1. xx May/June 2015 • TANK STORAGE
Regulations
Ozone NAAQS (2008):
In 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit issued its decision, upholding
the primary ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) -2008, of 75
ppb, but ordering EPA to provide further
explanation for its secondary ozone
standard, which applies to effects of ozone
on such things as animals, vegetation,
visibility, property and personal comfort and
well-being.1
The American Lung Association,
the National Resource Defense Council and
others had brought the challenge forward
arguing that EPA did not follow the advice
of scientific advisors2
, who had suggested
that the level should be closer to 65-70 ppb.
The Court in this case deferred to EPA’s
actions, which is not unusual, provided
its actions were reasonable. Following
this decision, on February 13, 2015, EPA
Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed a
final rule outlining state requirements for
implementing the 2008 ozone (75 ppb)
NAAQS, which formally revoked the 1997
8-hour standard of 84 ppb. It is estimated
that about 48 areas in the country still do
not meet the 2008 75 ppb standard.
Ozone NAAQS 2014 proposed rule:
Despite only recently affirming the 2008
ozone NAAQS, on December 17, 2014,
EPA had already issued a proposed rule
to lower the primary ozone NAAQS to
65-70 ppb and invited comment to lower
it to 60 ppb. Under the Clean Air Act,
EPA is compelled to review the NAAQS
standards every five years. EPA’s own
analysis indicates that 358 counties would
exceed the 70 ppb standard, with an
additional 200 not meeting the 65 ppb
standard, should they be finalised.
What this means to aboveground tank
owners are that more and more areas will
be considered non-attainment which will
result in stricter regulatory requirements.
Permitting expansion projects, for example,
could become more difficult and cause
delays, and certainly would be more costly.
In some areas of the country, 60-70 ppb is
close to background levels, which could
mean compliance in these areas will rely on
technologies that are not yet developed.
To implement could mean a $1 trillion hit
to the US economy1
, affecting all industry
sectors. Written comments were due March
17, 2015, but there has been opposition to
this proposed rule, even at the 65-70 ppb
level, that EPA will have to respond to.
Next generation technologies
Recently EPA issued its Next Gen
Memorandum that outlined an EPA initiative
to increase compliance with regulations
and permits to reduce pollution.4
The memo
outlines five interconnected components:
1) more effective regulation and permits;
2) advanced monitoring; 3) electronic
reporting; 4) expanded transparencies
and 5) innovative enforcement.5
As it relates to Innovative Enforcement,
case teams are advised and trained in how
to use this advanced technology. One of the
technologies being used is a FLIR GF320
camera. Emissions from tanks are typically
estimated using AP-42 Compilation of
Emission Factors Volume 1, Stationary Area
and Point Emission Sources, Chapter 7.
The AP-42 emission estimates only apply
to tanks that are in good condition. There is
no equation for estimating emissions from
defective tanks.6
Currently EPA is using a
‘Storage Tank Survey Procedure’ to identify
problem tanks using a Photoionization
Detector (PID). A baseline concentration
is determined around the perimeter of the
tank.7
The anticipated VOC concentration
is less than 100 ppbv, downwind of a tank
containing hydrocarbons. Winds should be
4-13 mph.8
If PID concentrations exceed
100 ppbv; a FLIR camera is then used to
visually inspect emissions from the tank. If
hydrocarbon plumes are seen, it is assumed
that the tank may not be operating as
designed – for an IFR tank it may signal a
mechanical malfunction or rim seal problem.
For fixed roof tanks it may signal an elevated
vapor pressure of the stored substance.9
EPA has issued a full description of
next generation technology in a strategic
plan. The effort is led by EPA’s Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) The objectives outlined for
Innovative Enforcement are to; 1) Use
new data analysis tools to better identify
serious threats to human health and
the environment; 2) Develop innovative
enforcement strategies to reduce pollution
and improve compliance and 3) Expand
the use of Next Generation Compliance
approaches in enforcement settlements
and plea agreements.10
According to EPA
the lessons of next generation compliance
are being used now in enforcement
cases.11
Advanced monitoring, electronic
reporting and transparency are being
incorporated into civil and criminal case
resolutions, making it easier to know if
facilities are complying and the public
protected and providing more information
to the communities affected.12
Tank
owners/operators should be aware of
these newer EPA strategies to ensure
proper planning and preparedness.
Process safety management
The event that occurred in 2013 in West,
Texas, where a fertiliser plant had a
catastrophic explosion, has certainly
raised the nation’s awareness to issues
regarding hazardous chemicals and impact
to surrounding communities. Shortly after
this event, President Barrack Obama had
issued an Executive Order No. 13650,
which mandated that several agencies
(OSHA, EPA, FEMA, etc.) to work together
to improve chemical safety and security. As
Regulatory update
AS A RESULT OF THE EVENT THAT
OCCURRED IN 2013 IN WEST TEXAS, WHERE
A FERTILISER PLANT HAD A CATASTROPHIC
EXPLOSION, OSHA IS CONSIDERING
REVISIONS TO ITS PROCESS SAFETY
MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Jane Besch, operational excellence manager at Vopak Americas looks at the recent
regulatory developments that could affect tank owners and operators

2. TANK STORAGE • May/June 2015 xx
Regulations
a result, working groups were assembled
and OSHA is considering revisions to its
process safety management standard.
Two areas that could affect certain
AST owner/operators is OSHA’s plan to
clarify the exemption of flammable liquids
in atmospheric storage tanks. Based on
a legal preceding (Secretary of Labor v.
Meer Corporation, 1997), flammable liquids
stored or transferred below their normal
boiling point without benefit of chilling or
refrigeration, even if connected to a PSM
regulated process, were exempt. OSHA
is planning to revise this exemption to
add in storage of flammable liquids if they
are connected to a regulated process.
The second area to consider is that
OSHA will likely use the New Jersey Toxic
Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) as a
model for the revision to PSM. Some of
the key differences between the TCPA
and current PSM are (not all inclusive):
1. ‘catastrophic release’ is defined by
TCPA as a major uncontrolled emission,
fire or explosion, involving one or more
regulated substances that present
imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health and the environment.
Key difference here is that the release
is defined beyond the fenceline.
2. Process hazard analysis under TCPA
includes additional information such
as the identification of equipment
subject to the assessment, points
of possible EHS release, causes
and character of release, consider
toxicity, flammability, explosion
and reactivity hazards, and identify
scenarios that have offsite impact.
3. Staffing levels under TPCA requires
a statement to the number of EHS
operators required to meet the
safety needs for each operation with
requirement for shift coverage, a
requirement that an EHS operator
be in attendance at the facility, be
able to acknowledge alarms and take
corrective action to prevent an accident
at all times during EHS handling, use,
manufacturing, storage, or generation.
The current PSM standard has no
mandated staffing level requirements.
4. Equipment deficiencies under TPCA are
required to be corrected ‘timely’ which
means not to exceed three months.
Key difference is that ‘timely’ is defined,
unlike the current PSM standard.
Many facilities will likely be affected
by some, if not all, of the above-
mentioned changes. Being prepared
for these types of changes is a
recommended good practice for all
above ground tank owner/operators.
References:
1 Mississippi v. EPA (D.C. Circuit), National
Association of Manufacturers, retrieved
from www.awcenter.nam.org
2 Id
3 “US EPA Work to Revise Federal Ozone
Standard Elicits Much Debate”, AGC of America,
August 28, 2013 retrieved from http://news.
agc.org/2013/08/28/u-s-epa-work-to-revise-
federal-ozone-standard-elicits-much-debate/
4 Giles, Cynthia, “Use of Next Generation
Compliance Tools in Civil Enforcement
Settlements”, EPA, January 2015
5 Id
6 Secrest, Cary, “Storage Tank Threshold
Emissions Theory”, EPA, November 6, 2014, p. 1
7 Nettles, R., “Storage Tank Emission
Determination Challenges”, TCEQ – Air
Quality Division, January 14, 2015, p. 22
8 Id, p. 22
9 Id, p. 28
10 “Next Generation Compliance: Strategic Plan
2014-2017, October 2014 http://www2.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2014-09/documents/next-
gen-compliance-strategic-plan-2014-2017.pdf
11 Id, p. 7
12 Id, p. 7