as distribution
points from which organic liquids may be obtained for further use and
processing.
    The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines. The types of organic
liquids and emission sources covered by the OLD NESHAP are frequently
found at many types of facilities that are already subject to other
NESHAP. If equipment is in OLD service and is subject to another 40 CFR
part 63 NESHAP, then that equipment is not subject to the corresponding
requirements in the OLD NESHAP.
    To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program, and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy or
more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources,
these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 56288, October 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the OLD source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the OLD NESHAP on February 3, 2004 (69 FR
5038). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. The
OLD industry consists of facilities that store and distribute organic
liquids. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently
includes 177 facilities. As defined in the Initial List of Categories
of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing
the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030,
July, 1992), the OLD source category includes, but is not limited to,
those activities associated with the storage and distribution of
organic liquids other than gasoline, at sites that serve as
distribution points from which organic liquids may be obtained for
further use and processing.
    The OLD source category involves the distribution of organic
liquids into, out of, or within a source. The distribution activities
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks and transfers
into or out of the tanks from or to cargo tanks, containers, and
pipelines that are not subject to other 40 CFR part 63 standards.
Organic liquids are any crude oils downstream of the first point of
custody transfer and any non-crude oil liquid that contains at least 5
percent by weight of any combination of the 98 HAP listed in Table 1 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. For the purposes of the OLD NESHAP,
organic liquids do not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate
oil), diesel (No. 2 distillate oil), asphalt, and heavier distillate
oil and fuel oil, fuel that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site,
hazardous waste, wastewater, ballast water, or any

non-crude liquid with an annual average true vapor pressure less than
0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia). The OLD NESHAP applies only to major
sources of HAP (i.e., sources that have the potential to emit 10 tpy of
any single HAP or 25 tpy of combined HAP). Facilities subject to this
NESHAP fall into two types, either (1) petrochemical terminals
primarily in the business of storing and distributing organic liquids
or (2) chemical production facilities or other manufacturing facilities
that either have a distribution terminal not subject to another major
source NESHAP or have a few miscellaneous storage tanks or transfer
racks that are not otherwise subject to another major source NESHAP.
    Equipment controlled by the OLD NESHAP are storage tanks, transfer
operations, transport vehicles while being loaded, and equipment leak
components that have the potential to leak such as valves, pumps, and
sampling connections. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of 40 CFR part 63
contains the criteria for control of storage tanks and transfer racks.
If a storage tank of a certain threshold capacity stores crude oil or a
non-crude organic liquid having a threshold sum of partial pressures of
HAP, then compliance options are either to (1) route emissions through
a closed vent system to a control device that achieves a 95-percent
control efficiency or (2) comply with work practice standards of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WW (i.e., operate the tank with a compliant internal
floating roof or a compliant external floating roof), route emissions
through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system of a process, or
route emissions through a vapor balancing system that meets
requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4). Storage tanks storing
non-crude organic liquids having a sum of partial pressures of HAP of
at least 11.1 psia do not have the option to comply using an internal
or external floating roof tank. Table 2 to subpart EEEE of 40 CFR part
63 contains the criteria for control of transfer racks, which are based
on the facility-wide organic liquid loading volume for organic liquids
having threshold HAP content expressed in percent HAP by weight of the
organic liquid. For transfer racks required to control HAP emissions,
the standards are either to (1) route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device that achieves 98-percent control efficiency
or (2) operate a compliant vapor balancing system. Transfer rack
systems that fill containers of 55 gallons or greater are required to
comply with specific provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP or
operate a vapor balancing system.
    The NESHAP requires leak detection and repair for certain equipment
components associated with storage tanks and transfer racks subject to
this subpart and for certain equipment components associated with
pipelines between such storage tanks and transfer racks. The components
are specified in the definition of ``Equipment leak components'' at 40
CFR 63.2406 and include pumps, valves, and sampling connection systems
in organic liquid service. The owner or operator is required to comply
with the requirements for pumps, valves, and sampling connections in 40
CFR part 63, subpart TT (control level 1), subpart UU (control level
2), or subpart H. This requires the use of EPA Method 21 of appendix A-
7 to 40 CFR part 60 (``EPA Method 21'') to determine the concentration
of any detected leaks and to repair the component if the measured
concentration exceeds the definition of a leak within the applicable
subpart.
    Pressure relief devices (PRDs) on vapor balancing systems are
required to be monitored quarterly for leaks. An instrument reading of
500 parts per million (ppm) or greater defines a leak. Leaks must be
repaired within 5 days.
    The types of organic liquids and emission sources covered by the
OLD NESHAP are frequently found at many types of facilities that are
already subject to other NESHAP. If equipment is in OLD service and is
subject to another 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP, then that equipment is not
subject to the corresponding requirements in the OLD NESHAP.

C. What changes did we propose for the OLD source category in our
October 21, 2019, RTR proposal?

    On October 21, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the OLD NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, that
took into consideration the RTR analyses. We proposed to find that the
risks from the source category are acceptable, the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and more
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. In the proposed rule, we proposed under CAA
section 112(d)(6) to amend the requirements for storage tanks and
equipment leaks and also provided an alternative fenceline monitoring
program in the OLD source category as follows:
     Revise the average true vapor pressure thresholds of the
OLD storage tanks for existing sources requiring control to align with
those of the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)
and National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (``HON,'' 40
CFR part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds are lower;
     add a requirement for leak detection and repair (LDAR),
using EPA Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on
fixed roof storage tanks (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to
the 95 percent by weight control requirements;
     revise the equipment leak requirements to add connectors
to the monitored equipment component types at a leak definition of 500
ppm (i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with either 40 CFR part
63, subparts UU or H); and
     add an optional implementation of a fenceline monitoring
program in lieu of the proposed technology review amendments for
storage tanks and equipment leaks discussed above.
    In the proposed rule, we proposed under CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) to amend the operating and monitoring requirements for flares used
as air pollution control devices (APCDs) in the OLD source category as
follows:
     We proposed to add requirements at 40 CFR 63.2380 to
directly apply the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule (PRSR) flare
definitions and requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to flares in
the OLD source category, with certain clarifications and exemptions;
     we proposed to amend requirements that flares used as
APCDs in the OLD source category operate pilot flame systems
continuously when organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare.
Specifically, we proposed to remove the cross-reference to the General
Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to
include in the OLD NESHAP the existing provisions that flares operate
with a pilot flame at all times and be continuously monitored for a
pilot flame using a thermocouple or any other equivalent device. We
also proposed to add a continuous compliance measure that would
consider each 15-minute block when there is at least 1 minute where no
pilot flame is present when regulated material is routed to the flare
as a deviation from the standard;
     we proposed to amend requirements that flares used as
APCDs in the OLD source category operate with no visible emissions
(except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2
consecutive hours) when organic HAP emissions are routed to the flare.
Specifically, we proposed to remove the

cross-reference to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include the limitation on visible
emissions. We also proposed to clarify that the initial 2-hour visible
emissions demonstration should be conducted the first time regulated
materials are routed to the flare. With regard to continuous compliance
with the visible emissions limitation, we proposed daily visible
emissions monitoring for whenever regulated material is routed to the
flare. On days the flare receives regulated material, we proposed that
owners or operators of flares monitor visible emissions at a minimum of
once per day using an observation period of 5 minutes and EPA Method
22. Additionally, whenever regulated material is routed to the flare
and there are visible emissions from the flare, we proposed that
another 5-minute visible emissions observation period be performed
using EPA Method 22, even if the required daily visible emissions
monitoring has already been performed. If an employee observes visible
emissions, then the owner or operator of the flare would perform a 5-
minute EPA Method 22 observation to check for compliance upon initial
observation or notification of such event. In addition, in lieu of
daily visible emissions observations performed using EPA Method 22, we
proposed that owners or operators be allowed to use video surveillance
cameras. We also proposed to extend the observation period for a flare
to 2 hours whenever visible emissions are observed for greater than 1
continuous minute during any of the required 5-minute observation
periods;
     we proposed the consolidation of provisions related to
flare tip velocity. Specifically, we proposed to remove the cross-
reference to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC to consolidate the specification of maximum flare
tip velocity into the OLD NESHAP as a single equation, irrespective of
flare type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted). We
also proposed not to include the special flare tip velocity equation in
the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.11(b)(6)(i)(A) for non-assisted
flares with hydrogen content greater than 8 percent;
     in lieu of requiring compliance with the operating limits
for net heating value of the flare vent gas in the General Provisions,
we proposed to cross-reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to include in
the OLD NESHAP a single minimum operating limit for the net heating
value in the combustion zone gas (NHVcz) of 270 British thermal units
per standard cubic foot during any 15-minute period for steam-assisted,
air-assisted, and non-assisted flares used as APCDs in the OLD source
category. We also proposed to allow engineering estimates to
characterize the amount of gas flared and the amount of assist gas (if
applicable) introduced into the system. Finally, we proposed that
owners or operators of flares in the OLD source category that use grab
sampling and engineering calculations to determine compliance must
still assess compliance with the NHVcz operating limit on a 15-minute
block average using the equation at 40 CFR 63.670(m)(1) and cumulative
volumetric flows of flare vent gas, assist steam, and premix assist
air; and
     except for the visible emissions operating limits, we
proposed to use a 15-minute block averaging period for each proposed
flare operating parameter (i.e., presence of a pilot flame, flare tip
velocity, and NHVcz) to ensure that the flare is operated within the
appropriate operating conditions.
    In addition to the amendments proposed for flares used as APCDs,
the EPA proposed to clarify that PRDs on vapor return lines of a vapor
balancing system are also subject to the vapor balancing system
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv).
    We also proposed to:
     Revise the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008);
     add the requirement that owners or operators of OLD
facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, NOCS
reports, and fenceline monitoring reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI);
     add requirements for testing and recordkeeping to confirm
the annual average true vapor pressure at least every 5 years, or with
a change of commodity in the tank's contents, whichever occurs first,
to ensure the tank's applicability and confirm that it should not be
subject to the 95-percent control requirements of the regulation;
     add requirements that the contents of tanks that are
claimed to be not subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less
than 5-percent HAP (and, therefore, do not meet the definition of
``Organic liquids'' within the OLD NESHAP) should be tested every 5
years, or with a change of commodity in the tank's contents, whichever
occurs first, to confirm that the tank is not storing ``Organic
liquids'' and, therefore, is not subject to the rule;
     amend the definition of the term ``Annual average true
vapor pressure'' at 40 CFR 63.2406 by replacing one of the acceptable
methods for the determination of vapor pressure. We proposed to replace
the method, ASTM D2879, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of
Liquids by Isoteniscope,'' with the method, ASTM D6378-18a, ``Standard
Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum
Products, Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple
Expansion Method).'' Other monitoring method clarifications and
incorporations by references were also proposed; and
     add a definition of the term ``Condensate'' and to specify
its regulation in this rule in the same way crude oil is regulated at
the definition of the term ``Organic liquid'' and at Tables 2 and 2b to
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE.
    In addition to the revisions proposed above, we also proposed
several editorial clarification and minor corrections to 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEE.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the OLD source category and amends
the OLD NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including adding requirements
and clarifications for periods of SSM and bypasses, revising the
operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs; adding
provisions for electronic reporting of performance test results and
reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS
reports; and other minor editorial and technical changes. This action
also reflects several changes to the October 21, 2019, RTR proposal in
consideration of comments received during the public comment period as
described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the significant changes since proposal?

    This section introduces the significant changes to the OLD NESHAP
amendments made since proposal being promulgated. These changes are
discussed in further detail in section IV of this preamble.
     We are not finalizing the proposed requirements for LDAR
using EPA Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak

definition for fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g., access
hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent by weight control
requirements in the final rule;
     we are not finalizing the proposal to add connectors to
the monitored equipment component types at a leak definition of 500 ppm
(i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with either 40 CFR part 63,
subparts UU or H);
     we are not finalizing the option of allowing for a
fenceline monitoring program in lieu of other requirements;
     we are finalizing standards for storage tank degassing
emission points during periods of SSM to ensure a CAA section 112
standard applies ``at all times;'' and
     we are not finalizing the proposed required testing and
recordkeeping for emission sources not requiring control to confirm the
annual average true vapor pressure at least every 5 years, or with a
change of commodity in the tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to
ensure the tank's applicability and confirm that it should not be
subject to the 95 percent control requirements of the regulation.
Further, we are not finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that the
contents of tanks that are claimed to be not subject to the OLD NESHAP
because they contain less than 5 percent HAP (and, therefore, do not
meet the definition of ``Organic liquids'' within the OLD NESHAP)
should be tested every 5 years, or with a change of commodity in the
tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm that the tank is
not storing ``organic liquids'' and, therefore, is not subject to the
rule.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
OLD source category?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the OLD NESHAP
being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA proposed no
changes to the MACT standards based on the risk review conducted
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our
proposed determination that risks from this source category are
acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, and that more stringent standards are not necessary to
prevent an adverse environmental effect. See section 3 of the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the docket
for this action for comments we received regarding risk review and our
responses.

C. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the OLD source category?

    We determined that there are developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards
for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are revising the MACT standards to include
revised average true vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks
for existing sources, requiring control to align with those of the
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40
CFR part 63, subpart G) where the thresholds are lower.
    Section IV.B.3 of this preamble provides a summary of key comments
we received on the technology review and our responses.

D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(2)
and (3) for the OLD source category?

    The EPA is finalizing the changes proposed pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). Consistent with the October 21, 2019, RTR proposal,
we are revising monitoring and operational requirements for flares to
ensure that OLD facilities that use flares as APCDs meet the MACT
standards at all times when controlling HAP emissions. In addition, we
are adding provisions and clarifications for periods of SSM and
bypasses, including PRD releases, bypass lines on closed vent systems,
maintenance activities, and certain gaseous streams routed to a fuel
gas system to ensure that CAA section 112 standards apply continuously,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Based on comments received on the proposed rulemaking, we are also
adding a standard for storage tank degassing for storage tanks subject
to the control requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE.
    Detailed changes and associated rationale regarding flares and PRDs
are set forth in the proposed rule. See 84 FR 56302 through 56306,
October 21, 2019. Section IV.C.3 of this preamble provides a summary of
key comments we received on the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
provisions and our responses.

E. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the OLD NESHAP to
remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and
(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. As detailed in section IV.E.1 of the
proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019), the OLD NESHAP
requires that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.2350(a)),
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We determined that facilities in this source
category can generally meet the applicable OLD NESHAP standards at all
times, including periods of startup and shutdown. Where appropriate,
and as discussed in section III.C of this preamble, we are also
finalizing alternative standards in this preamble for storage tank
degassing emission points during periods of SSM to ensure a CAA section
112 standard applies ``at all times.'' Other than the storage tank
degassing emission point discussed in section III.C of this preamble,
the EPA determined that no additional standards are needed to address
emissions during these periods.
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As
discussed in the proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019), the
EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set
standards for malfunctions where feasible. Refer to section IV.E.1 of
the proposal preamble (84 FR 56318, October 21, 2019) for further
discussion of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards
for malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.
    As is explained in more detail below, we are finalizing revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, to
eliminate requirements that include rule language

providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, we are
finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that
treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction, as explained further below. As discussed in the proposal
preamble, these revisions are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.2350(a) that the standards apply at all times.
    Also, based on comments received during the public comment period,
we are revising the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for
periods of planned routine maintenance of the control device to allow
tank breathing losses to be consistent with our intent at proposal (see
84 FR 56323, October 21, 2019), and we are revising 40 CFR 63.2346(l)
to sufficiently address the SSM exemption provisions from subparts
referenced by the OLD NESHAP standards (such as 40 CFR part 63,
subparts SS, TT, and UU) that are no longer applicable. Finally, we are
extending the compliance date of removing the portion of the
``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that addresses SSM periods
as being applicable to 3 years after publication of the final rule
instead of 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register to provide a consistent compliance date for all final rule SSM
provisions due to the addition of the tank degassing requirements
discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. See section 10.1 of the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action, for a summary of the significant comments
we received on the SSM provisions and our responses.

F. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several other
NESHAP requirements. To increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing a requirement that
owners or operators of facilities in the OLD source category submit
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports, and NOCS reports through the
EPA's CDX using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in the docket for this action. The final rule requires that
performance test results collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
ERT website \2\ at the time of the test be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and that other performance test
results be submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the
attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results
of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. The final rule requires
that NOCS reports be submitted as a PDF upload in CEDRI. For compliance
reports, the final rule requires that owners or operators use the
appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The
final version of the template for these reports will be located on the
CEDRI website.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility
operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility, i.e., for
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event in
the time just prior to a report's due date, as well as the process to
assert such a claim.
    We are finalizing the revision of 40 CFR 63.2354(c) to add ASTM
D6886-18, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of the Weight
Percent Individual Volatile Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry
Coatings by Gas Chromatography,'' as another acceptable method for the
determination of HAP content of an organic liquid. We are also
finalizing the replacement of method ASTM D2879 with method ASTM D6378-
18a as an acceptable method for determination of whether a total vapor
pressure (and, therefore, the sum total of Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE HAP) is below the threshold level requiring control for a
storage tank.
    Finally, we are finalizing all of the revisions that we proposed
for clarifying text or correcting typographical errors, grammatical
errors, and cross-reference errors. These editorial corrections and
clarifications are summarized in 84 FR 56323 through 56324 and Table 9
of the proposal. Section IV.E.3 of this preamble provides a summary of
key comments we received on these provisions and our responses.

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the OLD NESHAP standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 7, 2020. From our assessment of the
timeframe needed for implementing the entirety of the revised
requirements (see 84 FR 56324 and 56325, October 21, 2019), the EPA
proposed a period of 3 years to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable. No opposing comments were received during the
public comment period on the length of the compliance period and we are
finalizing the 3-year period as proposed. Thus, the compliance date of
the final amendments for all existing affected sources and all new
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or
before October 21, 2019, is no later than 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule. Furthermore, as discussed in sections III.C and
D of this preamble, we are adding a standard for storage tank degassing
for storage tanks subject to the control requirements in Tables 2 and
2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE since degassing is considered a SSM
event for storage tanks. The provisions being finalized are similar to
the requirements promulgated in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. As we
discovered during the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP rulemaking, the
challenges faced by affected sources in complying with these
requirements necessitated additional compliance time from what was
promulgated, eventually having to move the original compliance date of
these provisions from February 1, 2016, to August 1, 2018, an
additional 2 and a half years.\4\ Therefore, the 3-year compliance date
that was proposed for the OLD NESHAP provides a consistent time
allowance to OLD sources as was needed for petroleum refineries to
fully implement the final amendments to this rule. We have also revised
the effective date of removing the portion of the ``deviation''
definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as being
applicable 3 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register to provide a consistent compliance date due to the addition of
the tank degassing requirements. For all new affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after October 21, 2019, the
effective date is

July 7, 2020, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/petrefinery_compliance_ext_factsheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the OLD source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the OLD Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the OLD
source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the October 21, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE (84 FR 56288). The results of the risk assessment for the
proposal are presented briefly below and in more detail in the
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.

       Table 2--Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results as Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Maximum
                             individual     Population at    Annual cancer       Maximum      Maximum screening
 Number of facilities \1\    cancer risk   increased risk  incidence (cases      chronic      acute noncancer HQ
                           (in 1 million)  of cancer  >=1-     per year)        noncancer            \4\
                                 \2\        in-1 million                        TOSHI \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
157......................              20         350,000              0.03             0.4  HQREL = 1 (toluene,
                                                                                formaldehyde, and
                                                                                chloroform).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. This number is less than the 173 existing facilities
  identified in the source category because OLD emission points could not be identified at all facilities. This
  is explained in the Data Quality memorandum. For this category, allowable emissions are assumed to equal
  actual emissions.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ system with the highest TOSHI for the
  source category is respiratory.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to
  develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold
  value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
  using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the proposed inhalation risk assessment, as shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the estimated cancer maximum
individual risk (MIR) is 20-in-1 million, with 1,3-butadiene from
equipment leaks as the major contributor to the risk. At proposal, the
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category was
estimated to be 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case
every 33 years. Approximately 350,000 people were estimated to face an
increased cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to inhalation
exposure to actual HAP emissions from this source category. At
proposal, the estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation
exposure for this source category was 0.4. The screening assessment of
worst-case inhalation impacts indicated a worst-case maximum acute HQ
of 1 for toluene, formaldehyde, and chloroform based on the 1-hour REL
for each pollutant.
    At proposal, potential multipathway human health risks were
estimated using a three-tier screening assessment of the HAP known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment emitted by
facilities in this source category. The only pollutants with elevated
Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening values were polycyclic organic matter (POM)
(cancer). The Tier 2 screening value for POM was 6, which means that we
were confident that the cancer risk is lower than 6-in-1 million. For
noncancer, the Tier 2 screening value for both cadmium and mercury was
less than 1. There were no exceedances of the lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening thresholds based on actual and
allowable emissions of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, hydrochloric acid,
and hydrofluoric acid. For POM emissions, one facility did have a Tier
1 exceedance for a sediment community no-effect level by a maximum
screening value of 6. There were no exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS.
    The EPA considered all health risk factors, including those shown
in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination
and proposed that the risks posed by the OLD source category are
acceptable (section IV.C.1 of proposal preamble, 84 FR 56309, October
21, 2019).
    We then considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors,
standards are required to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In
considering whether the standards are required to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we used the same risk
factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also
considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant
factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk
associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed that
additional emissions controls for the OLD source category are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
(section IV.C.2 of proposal preamble, 84 FR 56310, October 21, 2019).
    At proposal, we also evaluated the risk from whole facility
emissions in order to put the risks from the source category in
context. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk based on whole
facility emissions was estimated to be 2,000-in-1 million at proposal,
with ethylene oxide from a non-category source driving the risk. At
proposal, the maximum chronic noncancer hazard index based on whole
facility emissions was estimated to be 10 (for the kidney) driven by
emissions of trichloroethylene from equipment leaks in the solvent
recovery operations at a plastic parts manufacturing facility, which
are non-category sources.
2. How did the risk review change for the OLD source category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the
October 21, 2019 RTR proposal (84 FR 56288) for the OLD source
category.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that, due to comments, there are four fewer existing
OLD affected sources now than at proposal (i.e., four sources we
identified as subject to the OLD NESHAP are not in fact subject to
that rule). However, this change does not warrant an update to this
analysis since proposal and has, therefore, not been updated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
necessary under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the OLD source category.
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the determination
from the risk reviews suggested changes to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. For example, some commenters stated that the
EPA should lower the acceptability benchmark so that risks below 100-
in-1 million are unacceptable, include emissions outside of the source
categories in question in the risk assessment and assume that HAP
without dose-response values should be included in the risk assessment.
After review of all the comments received, we determined that no
changes were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the
Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand''
(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors
in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR,
cancer incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer
HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and
noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation
uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the OLD source
category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we
are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA
section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the OLD Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OLD
source category?
    We proposed, as part of our technology review for storage tanks,
the following emission reduction options: (1) Revising the average true
vapor pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources
requiring control to align with those of the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G)
where the thresholds are lower; and (2) in addition to requirements
specified in option 1, requiring LDAR using EPA Method 21 with a 500
ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof storage tanks (e.g.,
access hatches) that are not subject to the 95 percent by weight
control requirements.
    We proposed option 1 (lower average vapor pressure thresholds for
control) as a development in practices, processes, and control
technologies for storage tanks because it reflects requirements and
applicability thresholds that are widely applicable to existing tanks
that are often collocated with OLD sources and that have been found to
be cost effective for organic liquid storage tanks. We did not propose
revisions to the OLD NESHAP applicability thresholds for new sources,
as they were already more stringent than other similar rules. Table 3
of this preamble lists the proposed capacity and average true vapor
pressure thresholds for control. As shown in Table 3 of this preamble,
we also proposed to clarify that condensate and crude oil are
considered to be the same material with respect to OLD applicability
(see section IV.E.3 of the October 21, 2019, proposal (84 FR 56288) for
more details on this clarification).

   Table 3--NESHAP Storage Tank Capacity and Annual Average True Vapor
     Pressure Thresholds for Control Under Proposed Control Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Tank contents and average true
                                         vapor pressure of total Table 1
 Existing/new source and tank capacity   to  subpart EEEE of 40 CFR part
                                                  63 organic HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=18.9 cubic meters (5,000      if the annual average true
 gallons) and <75.7 cubic meters          vapor pressure of the stored
 (20,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=27.6
                                          kilopascals (4.0 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=75.7 cubic meters (20,000     if the annual average true
 gallons) and <151.4 cubic meters         vapor pressure of the stored
 (40,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=13.1
                                          kilopascals (1.9 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=151.4 cubic meters (40,000    if the annual average true
 gallons) and <189.3 cubic meters         vapor pressure of the stored
 (50,000 gallons).                        organic liquid is >=5.2
                                          kilopascals (0.75 psia) and
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Existing affected source with a          Not crude oil or condensate and
 capacity >=189.3 cubic meters (50,000    if the annual average true
 gallons).                                vapor pressure of the stored
                                          organic liquid is <76.6
                                          kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=18.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (5,000 gallons) and <37.9 cubic meters   the stored organic liquid is
 (10,000 gallons).                        >=27.6 kilopascals (4.0 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.

Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=37.9 cubic meters      average true vapor pressure of
 (10,000 gallons) and <189.3 cubic        the stored organic liquid is
 meters (50,000 gallons).                 >=0.7 kilopascals (0.1 psia)
                                          and <76.6 kilopascals (11.1
                                          psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate.
Reconstructed or new affected source     Not crude oil and if the annual
 with a capacity >=189.3 cubic meters     average true vapor pressure of
 (50,000 gallons).                        the stored organic liquid is
                                          <76.6 kilopascals (11.1 psia).
                                         The stored organic liquid is
                                          crude oil or condensate
Existing, reconstructed, or new          Not crude oil or condensate and
 affected source meeting any of the       if the annual average true
 capacity criteria specified above.       vapor pressure of the stored
                                          organic liquid is >=76.6
                                          kilopascals (11.1 psia).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further proposed option 2 (LDAR) as an improvement in practices
for storage tanks because these monitoring methods have been required
by other regulatory agencies since promulgation of the OLD NESHAP to
confirm the vapor tightness of tank seals and gaskets to ensure
compliance with the standards. As we noted at proposal, we have
observed leaks on roof deck fittings through monitoring with EPA Method
21 that could not be found with visual observation techniques (see 84
FR 56311, October 21, 2019).
    Proposed option 2 applied to any fixed roof storage tank that is
part of an OLD affected source that is not subject to the 95 percent by
weight and equivalent controls according to the proposed thresholds
above. The proposed requirements of option 2 applied to new and
existing sources for storage tanks having a capacity of 3.8 cubic
meters (1,000 gallons) or greater that store organic liquids with an
annual average true vapor pressure of 10.3 kilopascals (1.5 psia) or
greater.
    Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the storage tank options, we proposed that control options 1 and 2
were cost-effective strategies for further reducing emissions from
storage tanks at OLD facilities and proposed to revise the OLD NESHAP
requirements for storage tanks pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Other
storage tank control options beyond these two, including installation
of geodesic domes on external floating roof tanks, were considered
during our technology review but were not found to be generally cost
effective were not proposed. Details on the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated at proposal are provided in the
memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Storage Tanks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source
Category, available in the docket to this action.
    At proposal, our technology review for equipment leaks identified
two potential developments in LDAR practices and processes: (1) Adding
connectors to the monitored equipment component types at a leak
definition of 500 ppm (i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with
either 40 CFR part 63, subparts UU or H); and (2) eliminating the
option of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT for valves, pumps, and sampling
connection systems, essentially requiring compliance with 40 CFR part
63, subpart UU or H. These two practices and processes were already in
effect at sources that are often collocated with OLD NESHAP sources,
such as in the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). Further, we
found that several OLD sources were permitted using various state LDAR
regulations that incorporate equipment leak provisions at the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart UU requirement level or above and that also require
connector monitoring as part of the facility's air permit requirements.
    For equipment leaks control option 1, we considered that the
baseline was that connectors were not controlled using a LDAR program,
since the current OLD NESHAP does not include them as equipment to be
monitored. For equipment leaks control option 2, we considered lowering
the leak definitions for valves and pumps to account for the
differences in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU from the requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart TT. That is, valves in light liquid service would
drop from a leak definition of 10,000 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) to 500 ppmv, and pumps would drop from 10,000 ppmv to 1,000
ppmv.
    Based on our review of the costs and emission reductions for each
of the equipment leak options, we proposed that control option 1 was a
cost-effective strategy for further reducing emissions from equipment
leaks at OLD facilities, especially when evaluated based on the
expected reductions attributed to the emission inventory for fugitive
HAP emissions, and we determined that option 2 was not cost effective
for this source category. We proposed, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), revising the OLD NESHAP for equipment leaks to reflect
option 1. Details on the assumptions and methodologies for all options
that were evaluated at proposal are provided in the memorandum, Clean
Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Equipment Leaks Located
in the Organic Liquids Distribution Source Category, available in the
docket to this action.
    As part of the technology review, we also considered options to
reduce emissions from transfer racks. We evaluated the thresholds for
control in the current rule against the 2012 proposed uniform standards
for storage tanks and transfer operations (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2010-0871) and found that the current thresholds for controls are
equivalent to or more stringent than those proposed in 2012. We also
considered an option that would apply 98 percent control requirements
for transfer racks to large throughput transfer racks transferring
organic liquid materials that are 5 percent or less by weight HAP.
Considering the costs of control and the HAP emissions for these racks,
this option was not found to be cost effective. Therefore, we did not
propose any changes to the emission standard for transfer racks. For
more information, see the Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for Transfer Racks Located in the Organic Liquids Distribution
Source Category memorandum in the docket for this action.
    Also, as part of the technology review, we evaluated developments
in processes, practices, and control technologies for measuring and

controlling fugitive emissions from individual emission points at OLD
sources. We proposed a fenceline monitoring program, available to
existing and new OLD facilities, in lieu of implementing the proposed
technology review requirements discussed above for storage tanks and
equipment leaks. Provisions of the proposed fenceline monitoring
program compliance alternative were described in detail in section
IV.D.4 of the proposal preamble (see 84 FR 56313 through 56318, October
21, 2019).
    The EPA proposed this option for fenceline monitoring for several
reasons: (1) There was concern that because of the uncertainty
surrounding estimated fugitive emissions from OLD operations, sources
may be underestimating actual fugitive emissions from OLD operations;
(2) the proposed fenceline monitoring program would provide owners or
operators a flexible alternative to appropriately manage fugitive
emissions of HAP from OLD operations if they were significantly greater
than estimated values; and (3) the proposed frequency of monitoring
time-integrated samples on a 2-week basis would provide an opportunity
for owners or operators to detect and manage any spikes in fugitive
emissions sooner than they might have been detected from equipment
subject to annual or quarterly monitoring in the proposed amendments or
from equipment that was not subject to equipment leak monitoring in the
proposed rule.
    The EPA proposed the fenceline monitoring alternative and
considered it to be equivalent to the proposed technology review
revisions it would replace. Therefore, we proposed the fenceline
monitoring alternative under CAA section 112(d)(6) as an alternative
equivalent requirement to address fugitive emissions from OLD sources.
2. How did the technology review change for the OLD source category?
    After consideration of comments and reevaluation of our analyses at
proposal, we are not finalizing the following: Requiring LDAR using EPA
Method 21 with a 500 ppm leak definition for fittings on fixed roof
storage tanks (e.g., access hatches) that are not subject to the 95
percent by weight control requirements in the final rule; adding
connectors to the monitored equipment component types at a leak
definition of 500 ppm (i.e., requiring connectors to be compliant with
either 40 CFR part 63, subparts UU or H); or allowing the option for a
fenceline monitoring program. Summaries of comments on these proposed
provisions and our responses are provided below in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the proposed LDAR requirements
for storage tanks that are not required to have emissions controls and
are not currently subject to equipment standards that require they be
enclosed and leak tight. Several commenters asserted that the EPA's
estimated emission reductions for the proposed storage tank leak
detection monitoring requirements overestimate emission reductions that
may be attributed to these requirements. Many commenters observed that
the EPA's estimated volatile organic compound (VOC) reduction of 1.1
tpy includes emissions from the conservation vent, emergency pressure
relief vent, and other valves/instruments that were estimated using
equipment leak emission factors from the synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) from the EPA's Protocol for Equipment
Leak Emission Estimates. The commenters stated that the SOCMI emission
factors were developed for process equipment containing material at
pressures several times greater than an atmospheric storage tank,
making their application to such tanks invalid. Commenters also stated
that the costs for the proposed tank leak detection monitoring
requirements are underestimated. These commenters argued that the EPA
did not consider operational and safety issues that these requirements
present. Several commenters noted that the language effectively
requires a technician to climb up to the roof of a tank and check the
entire surface, stressing that these small tanks were not built with
the intention of regular roof inspections and do not have the same
structural integrity as tanks that were designed with the intention of
applying emission controls. One commenter generally supported the
proposed revisions related to storage tanks to incorporate developments
that the EPA has deemed cost effective and advocated that the EPA
require further revisions to satisfy 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).
    Response: We have reviewed commenters' concerns and reevaluated the
analyses for developing the proposed fixed roof tank LDAR requirements
and agree that the emission reduction estimates serving as the basis
for the proposed LDAR requirements were likely inaccurate for the
smaller volume tanks and provide an overestimate of emission reductions
for this control option. Coupled with concerns about additional costs
that may be incurred to address safety and operational concerns, the
EPA has determined that the proposed LDAR for fixed roof tanks not
requiring control does not appear to be a cost-effective control option
for this source category. Without appropriate data to better assess the
emissions reductions and costs of this option, and given the fact that
uncontrolled fixed roof tanks are allowed to breathe and would not
necessarily be vapor-tight, we now recognize that the proposed
requirements could potentially trigger leak protocols that we did not
intend when we proposed the change. Therefore, we are not finalizing
the proposed requirements that require LDAR for tanks that are
currently beneath the volumetric and vapor pressure thresholds for
controlling emissions under the OLD standards.
    Comment: Several commenters contended that the EPA cost-
effectiveness analysis for connectors was flawed, and based on the
EPA's backup document, connector monitoring is not cost effective for
OLD facilities and should not be finalized. The commenters stated that
the backup document for the EPA's equipment leak analysis does not
support the preamble conclusions. One commenter contended that the EPA
overestimated the emission reductions achievable from connector
monitoring by applying emissions from all equipment leaks to connectors
and, thus, overestimating the emission reductions achievable. The
commenter also alleged an error in the modeling file for one facility
that accounted for half of the equipment leak emissions yet submitted a
correction that stated there is no OLD-affected equipment at the
facility. Commenters also claimed the EPA underestimated the compliance
costs for connector monitoring. One commenter stated that the EPA's
cost estimates failed to take into account that connectors at OLD
sources tend to be more difficult to access than at refineries or other
sources. The commenter further stated that for OLD facilities, for a
high percentage of connectors, equipment such as a wheeled scissor-lift
or hydraulic scaffold is required for monitoring access as well as a
second technician for safety reasons; and additional time is required
to move the equipment. Some commenters asserted that the EPA also
underestimated costs by underestimating the monitoring frequency
allowed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, stating that the frequency
should be every 4 years instead of 8 years that were used in the

cost estimates. One commenter further contended that the EPA
underestimated the administrative costs (e.g., training and reporting
costs) for the program by incorrectly assuming no additional
administrative costs for OLD facilities that are collocated with
processes that already have an LDAR regulatory program. A couple of
commenters also added that the industry finds and repairs leaks based
on sensory methods, so requiring EPA Method 21 may not result in the
level of emissions reductions that the EPA estimates.
    Response: We revised our cost and emission reduction estimates and
are not finalizing connector monitoring because we no longer find it to
be as cost effective for this source category as originally determined.
We reviewed commenters' concerns and reevaluated the analyses of
emission reductions and cost for connector LDAR requirements and agree
that the estimates of emission reductions that were not based on the
model plant analysis that served as the basis for this proposed
requirement were likely inaccurate and underestimated the cost per ton
removed for this control option. Using the model plant emission
reductions and costs (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074-0015), as well as
updating measurement frequency, we estimate a cost effectiveness of
$10,063/ton HAP. Coupled with unquantified additional costs that may be
incurred to address safety concerns specific to OLD facilities, the EPA
has determined that connector monitoring is not a cost-effective option
for OLD sources. This determination also considers additional
uncertainty, such as with the HAP content of the liquid. As a result,
we are not finalizing the proposed requirements that require LDAR for
connectors.
    Comment: No commenters supported the fenceline provisions as
proposed. Two commenters advocated that the fenceline monitoring option
not be adopted in the rule. These commenters stated that because public
health risks are not reduced due to the proposed enhancements to the
control requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks, the
fenceline monitoring measures are unnecessary. The commenters also
objected to the EPA's characterization of the fenceline monitoring
program being an alternative standard since, as the commenters argued,
the analytes and action levels are set based on the proposed, more
stringent, control requirements and, therefore, facilities would have
to install the proposed new controls anyway. These commenters also
advocated that a refinery with collocated OLD sources should be allowed
to incorporate OLD sources into their Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart CC) fenceline program, because the benzene
fenceline monitoring is also appropriate for collocated OLD sources.
These commenters also objected to many of the provisions for
implementing the monitoring, including that the compliance timeline for
commencing fenceline monitoring could be difficult to meet, that the
timeline for approving and monitoring new analytes is too short, that
OLD sources should be able to use analyte uptake rates that are
published by national and international scientific organizations rather
than going through EPA validation methods, that the action level
determination be revised from 5 times the method detection limit (MDL)
to 3 times the MDL to be consistent with previous EPA actions, that the
EPA's modeling guidance for OLD sources contains some inconsistencies
with the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) User's Guide, and that a 45-day
timeline for corrective action is too short in some cases.
    From an alternate perspective, a public health advocate stated that
fenceline monitoring should be required in addition to the proposed new
emission control requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks.
The commenter stated that because fenceline monitors are a
technological development that can reduce emissions, then the CAA
requires that both the enhanced emission controls and fenceline
monitoring requirements must be adopted. The commenter also advocated
for the EPA to require real-time monitoring, like Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy, which has been demonstrated to be technically
feasible and has been implemented in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's Rule 1180.
    Response: We are not finalizing the fenceline monitoring
alternative. The fenceline monitoring alternative was proposed as an
optional control requirement to complying with the proposed control
requirements for storage tanks and equipment leaks that we are not
finalizing as explained above. Without the final requirements for which
fenceline monitoring was an alternative compliance approach, fenceline
monitoring is no longer necessary.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    Based on our review and consideration of information provided in
comments, the proposed requirement for revising the average true vapor
pressure thresholds of the OLD storage tanks for existing sources
requiring control to align with those of the Petroleum Refineries
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G)
where the thresholds are lower is generally acknowledged to be cost
effective. However, the other proposed technology review requirements
of fixed roof tank LDAR and adding connectors to the LDAR program at
OLD sources have been reevaluated in light of commenters' concerns and
have not been found to be cost-effective options for the OLD source
category at this time. Since the pool of emission reduction
requirements is smaller in the final rule than proposed, we find it
highly unlikely that OLD sources would have opted to utilize the
proposed fenceline monitoring program. Therefore, we are also not
finalizing the fenceline monitoring alternative in the final rule.

C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the OLD
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the OLD source category?
    Under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed to amend the
operating and monitoring requirements for flares used as APCDs in the
OLD source category to ensure that OLD facilities that use flares as
APCDs meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling HAP
emissions. We proposed at 40 CFR 63.2380 to directly apply the
petroleum refinery flare rule requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC to flares in the OLD source category with certain clarifications and
exemptions. We proposed to retain the General Provisions requirements
of 40 CFR 63.11(b) that flares used as APCDs in the OLD source category
operate pilot flame systems continuously and that flares operate with
no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5
minutes during any 2 consecutive hours) when organic HAP emissions are
routed to the flare. We also proposed to consolidate measures related
to flare tip velocity and new operational and monitoring requirements
related to the combustion zone gas. We proposed to eliminate the cross-
references to the General Provisions and instead cross-reference 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC.
    The EPA also proposed to clarify that PRDs on vapor return lines of
a vapor balancing system are also subject to the vapor balancing system
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv). We requested comment on
several issues related to PRDs, including whether work practices should
be adopted for PRDs that are not

part of a vapor balancing system, whether work practices similar to
those promulgated for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC are necessary and appropriate for OLD operations, information on the
nature of non-vapor balancing system PRDs, and whether monitoring
devices should be required to be installed and operated to ensure
continuous compliance with the standard at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(4)(iv)
that no PRD shall open during loading or as a result of diurnal
temperature changes.
    More information regarding our proposal to address CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) can be found in the proposed rule (84 FR 56302,
October 21, 2019). Further details regarding comments received and the
EPA's responses are discussed below.
2. How did the revisions pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
change since proposal?
    We are finalizing some clarifying edits to the overlap provisions
of 40 CFR 63, subpart EEEE to address commenter concerns with overlap
for flare provisions in the OLD source category with other regulations.
Further, commenters noted some clarifying edits to the simplified
requirements allowed in 40 CFR 63.670(j). We have revised the proposed
requirements to address these concerns, which are discussed in section
8.0 of the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and
Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline),
available in the docket for this action.
    We received comments that owners or operators have historically
considered degassing emissions from shutdown of storage tanks to be
covered by their SSM plans per the definition of ``Shutdown'' included
at 40 CFR 63.2406 and that there are several OLD affected sources that
are subject to standards for tank degassing in their air permits. We
assessed the MACT floor level of control and, as a result, are adding a
standard for storage tank degassing for storage tanks subject to the
control requirements in Tables 2 and 2b to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE.
    We are also finalizing the PRD provisions as proposed. Comments on
the PRD provisions and our responses are discussed in section 9.0 of
the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology
Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in
the docket for this action.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposal revisions pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposal to eliminate the SSM
provisions makes it unclear as to what the OLD NESHAP compliance
obligations are related to fixed roof tank degassing. The commenters
added that because tank degassing is included in the shutdown
definition, facilities have historically considered fixed roof tank
degassing activities to be covered by their SSM plan, which includes
procedures for minimizing emissions during shutdown activities. The
commenters stated that the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement
to implement and follow an SSM plan and adding a new general duty
clause at 40 CFR 63.2350(d) that would require facilities to operate
and maintain any affected source, including air pollution control
device and monitoring equipment, at all times to minimize emissions.
Commenters further asserted that at some point it is no longer
reasonable or even technically feasible to continue to try to control
the dilute vapors using the normal control device or by routing to a
fuel gas system or to a process. The commenters noted that some
facilities are subject to standards for fixed roof tank degassing in
their permits. The commenters supported the Texas requirements for
fixed roof tank degassing to represent what the average of the best
performers are doing to minimize emissions from fixed roof tank
degassing. The commenters concluded that these requirements state that
fixed roof storage tanks otherwise required to be controlled must be
degassed to a control device or controlled recovery system until the
VOC concentration is less than 10,000 ppmv or 10 percent of the lower
explosive level (LEL). One commenter also requested that the EPA
clarify that once the atmospheric release criterion is met, vapors may
also be released after tank entry. The commenter stated that for many
tanks, there are sludges in the bottom of the tank or on the walls that
may release some hydrocarbon vapors as they are shoveled or
hydroblasted off the tank floor and/or walls.
    Response: We agree that a standard is reasonable for tank degassing
and have included it in the final rule. With the removal of SSM
requirements, a standard specific to storage tank degassing did not
exist. We agree with the commenters that storage tank degassing is
similar to maintenance vents (e.g., equipment openings) found in other
rules, and that there must be a point in time when the storage tank can
be opened and any emissions vented to the atmosphere. As such, we
reviewed available data to determine how the best performers are
controlling storage tank degassing emissions.
    We, and commenters, are aware of three state or air quality
management district provisions regarding storage tank degassing, two in
the state of Texas and the third for the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) in California. Texas has degassing
provisions in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) (30 TAC Chapter 115,
Subchapter F, Division 3) and through permit conditions (as noted by
commenters), and SCAQMD has provisions in Rule 1149. The TAC
requirements are the least stringent (35,000 ppmv as methane or 50
percent of the LEL), and the Texas permit conditions (10,000 ppmv or
10-percent LEL) and SCAQMD Rule 1149 (5,000 ppmv as methane) are
equivalent. The Texas permit conditions and SCAQMD Rule 1149 are
considered equivalent because 5,000 ppmv as methane equals 10 percent
of the LEL for methane. OLD facilities located in Texas are subject to
the permit conditions, and 3 OLD facilities are subject to the SCAQMD
rule. Of the 173 currently operating (i.e., existing) OLD facilities,
44 are in Texas. The Texas and California requirements are the most
stringent we are aware of and; therefore, we conclude that those
requirements reflect what the best performers in the OLD source
category have implemented for storage tank degassing. Commenters also
confirm this conclusion.
    We reviewed the Texas permit conditions for key information that
could be implemented into the form of a standard for storage tank
degassing. The conditions require control of degassing emissions until
the VOC concentration of the vapor is less than 10,000 ppmv or 10
percent of the LEL. We have used the 10 percent of the LEL in similar
requirements in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.643(c)
for example) and have, therefore, finalized these 10-percent LEL
requirements for tanks requiring control at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6).
    We calculated the impacts due to controlling storage tank degassing
emissions by evaluating the population of estimated storage tanks
subject to control according to the requirements in Tables 2 and 2b of
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE that are not located in Texas or in
SCAQMD. Storage tanks in the OLD source category in Texas and SCAQMD
would already be subject to the degassing requirements being finalized,
and there would not be

additional costs or emissions reductions for these facilities. Based on
commenter statements, tanks are degassed for inspection typically every
10 years. Based on this average and the population of storage tanks
that are not in Texas or in SCAQMD, we estimate 89 storage tank
degassing events would be subject to control each year. Controlling
storage tank degassing would reduce HAP emissions by 74 tpy, with a
total national annual cost of $418,656. See the technical memorandum
titled Tank Degassing Analysis for the Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) Source Category Final Rule, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0074 for details on the assumptions and
methodologies used in this analysis.
    We considered whether there are technically feasible options more
stringent than the MACT floor requirements but are not aware of storage
tank degassing provisions beyond those discussed above for Texas and
SCAQMD. Therefore, no options more stringent than the MACT floor were
evaluated. We also confirm that once the 10-percent LEL criterion is
met, tank vapors may be vented to the atmosphere even after tank entry.
    Comment: Several commenters contended that the assumptions the EPA
used in developing the flare control cost and emission reduction
estimates are not realistic. The commenters indicated that several of
the EPA's assumptions laid out in the proposal preamble are incorrect
for most OLD NESHAP flares. The commenters argued that the EPA's basis
for the flare cost estimates is that OLD NESHAP operations are steady
enough that compositions and flow rates do not change, so continuous
instrumentation is not needed for compliance (except for continuous
temperature and pressure monitoring), and that composition sampling and
engineering estimates are sufficient. The commenters insisted this
basis is incorrect. One commenter made the following points:
     Although some organic liquids have relatively constant
composition as the EPA states, most OLD NESHAP flares will be receiving
vapors from multiple OLD sources simultaneously, including tank vapors,
loading vapors and likely small amounts from equipment leak vapors. The
commenter asserted that in order to estimate the composition of the
flare waste gas and the net heating value of the flare vent gas
(NHVvg), facilities would need accurate flow information on each stream
and composition information for those streams that have variable
compositions;
     transfer operations generate vapors from tank cars,
trucks, or containers loading (unloading emissions show up as tank
emissions and barge and ship loading are not regulated by the OLD
NESHAP though these may be routed to the same flare as OLD regulated
emissions). The commenter noted the composition of those vapors will
vary if the tank car, truck, or container is filled with vapors of
another type (e.g., air, nitrogen, other organics);
     storage tank emission rates vary significantly as a
function of stored liquid temperature and changes in tank levels. The
commenter pointed out that if the tank level is increasing due to
material entering the tank, the emission rate will be much higher than
the rate due to temperature changes; if the stored material temperature
or level is dropping, air or inert gas will be drawn into the tank;
     loading emission rates vary as the backpressure varies as
the receiving volume fills with liquid and/or the backpressure from the
vapor collection system changes;
     the commenter urged that reasonably good flow measurements
for each of these flows would be needed to estimate the total waste gas
flow to an OLD NESHAP flare and would be required for every source
going to that flare, not just the OLD NESHAP sources. The commenter
noted that because of the impossibility of obtaining all the required
individual flow information, the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP provisions
focus only on measuring the total flow at the flare. The commenter
insisted that because of the range of flows, this requires a
sophisticated wide range meter such as a sonic flow meter; and
     the commenter stressed that assist steam and supplemental
fuel demands vary widely as flare conditions change, and, thus, would
not be amenable to estimation or using engineering estimates even
though the gas molecular weight is known.
    The commenter stated that due to the above, facilities must have at
least continuous flow rate monitoring of the waste gas, supplemental
fuel, and assist steam in order to allow control on a 15-minute basis,
and stressed that, in most cases, continuous monitoring of waste gas
composition is also needed. The commenter also urged that due to the
broad range of potential flow rates, additional controls (typically
split range controllers) would be needed to rapidly adjust assist gas
and supplemental fuel to meet the NHVcz requirements on a 15-minute
basis. The commenter contended that the EPA's engineering estimate
approach using temperature and pressure is, therefore, untenable, and
flare cost basis must consider that OLD flares will have to install the
full range of continuous monitoring and control instrumentation that
was required for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP flares, with perhaps a
few limited exceptions. One commenter also affirmed that although the
compositional variability of flared gas streams is less than that of
refineries, facilities will opt to conduct continuous monitoring to
reduce incremental supplemental fuel costs, and are likely to install
flow meters instead of relying on pressure and temperature monitoring
systems and engineering calculations.
    One commenter added that because of the typically remote location
of OLD NESHAP-only flares, there are likely to be large additional
costs compared to Petroleum Refineries NESHAP to add new utilities,
analyzer houses, data systems, and control room instrumentation. The
commenter, therefore, concluded that even if the EPA's assumption of
only continuous temperature and pressure monitoring were correct, a
$190,000 investment would unlikely be enough to instrument one flare,
much less 27. The commenter remarked that use of the Petroleum
Refineries NESHAP cost estimate prorated to the EPA's estimated 27 OLD
NESHAP flares would yield an annualized OLD cost of $2.4 million and a
cost effectiveness of $3,673/ton of VOC reduced and $37,182/ton of HAP
reduced.
    Another commenter provided a summary of information collected from
member facilities on approximately 80 flares on the estimated cost
impacts of flare requirements in the EPA's proposed revisions to the
Ethylene MACT standards, which the commenter contended are essentially
the same as the proposed revisions in the OLD NESHAP. The commenter
asserted that for the Ethylene MACT, member companies indicated they
would need to install at least two new flares due to the potential for
existing flares to exceed the number of visible emissions events
allowed by the emergency flaring provisions during upset conditions; at
least one gas chromatograph in order to comply with the proposed
monitoring requirements; upgraded natural gas controls for at least 23
flares (to meet the more stringent minimum flare gas net heating value)
and flow monitoring; and additional costs based on the estimated amount
of supplemental fuel firing. The commenter estimated that, based on
this information, the average capital and annual costs to implement the
changes applicable to OLD flares (i.e., excluding the emergency flaring
management work

practices) are $509,000 and $725,000 per flare, with an estimated
annual average cost of incremental supplemental fuel of $655,000 per
flare. The commenter concluded that with their estimated costs and the
EPA's estimate of 64 tpy of HAP reductions, the cost effectiveness of
the proposed amendments would be approximately $306,000/ton of HAP
reduced. The commenter also questioned the validity of the EPA's
proposed HAP reductions, stating that the EPA's basis for its 64 tpy
estimate of reduced HAP emissions is simply an assumption that all OLD
flares are operating with a 90-percent combustion efficiency, and that
the Agency has not provided data to support this assumption.
    One commenter estimated that the cost to install all required
instrumentation is in the $600,000 to $800,000 range for a single
flare.
    Several commenters stated that, because costs for the OLD NESHAP
flare instrumentation and controls will likely greatly exceed the
proposed costs, the proposed revised flare requirements are not cost
effective and should not be finalized.
    Response: We do not agree with the comments that the proposed
revisions to the flare requirements should not be finalized. We
proposed the flare amendments under the authority of CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure that flares used to control OLD emission
sources are meeting the combustion efficiency requirements that are the
basis for our original rule. In proposing these amendments, we did not
use the authority of CAA 112(d)(6) and did not consider costs. Since
the revisions ensure continuous compliance with the MACT standard under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), costs are not a factor considered for
these revisions. We determined the flare operating and monitoring
requirements were not adequate to ensure that 98-percent control
efficiency can be met for a flare at all times. Regarding the
commenter's arguments that the emission reductions assumed to be a
result of the proposed flaring provisions are overstated, the 90-
percent assumption was illustrative of potential emissions in worst
case situations, but since cost and, thus, cost effectiveness are not
considerations when determining the MACT floor, we did not rely on
estimated HAP emission reductions in making our decision to propose or
finalize these requirements. We did estimate costs in order to provide
the resulting impacts, but we are not revising the costs as a result of
this comment, especially as the costs presented by the commenter appear
to have been developed with Ethylene MACT flares in mind. As
acknowledged by several commenters, OLD flare operation and monitoring
are likely simpler than ethylene flares, and some commenters' three 1-
hour test run suggestion for demonstrating compliance are essentially
equivalent to the grab sampling requirements in 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6) and
they could be further refined to facilitate easier use of simplified
monitoring provisions. We have revised those requirements to address
concerns of petitioning to use the grab sample approach, which further
streamlines these requirements. If, as the commenter suggests, their
facilities opt to use more sophisticated continuous monitoring
instrumentation instead of the proposed grab sample/worst case
approach, they have the flexibility to do so. However, we disagree that
cost estimates based on Ethylene Production source category flares are
appropriate for OLD. We also note that the commenter applies a
supplemental natural gas cost approximately 18 times higher than our
estimate (if supplemental natural gas is needed to meet NHVcz limits
for the flare) for their OLD flare cost assessment. This natural gas
cost seems excessive, especially considering that commenters did not
discuss adjusting other flare parameters instead of using such a large
amount of natural gas.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
    As we discussed above, we proposed the flare amendments under the
authority of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) to ensure flares used to
control OLD emission sources are meeting the combustion efficiency
requirements that are the basis for our original rule and necessary to
ensure sources are complying with the MACT level of control. For this
reason, we did not consider costs in proposing these requirements and
are generally finalizing these amendments as proposed. We did, however,
make some revisions to the proposed requirements at 40 CFR 63.2380 to
further streamline the requirements of 40 CFR 63.670(j) to facilitate
the ability of sources to use the grab sample approach for determining
net heating value. In addition, and as discussed earlier, we also
amended the overlap provisions of 40 CFR 63.2396 to clarify
applicability for flares subject to the requirements of the OLD NESHAP
and to other NESHAP requirements.
    Tank degassing is considered a shutdown activity and historically
has been considered by OLD sources to be covered under their SSM plan
and permit conditions. With the removal of SSM provisions that are not
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times,
the EPA assessed the level of control the best performing OLD sources
are using for tank degassing events. During this assessment and based
on comments, air permit requirements for OLD sources in Texas require
degassing to a 10-percent LEL or 10,000 ppm prior to opening the tank
to the atmosphere, and these requirements represent the best level of
control for tank degassing events for OLD sources and those in
California and Texas are already complying with.
    In this action, we are including provisions at 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6)
that require tanks that are subject to control to continue to route
degassing vapors to a device equivalent to the control (i.e., 95-
percent organic HAP reduction, back to process or fuel gas system)
until the vapor within the storage tank has reached 10 percent of the
LEL.
    The PRD definition and provisions that were proposed are being
finalized. No additional work practice provisions or requirements are
being added to the PRD requirements as a result of commenter
suggestions, and the clarifications proposed in 40 CFR 63.2346(a)(iv)
and the definition in 40 CFR 63.2406 are being made final. We note that
we received several comments on these provisions and clarification on
what constitutes a deviation for these types of devices within the OLD
NESHAP. We have responded to these comments in section 9.0 of the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review
for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the
docket for this action.

D. Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM

1. What amendments did we propose to address emissions during periods
of SSM?
    We proposed amendments to the OLD NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 56318-56322, October 21, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change since proposal?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions proposed (84 FR 56318, October
21, 2019) with some modifications, including: Revisions to the proposed
provisions of 40 CFR 63.2378(e) for periods of planned routine
maintenance

of the control device to allow tank breathing losses to be consistent
with our intent at proposal (see 84 FR 56323, October 21, 2019);
revisions to 40 CFR 63.2346(l) to further clarify the SSM requirements
in referenced subparts (such as 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, and
UU) that are no longer applicable; and we have extended the effective
date of removing the portion of the ``deviation'' definition in 40 CFR
63.2406 that addresses SSM periods as being applicable 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to provide a
consistent compliance date due to the addition of the tank degassing
requirements discussed in section IV.C of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM revisions and what are
our responses?
    We received several comments related to our proposed revisions to
the SSM provisions. Commenters discussed issues related to the removal
of the 240-hour exemption for planned maintenance of control devices,
the need for tank degassing requirements with the revision of SSM
provisions (as discussed in more detail in section IV.C of this
preamble), and other miscellaneous issues pertaining to the SSM
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, and UU requirements
referred to within 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. These comments and our
responses are available in section 10.1 of the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Risk and Technology Review for Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), available in the docket for this
action. As discussed above, we have made some changes to the revisions
to the SSM requirements in the final rule to address the significant
issues brought forth by commenters.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions to
address emissions during periods of SSM?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions related
to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards
apply at all times. More information concerning the amendments we are
finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR
56318-56322, October 21, 2019). Additional revisions to these
amendments based on comments received are discussed in further detail
in section 10.1 of the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
Risk and Technology Review for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-
Gasoline), available in the docket for this action.

E. Technical Amendments to the MACT Standards

1. What other amendments did we propose for the OLD source category?
    We proposed that owners or operators of OLD facilities submit
electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, compliance reports, NOCS reports, and fenceline
monitoring reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. Performance test
results must be collected using test methods that are supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the ERT website \6\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in PDF using the attachment
module of the ERT. Similarly, performance evaluation results of CEMS
measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by
the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. We
also proposed that NOCS reports must be submitted as a PDF upload in
CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For compliance reports and fenceline monitoring reports, we
proposed that owners or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI.
    Additionally, we proposed two broad circumstances in which we may
provide extension to these requirements. We proposed that an extension
may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that
precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting
required reports. We also proposed that an extension may be warranted
due to a force majeure event, such as an act of nature, act of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
    Additionally, we proposed required testing and recordkeeping for
emission sources not requiring control to confirm the annual average
true vapor pressure at least every 5 years, or with a change of
commodity in the tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to ensure the
tank's applicability and confirm that it should not be subject to the
95-percent control requirements of the regulation. Further, we proposed
a requirement that the contents of tanks that are claimed to be not
subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less than 5-percent HAP
(and, therefore, do not meet the definition of ``Organic liquids''
within the OLD NESHAP) should be tested every 5 years, or with a change
of commodity in the tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm
that the tank is not storing ``organic liquids'' and, therefore, is not
subject to the rule. We proposed the revision of 40 CFR 63.2354(c) to
add the voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ATSM D6886-18, ``Standard
Test Method for Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile
Organic Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas
Chromatography,'' as another acceptable method for the determination of
HAP content of an organic liquid. We are also finalizing the
replacement of method ASTM D2879 with method ASTM D6378-18a as one of
the acceptable methods for the determination of vapor pressure.
    Finally, we proposed several revisions to clarify text or correct
typographical errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors in
84 FR 56323 through 56324 and Table 9 of the proposal.
2. How did the other amendments for the OLD source category change
since proposal?
    We are not finalizing the proposed requirements for periodic
testing and recordkeeping for the annual average true vapor pressure
for those tanks not subject to the 95 percent control requirements of
the regulation. Further, we are not finalizing, as proposed, a
requirement that the contents of tanks that are claimed to be not
subject to the OLD NESHAP because they contain less than 5 percent HAP
(and, therefore, do not meet the definition of ``Organic liquids''
within the OLD NESHAP) should be tested every 5 years, or with a change
of commodity in the tank's contents, whichever occurs first, to confirm
that the tank is not storing ``organic liquids'' and, therefore, is not
subject to the rule. We are, however, finalizing the revision of 40 CFR
63.2354(c) to add ASTM D6886-18, ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Weight Percent Individual Volatile Organic
Compounds in Waterborne Air-Dry Coatings by Gas Chromatography,'' as
another acceptable method for the determination of HAP content of an
organic liquid. We are also finalizing the replacement of method ASTM
D2879 with method ASTM D6378-18a as an acceptable method for
determination of whether a total vapor pressure (and, therefore, the
sum total of Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE

HAP) is below the threshold level requiring control for a storage tank.
    The proposed electronic reporting requirements and the technical
and editorial corrections in Table 9 of the proposal (see 84 FR 56324,
October 21, 2019) have not changed, aside from some additional
editorial changes based on comments and the removal of the fenceline
monitoring alternative electronic reporting. Aside from these noted
differences from proposal, we are finalizing the electronic reporting
requirements and technical and editorial corrections.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other amendments for the OLD
source category and what are our responses?
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement in
40 CFR 63.2343(b)(5) and (6) that facilities conduct periodic vapor
pressure testing or obtain vapor pressure data from the organic liquid
supplier to demonstrate that the annual average true vapor pressure of
the organic liquid in each storage tank is below control thresholds.
Commenters argued that the addition of these two testing requirements
is burdensome and unnecessary, results in no HAP emissions reductions,
goes beyond what other NESHAP require for storage tanks, and should not
be finalized. Several commenters further objected to the proposed
requirement to use test method ASTM D6378-18a for storage tank vapor
pressure analyses. Commenters stated that the requirement that test
method ASTM D6378-18a must be used is impracticable and conflicts with
the wording of the control thresholds that are based on the annual
average true vapor pressure of the total Table 1 HAP, not the total
annual average true vapor pressure of the liquid, which is the measured
result of ASTM D6378-18a. One commenter stated that periodic testing is
not needed, since inbound organic liquids HAP contents, and, thus,
calculated HAP partial pressures, are available from vendor and in-
house analyses and outbound materials are tested in developing the
required safety data sheet (SDS) for that material. Several commenters
also noted that other NESHAP have storage tank vapor pressure
thresholds for control but do not require regular testing to confirm
vapor pressure (e.g., 40 CFR part 63, subparts YY, GGG, and OOO).
Another commenter further argued that the requirement to conduct
periodic negative applicability determinations is precedent setting and
is not warranted. The commenter stated that the EPA has not provided
justification for the added requirement or provided an indication with
supporting data of the ``problem'' the Agency is trying to resolve. The
commenter further argued that facilities already have general
obligations under title V 5-year renewals to ensure permits include all
requirements applicable to a facility.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges ASTM D6378-18a measures total vapor
pressure and not HAP vapor pressure, therefore, we are not finalizing
the periodic vapor pressure testing requirements due to lack of an
appropriate method to measure only HAP vapor pressure. However,
facilities may still use ASTM D6378-18a as a method for excluding tanks
from control due to the fact that if the total vapor pressure of the
liquid is less than the threshold for control, then the HAP vapor
pressure (which is a subset of the total vapor pressure) would also be
under the threshold. The EPA also acknowledges that the periodic 5-
percent HAP content testing requirement creates a potential scenario of
requiring sources to perform regular non-applicability determinations
for all tanks at major sources that could be duplicative, considering
the provisions of the OLD NESHAP are applied through a title V permit
requirement, and that there are 5-year renewal obligations for title V
permits. To be in compliance with their title V permit, OLD affected
sources have an ongoing obligation to ensure that tanks storing organic
liquids with greater than 5 percent HAP are meeting the OLD NESHAP
requirements. Therefore, we are not finalizing periodic HAP content
testing. Facilities will still be able to use Method 311, voluntary
consensus standards, SDS, and certified product data sheets, and
calculations as a means of determining applicability.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the other amendments for the OLD source category?
    After evaluating the comments on the proposed periodic HAP and
vapor pressure testing requirements that were proposed, we are not
finalizing these requirements. As discussed above, we agree that there
are not any methods suitable to determine the organic HAP partial
pressure of a liquid, and that these requirements could create a
duplicative requirement scenario requiring sources to establish non-
applicability although a similar obligation already exists in their
title V permit. As we also explain, we have included ASTM 6378-18a in
the final rule as a method suitable for use for excluding tanks from
control. If the total vapor pressure of the liquid measured using ASTM
6378-18a is less than the vapor pressure threshold for control, then
the liquid being stored would, therefore, also be below the threshold
for control.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are 173 facilities currently operating OLD equipment subject
to the OLD NESHAP and four new facilities under construction. A
complete list of facilities that are currently subject to the OLD
NESHAP is available in appendix A of the memorandum, National Impacts
of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule for the Organic
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category, which is available
in the docket for this action.
    The EPA projects four new liquids terminals and one major terminal
expansion that would be subject to the OLD NESHAP. These new sources
are not included in the risk assessment modeling effort but are
included in the impacts analysis.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The risk assessment model input file identifies approximately 2,400
tons of HAP emitted per year from equipment regulated by the OLD
NESHAP. The predominant HAP compounds include toluene, hexane,
methanol, xylenes (mixture of o, m, and p isomers), benzene, styrene,
methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride, methyl tert-butyl ether,
and ethyl benzene. More information about the baseline emissions in the
risk assessment model input file can be found in appendix 1 of the
memorandum, Residual Risk Assessment for the Organic Liquids
Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk
and Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action. This final action would reduce HAP emissions from OLD
NESHAP sources. The EPA estimates HAP emission reductions of
approximately 186 tpy based on our analysis of the actions described in
sections IV.B and C of this preamble. More information about the
estimated emission reductions of this final action can be found in the
document, National Impacts of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source
Category, which is available in the docket for this action.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate the total capital costs of these final amendments to be
approximately $2.5 million and the total annualized costs (including
recovery credits) to be $1.8 million per year (2016$). We also estimate
the present value of the costs is $8.5 million at a discount rate of 3
percent and $7.1 million at 7 percent (2016$). Calculated as an
equivalent annualized value, which is consistent with the present value
of the costs, the costs are $1.1 million at a discount rate of 3