EPA-453/R-95-015b
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
PETROLEUM REFINERIES -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR
FINAL STANDARDS
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 1995
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Report has been reviewed by the Emissions Standards
Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are
available through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, or from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Background Information on National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries
Prepared by:
Brtice C. Jordan
Director, Emission Standards Division
UiS. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
(Date)
1. The standards of performance limit hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions from existing and new major petroleum
refineries under authority of section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act. The EPA is required to regulate sources of HAP
listed pursuant to section 112(c).
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Labor, Health and Human Services,
Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior,
and Energy; the National Science Foundation; the Council on
Environmental Quality; members of the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators; the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials; the EPA Regional
Administrators; and other interested parties.
4. For additional information contact:
Mr. James Durham
Waste and Chemical Processes Group (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-5672
5. Copies of this document may be obtained from:
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-2777
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4650
Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System
(919) 541-5742
For help call (919) 541-5384
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pac
1.0 SUMMARY
1-1
1.1 Significant Comments and Changes Since Proposal 1-1
l.l.l Process Vents Group Determination . . .
1.1.2 Process Vent Impacts . . . . . . „ . .
1.1.3 Equipment Leaks Compliance Requirements
1.1.4 Storage Vessels
1.1.5 Overlapping Regulations ........
1.1.6 Source Category Definition
1.1.7 Emissions Averaging
1.1.8 Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
1.1.9 Subcategorization
1.1.10 Economic Analysis
1.1.11 Benefits Analysis ...........
1.1.12 Emissions Data
1.2 Summary of Impacts of Promulgated Action . . .
3.0 APPLICABILITY
3.1
Definition of Source Category
3.1.1
General Source Category Definition
Comments
3.1.2 Marine Vessel Loading
3.1.3 Crude Oil Topping Units
3.2 Subcategorization
3.2.1 Small Refineries
3.2.2 Subcategorization by Ozone Attainment
Status. - .
3.2.3 Subcategorization for Equipment Leaks.
1-2
1-3
1-5
1-9
1-12
1-15
1-17
1-20
1-22
1-23
1-24
1-25
1-26
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-7
3-12
3-15
3.3 Selection/Definition of Source 3-17
3.3.1 Petroleum Refinery Process Units
3.3.2 Area Source Designation ....
3.3.3 Process Changes and Additions
3.4
3.5
Regulated Pollutants ...
Coordination/Overlap with Other Rules
3.5.1 Overlap With Other NESHAP and NSPS
3.5.2 Overlap With Title V
3.5.3 NESHAP General Provisions Comments
3.5.4 Overlap With State and Local Rules
3-17
3-26
3-30
3-32
3-35
3-35
3-45
3-46
3-47
111
-------
TABLE OF" CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.5.5 Relationship to Section 112(g) .... 3-49
3.6 Other Applicability Issues . 3-50
4.0 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR AND MACT - GENERAL
PROCEDURES . . 4-1
4.1 Selection of MACT Floor 4-1
4.2 Selection of MACT 4-10
5.0 PROCESS VENT PROVISIONS ......; 5-1
5.1 Definition of Miscellaneous Process Vents . . . 5-1
5.2 Emission Control Technology 5-8
5.3 Impacts Analysis 5-10
5.3.1 Database 5-10
5.3.2 Cost Impacts 5-12
5.3.3 Emissions Impact 5-13
5.4 Selection of MACT and MACT Floor For Process
Vents 5-15
5.4.1 Selection of MACT Floor for Process
Vents
5.4.2 Selection of MACT for Process Vents
5.5 Compliance Demonstration for Process Vents
5-15
5-21
5-30
5.5.1 Testing 5-30
5.5.2 Monitoring 5-34
5.6 Recordkeeping and Recording for Process Vents . 5-36
5.7 Wording of Process Vent Provisions ....... 5-36
5.8 Miscellaneous ....,.....' 5-39
6.0 STORAGE VESSEL PROVISIONS .... 6-1
6.1 Definition of Storage Vessels 6-1
6.2 Impacts Analysis 6-3
6.2.1 Database . . . . .
6.2.2 Cost Impacts . . ,
6.2.3 Emissions Impacts
6-3
6-5
6-8
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
6.3 Selection of MACT Floor and MACT for Storage
Vessels 6-12
6.3.1 Selection of the Storage Vessels
Component of the Source-Wide MACT Floor 6-12
6.3.2 Selection of MACT for Storage Vessels . 6-16
6.4 Compliance Schedule for Existing Storage
Vessels 6-22
6.5 Wording of Storage Vessel Provisions 6-27
7.0 WASTEWATER PROVISIONS 7-1
7.1 Definition of Wastewater 7-1
7.2 Impacts Analysis 7-2
7.2.1 Database . 7-2
7.2.2 Cost Impacts 7-2
7.2.3 Emissions Impacts 7-3
7.3 Selection of MACT Floor and MACT for Wastewater 7-4
7.3.1 Use of Benzene as a Surrogate 7-4
7.3.2 Selection of the Wastewater Component of
the Source-Wide MACT Floor . 7-6
7.3.3 Selection of MACT for Wastewater Streams
Requiring Control . 7-7
7.4 Compliance Demonstration for Wastewater .... 7-10
8.0 EQUIPMENT LEAKS PROVISION . 8-1
8.1 Definition of Equipment Leaks 8-1
8.2 Emission Control Technology (General) ..... 8-4
8.3 Impacts Analysis 8-5
8.3.1 Cost Impacts 8-5
8.3.2 Emission Impacts . 8-8
8.4 Selection of MACT Floor and MACT (General
Equipment Leaks) 8-10
8.4.1 Selection of MACT Floor 8-11
8.4.2 Selection of MACT . 8-17
8.5 Equipment - Specific Provisions 8-22
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
8.5.1 Pumps in Light Liquid Service ..... 8-22
8.5.2 Compressors • • 8-25
8.5.3 Sampling Connection Systems 8-26
8.5.4 Valves in Gas/Vapor and Lines in Light
Liquid Service 8-26
8.5.5 Connectors in Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid
Service :..,.. 8-29
8.5.6 Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices 8-34
8.5.7 Delay of Repair 8-35
8.5.8 Quality Improvement Programs 8-35
8.5.9 Other .- 8-36
8.6 Recordkeeping and Reporting for Equipment
Leaks 8-38
8.7 Wording of Equipment Leaks Provision 8-40
8.8 Miscellaneous 8-42
9.0 GENERAL MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, . .' 2
9.1 Use of Monitoring to Determine compliance ... 2
9.2 Recordkeeping Requirements 12
9.3 Reporting Requirements 16
9.3.1 Initial Notification 16
9.3.2 Notification of Compliance Status ... 17
9.3.3 Periodic Reports 21
9.3.4 Additional Reporting 24
9.4 Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden ...... 26
10.0 EMISSIONS AVERAGING PROVISIONS 10-1
10.1 Should Emissions Averaging Be Allowed . . 10-1
10.2 Scope of Emissions Averaging 10-7
10.3 Interpollutant Trading and Risk Analysis 10-23
10.4 Number of Points In Averages ...... 10-31
10.5 Generation of Credits and Debits . . . 10-34
10.5.1 What Actions are Creditable . . 10-34
10.5.2 Discount Factors 10-40
10.6 Averaging Compliance Period 10-44
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
10-47
10-48
10-54
10-56
10.7 Banking
10.8 Monitoring
10.9 Recordkeeping and Reporting
10.10 Miscellaneous ; . . .
11.0 ECONOMICS AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS 11-1
12.0 GENERAL POLICY ISSUES ..... ..... 12-1
12.1 Common Sense Initiative 12-1
12.2 Publication of Regulations ... i .... 12-3
12.3 Request for Extension 12-4
. 12.4 Miscellaneous 12-5
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 List of Commenters on Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
2-2
viii
-------
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
ACRONYM
Act
ANSI
API
ASTM
AQMD
BACT
BWOM
CEM
CFR
COTU
DoE
E.G.
EPA
FCC
FCCU
HAP
HEM
HON
I&M
ICR
LDAR
MACT
MTBE
NCS
NESHAP
NSPS
OPAR
OTA
QIP
RACT
RCT
RFC
RIA
SCAQD
TERM
Clean Air Act
American National Standards Institute
American Petroleum Institute
American Society for Testing and Materials
Air Quality Management District .
best available control technology
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
continuous emissions monitoring
Code of Federal Regulations
crude oil topping unit
Department of Energy
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
fluidized catalytic cracking
fluidized catalytic cracking unit
hazardous air pollutant
Human Exposure Model
hazardous organic national emission
inspection and maintenance
Information Collection Request
leak detection and repair
maximum achievable control technology
methyl te'rt butyl ether
Notification of Compliance Status
national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants
new source performance standards
Office of Policy Analysis and Review
Office of Technology Assessment
quality improvement program
reasonably available control technology
reference control technology
reformulated gasoline
Regulatory Impact Analysis
South Coast Air Quality District
IX
-------
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
(CONTINUED)
ACRONYM
SIC
SIP
SOCMI
SRU
TRE
TRI
TSDF
VOC
ABBREVIATION
bbl
bbl/sd
°C
cm
oF
gal
Kg
kPa
Ib
gal
Mg
MMBtu
MW
ppm
ppmv
ppmw
psia
psig
Standard Industrial Classification
State Implementation Plan
synthetic organic chemical
sulfur recovery unit
total resource effectiveness
toxics release inventory
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
volatile organic compound(s)
UNIT OF MEASURE
barrel
barrels per stream day
degrees Celsius
centimeter
degrees Fahrenheit
gallon
kilogram
kilopascals
pound
gallons
megagrams
million british thermal units
megawatts
parts per million
parts per million by volume
parts per million by weight
pounds per square inch absolute
pounds per square inch (gauge)
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On July 15, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for petroleum refineries
(59 FR 36130) under authority of section 112 on the Clean Air
Act (Act). Public comments were requested on the proposal in
the Federal Register. There were 62 comment letters received
from industry representative's, governmental entities,
environmental groups, and private citizens during the public
comment period.
One public hearing was held in Research Triangle Park
(RTF), North Carolina, on August 5, 1994. The hearing was
open to the public and four persons presented oral testimony
on the proposed NESHAP.
The written comments that were submitted and verbal
comments made at the public hearing regarding the technical
and policy issues associated with the proposed rule, along
with responses to these comments, are summarized in the
following chapters. The summary of comments and responses
serves as the basis for the revisions made to the NESHAP
between proposal and promulgation.
1.1 SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
In response to comments received,on the proposed
standards, several change's have been made to the final rule.
While several of these changes are clarifications designed to
make the Agency's intent clearer, a number of them are
significant changes to the proposed standard requirements. A
summary of the substantive comments and/or changes made since
the proposal are described in the following sections.
Detailed Agency responses to public comments and the revised
1-1
-------
analysis for the final rule are contained in the body of. this
document and the docket for this rule (Docket No. A-93-48).
The docket for the final rule is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW,
Washington DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548.
1.1.1 Process Vents Group Determination
The proposed NESHAP would have required control of all
miscellaneous process vents with HAP concentrations over
20 ppmv. This level wasi±based on the fact that combustion
control technologies can reduce organic emissions by
98 percent or to 20 ppmv, but cannot necessarily achieve lower
concentrations. Several commenters suggested that other
applicability criteria were needed to determine which process
vents are required to apply control. They pointed out that
the HON and State regulations use a total resource
effectiveness (TRE) or emission rate cutoff to exclude small
vents that have low emission potential and high costs from
control requirements. The commenters contended that the MACT
floor does not include control of such vents.
In response to these comments, the EPA examined potential
control applicability criteria. .-The EPA reevaluated the
miscellaneous process vents data base. The EPA's information
on miscellaneous process vent streams was insufficient to
establish an emission rate cutoff. This was because industry
did not have sufficient information on the HAP and VOC content
of vent streams requested by the section 114 questionnaires
and ICR's and it would have been impractical to obtain this
information. Therefore, as suggested by a number of
commenters, and after consultations with industry and others,
the EPA decided to use State regulations.
The EPA evaluated the current level of control for
miscellaneous process vents in eight States and two air
districts that contain the majority of refineries and were
1-2
-------
expected to have the most stringent regulations. Of the
refineries in the United States, the 12 percent that are
subject to the roost stringent regulations are located in three
States. In these three States, miscellaneous process vents
emitting greater than 6.8 to 45 kilograms per day (kg/d)
(15 to 100 Ib/day) of VOC are required to be controlled. The
median applicability cutoff level for the 12 percent of
U.S. refineries subject to the most stringent regulations is
33 kg/d (72 Ib/day VOC). Thus, control of vents with VOC
emissions greater than 33 kg/d (72 Ib/day) is the MACT floor
for existing sources, and control of vents with VOC emissions
greater -than 6.8 'kg/day < 15 Ib/day) ' is the MACT level of
control for new sources. . The primary organic HAP's at
refineries are also VOC. Additionally, a VOC-based
applicability criteria is roost reflective of the current level
of control required for miscellaneous process vents as the
majority of State regulations are expressed in terms of VOC.
Therefore, the EPA has adopted these emission levels in the
final rule to distinguish Group 1 from Group 2 vents. Group 1
vents, those that emit over 33 kg/day (72 Ib/day) for existing
sources and over 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new sources, must
be controlled, whereas Group 2 vents (which emit less than
33 kg/day (72 Ib/day) for existing sources and less than
6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for, new sources) are'not-required to
apply controls under the final rule. The 33 kg/day
(72 Ib/day) and 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) applicability limits
are to be determined as the gases exit from process unit
equipment and not downstr-eam from an emission control device.
1.1.2 Process Vent Impacts
At proposal, the EPA estimated that the baseline HAP and
VOC emissions from process vents were 9,800 Mg/yr (10,780 tpy)
and 190,000 Mg/yr (209,000 tpy), respectively. Several
commenters contended that the impacts analysis for process
vents should be redone because: (1) The data base used in the
analysis contained several errors, and (2) the emission
estimation methodology was incorrect. The commenters asserted
1-3
-------
that these inaccuracies resulted in overestimates of
emissions. Some of the commenters asserted that the data base
flaws included: (1) A lack of data concerning the number,
flowrates, and HAP concentrations of miscellaneous process
vents, and (2) an erroneously high percentage of controlled
vents because many uncontrolled vents were not reported. Some
of the commenters contended that the emission estimation
methodology was flawed because (1) It included wastewater and
maintenance emissions, (2) emission factors were calculated
from a HAP-to-VOC ratio that included reformer emissions, and
(3) alkylation emissions and crude unit emissions were based
on one- refinery where vents were uncontrolled at the time of
the questionnaire and are now controlled.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the process vents
emission impacts estimate" has several assumptions that needed
to be reanalyzed. The EPA also agrees that the data base used
at proposal should be reevaluated to consider the commenters1
concerns. Therefore, the EPA has reestimated the emissions
and cost impacts of the process vents provisions using the
commenters' recommendations.
The emissions at proposal were estimated using responses
from only the section 114 questionnaires extrapolated to the
entire refining industry. Because the section 114
questionnaires were sent to the largest companies, the data
obtained from them skewed the results based on what the
largest refineries did. The revised emissions were estimated
using data from both the section 114 and ICR responses. The
ICR questionnaires were sent to refineries not receiving the
section 114 questionnaires. This additional data increased
the number of vents in the data base by 1,300. The increase
in vents resulted in a decrease in controlled vents from
40 percent to 24 percent. However, information on the HAP and
VOC content of vent streams remained limited as no new data
was provided by the ICR respondents. Additionally, no new HAP
information was provided by industry after proposal of the
rule.
1-4
-------
Additionally, errors in the data base were corrected and
non-miscellaneous process vents were removed from the data
base (e.g., vents from wastewater, maintenance, catalytic
reformer regeneration vents, etc). In the revised emission
estimates, emissions from alkylation and crude units were
estimated from a number of different data points (not just
one, as the commenters have stated). Additionally, the one
data point the commenters have referred to has been changed to
reflect the change in control status. The revised baseline
miscellaneous process vents HAP and VOC emissions are
10,000 Mg/yr (11,000 tpy) and 109,000 Mg/yr (119,900 tpy),
respectively.
The EPA agrees that the data on HAP concentrations is
limited. However, no new data was supplied by the commenters.
The EPA's revised emission estimates are based on technically
sound methods and the best available information.
1.1.3 Equipment Leaks Compliance Requirements
The proposed rule for equipment leaks at existing sources
was an above-the-floor option modeled after the HON negotiated
rule for equipment leaks. The floor level of control for
equipment leaks from existing sources was determined to be
control equal to the petroleum refinery NSPS. The modified
negotiated rule was chosen as an above-the-floor option
because it was estimated to be cost effective. The option
chosen in the proposed rule differed from the HON in that:
(1) Existing sources were not required to monitor connectors,
and (2) the leak definitions were higher to reflect the
different volatility of materials found in refinery process
lines as opposed to SOCMI process lines. The proposed rule
required one-third of the refinery to be in compliance
6 months after promulgation of the rule, two-thirds of the
refinery to be in compliance 1 year after promulgation of the
rule, and the entire refinery to be in compliance 18 months
after promulgation of the rule.
Several commenters contended that the emissions and cost
information used to determine the cost effectiveness of going
1-5
-------
from the floor level of control to the modified negotiated
rule were inaccurate and did not consider recent changes to
the equipment leak correlation equations for petroleum
refineries. The commenters concluded that using the most
recent information for refineries would show that it is not
cost effective to go beyond the floor level of control.
The cost information used in the analysis was the best
data available, and is based on surveys of vendors and
established costs presented in previous projects. No new cost
information was submitted by the industry. The equipment leak
emission factors that are being used to estimate the emissions
and emission ^reductions of the rule were developed in 1980.
These are the only complete and accurate emission factors
available for this purpose. To accurately estimate emissions
from equipment leaks, two sets of information are needed.
These include the amount of emissions generated per piece of
equipment leaking at a given concentration and the percent of
equipment that are actually leaking at these concentrations.
The 1980 study that was used to estimate the impacts of the
refinery MACT rule used a consistent sampling methodology to
address both of these factors based on sampling at
uncontrolled refineries. The 1993 API study developed new
information only on emissions per piece of leaking equipment
using a different methodology. As stated in API's report,
this information was developed from refineries in California
for use with other information to estimate facility-specific
equipment leak emissions. Thus, this study was not designed
to provide information on industry average percent leaking
equipment. Therefore, it was not possible to redefine average
emission factors. To actually use this information, however,
EPA would need corresponding new information on the percent of
equipment leaking. The EPA does not believe that it would be
appropriate to combine 1993 information with the 1980 data to
develop new emission factors because sampling methodologies
were different and because the 1993 study collected
information from well-controlled facilities while the
1-6
-------
1980 study collected information from uncontrolled facilities.
However, the EPA agrees that new correlation equations
developed for the refining industry indicate that the refinery
factors may overestimate emissions by as much as a factor of
two, which may make the modified negotiated rule option less
cost effective. This cannot be accurately determined because
the appropriate information to update average emission factors
is not available. The EPA recognizes that enough uncertainty
exists in the emission and cost estimates to question the
results of the cost-effectiveness analysis.
In recognition of this uncertainty and to provide
compliar-nee" '-flexibility, the EPA has changed the final rule to
provide each existing refinery with a choice of complying with
either: (1) The equipment leaks NSPS requirements
(40 CFR part 60, subpart W) or (2) a modified version of the
negotiated rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). The NSPS
represents the MACT floor for existing sources. The modified
negotiated regulation is the same as what was contained in the
proposed petroleum refinery NESHAP except that the compliance
dates have been extended for reasons described below.
Although not required in the final rule, the EPA promotes use
of the modified negotiated rule option because it is believed
to provide considerable product, emissions, and cost savings
to a refinery. -
Under either option, existing refineries will be required
to implement an LDAR program with the same leak definitions
(10,000 ppm) and the same leak frequencies as contained in the
NSPS by 3 years after promulgation. A refinery may opt to
remain at this level of control and do the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting specified in the NSPS. This
option allows refineries that are familiar with the NSPS to
continue to implement that standard without needing to change
their procedures.
Alternatively, a refinery may choose to comply with
Phase I of the negotiated rule (10,000 ppm leak definition)
3 years after promulgation, comply with Phase II 4 years after
1-7
-------
promulgation, and comply with Phase III 5 %*years after
promulgation. Each phase has lower leak definitions for pumps
and valves. In Phase III, monitoring frequencies for valves
are dependent on performance (percent leakers), providing an
incentive (less frequent monitoring and reduced monitoring
costs) for good performance. Refineries choosing to comply
with the modified negotiated rule are subject to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of subpart H. The
EPA has included this compliance alternative to add
flexibility and opportunities for adjustment for differences
among facilities.
-•' The -compliance dates for equipment leaks were revised to
address commenter concerns that contended that small
refineries and refineries in ozone attainment areas would be
at a disadvantage if they were required to comply with the
proposed equipment leak regulations because they would not
have the experience to implement an equipment leaks control
program within 6 to 18 months.
The EPA agrees that small refineries may not have the
experience to implement an LDAR program for equipment leaks in
a short timeframe without significant expense. The EPA also
contends that other refineries that do not currently have LDAR
programs may also have trouble implementing the rule in
.6 to 18 months. In .-respo'nse to these comments, the EPA has
changed the final rule to require that existing and new
refineries, regardless of size, comply with an LDAR program
with the same leak definitions (10,000 ppm) and monitoring
frequencies as the petroleum refinery NSPS within 3 years of
promulgation of the rule. At the end of the third year, the
entire refinery must be in compliance with the petroleum
refinery NSPS level of control; there will not be interim
deadlines during the 3-year period by which portions of the
refinery are required to comply during this time. A refinery
owner or operator who chooses to comply with the modified
negotiated rule must then implement Phase II within 4 years
and Phase III within 5 % years of promulgation. The total
1-8
-------
annual cost estimates for the rule have been revised in
accordance with the changes made to the equipment leak
requirements.
1.1.4 Storage Vessels
The proposed rule required existing storage vessels
containing liquids with vapor pressures greater than or equal
to 8 kPa (1.2 psia) to comply with storage vessel requirements
within 3 years. For tanks that were already controlled with
internal or external floating roofs, the proposed rule allowed
operators to defer upgrading of seals until the next scheduled
maintenance with the following exceptions: (1) Fixed roof
tanks,' (2) EFR tanks with only a -yapor-mounted primary seal,
and (3) all tanks storing a liquid with a true vapor pressure
greater than 34 kPa (5.0 psia).
Commenters to the proposed rule maintained that before
additional emission controls (e.g., secondary seals) can be
installed, tanks must be removed from service, degassed, and
cleaned: Storage tanks are currently emptied and cleaned
roughly every 10 years for inspection and maintenance. The
commenters contended that removing storage tanks that already
have floating roofs from service before scheduled maintenance
would have adverse environmental impacts that could not be
overcome by the emissions reductions from upgrading the seals
on the tank-, i The commenters further stated that tank owners.
or operators would incur substantial costs as a result of
degassing and cleaning a tank before scheduled maintenance.
The commenters contended that a 3-year compliance schedule
could not be met because there would not be enough trained and
capable fabricators and contractors to support the tank
modification work. Commenters stated that the reason was that
the refinery rule compliance period overlaps with the
implementation of other EPA rules and that a 10-year
compliance schedule would be consistent with other EPA
rulemakings such as the HON and the benzene storage NESHAP.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the HON and the
benzene storage NESHAP allow floating roof tanks to achieve
1-9
-------
compliance in 10 years or at the time of- the next scheduled
degassing. Most existing floating roof storage vessels at
refineries also fall under the 10-year compliance schedule.
Therefore, these storage vessels will be inspected within 5 to
10 years after promulgation of the rule. This is consistent
with industry practice.
In response to these comments, the EPA analyzed the
emissions resulting from -degassing and cleaning storage
vessels using empirical mass-transfer models. The analysis
indicated that degassing and cleaning of floating roof vessels
generally results in substantial volatilization of HAP's to
the air .--Ttfese- emissions could not be balanced in less than
5 years by the emission reductions achieved by controlling the
tank to the requirements in the rule. Additionally, the
degassing and cleaning information submitted by the refining
industry indicated substantial costs for each degassing and
cleaning activity if required within 3 years after
promulgation of the rule. Based on information provided by
industry and the EPA's empirical analysis,, the EPA determined.
that the proposed storage vessel provisions were not cost
effective and would, in many cases, result in increased
overall emissions because of the extra degassing emissions.
The final rule allows owners or operators of storage
•vessels^subject fca the rule to defer-installation of better .
seals on floating roof tanks storing any liquid until the next
scheduled maintenance or within 10 years, whichever comes
first. This change addresses the commenters1 concerns about
emissions and costs as well as their concern about the
availability of trained fabricators and contractors to modify
the tanks within a 3-year period. The final rule maintains
the requirement to retrofit IFR tanks at existing sources with
secondary seals that meet 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb
requirements because it is the MACT floor for IFR vessels.
Based on the .EPA's analysis, the emissions from degassing
and cleaning fixed roof tanks can be balanced within 1 year
(justifying a 3-year compliance date) by the emission
1-10
_ 4
-------
reductions achieved by controlling the tank to the
requirements in the rule. Therefore, the final rule maintains
the proposed compliance times (within 3 years) for fixed roof
tanks. The EPA believes that in certain situations, such as
when replacement of a tank is required, it would be reasonable
for States to grant an additional year to comply as authorized
under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act. The additional year
would provide time to design and construct the tanks without
disrupting refinery operations which could cause additional
emissions. The EPA will work with the industry and States to
find ways to use the emissions averaging program to deal with
cases- where tanks have to replaced or where it is extremely
difficult or costly to install the required controls.
Several commenters contended that the Group 1 definition
of 8 kPa (1.2 psia) in the proposed NESHAP was based on data
requests in section 114 and ICR questionnaires that were
misinterpreted by respondents. The commenters stated that the
questionnaires did not specify whether respondents were to
provide maximum true vapor pressures or average annual true
vapor pressures. The commenters elaborated that because other
data were provided to estimate emissions on an annual basis,
it was reasonable to assume that respondents provided average
annual true vapor pressures instead of maximum true vapor
pressures-. The commenters concluded that vapor pressures
based on the maximum monthly temperatures may be 0.3 psia
higher than the average annual true vapor pressure. The
commenters recommended that the EPA either change the
applicability cutoff to 10 kPa (1.5 psia) maximum true vapor
pressure to account for this difference or specify that the
8 kPa (1.2 psia) cutoff is the average annual true vapor
pressure instead of the maximum true vapor pressure.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that because the
questionnaires did not specify the type of vapor pressure, the
respondents may have provided annual average true vapor
pressures instead of maximum true vapor pressures. In order
to reflect the uncertainty of the type of vapor pressure
1-11
-------
provided in the questionnaires, the EPA has decided to change
the storage vessel applicability cutoff in the final rule from
a maximum true vapor pressure of 8 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10 kPa
(1.5 psia). An analysis of the storage vessel data base
indicated that a change from 8.3 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10 kPa
(1.5 psia) will not affect the impacts analysis.
Several commenters requested that a minimum HAP content
be considered as well as a vapor pressure cut-off for storage
vessels because some liquids may have very low HAP
concentrations and high vapor pressures due to the volatility
of non-HAP compounds in the material. The EPA agrees that
several-^r-oducts, such as asphalt, have* minimal HAP's that may
have vapor pressures greater than 10 kPa (1.5 psia) if stored
at elevated temperatures. To determine HAP .weight percent
applicability criteria, the EPA reviewed the MACT floor
analysis for storage vessels to determine the HAP weight
percents in controlled storage vessels at the best-controlled
sources. The MACT floor for new sources is based on the best-
controlled source, while the floor for existing sources is the
average of the best-controlled 12 percent of sources (or
16 refineries). The HAP weight percent applicability
criterion was determined using the same population of storage
tanks used to determine the vapor pressure applicability cut-
off :(i.e.r. the best-controlled 16 refineries). The minimum
HAP concentrations for materials stored in the tanks meeting
subpart Kb at the 16 best-controlled sources ranged from
2 weight percent to 22 weight percent. The average HAP weight
percent in the liquids stored in these tanks is 4 percent.
The best-controlled tanks contain liquids with a HAP weight
percent in the liquid of 2 percent. Therefore, the HAP weight
percent criterion for existing sources is 4 percent HAP in the
liquid; the HAP weight percent for new sources is 2 percent
HAP in the liquid.
1.1.5 Overlapping Regulations
Several commenters contended that the petroleum refinery
NESHAP will lead to overlap with other existing and future
1-12
-------
regulations such as the 40 CFR part 60 NSPS, 40 CFR parts 61
and 63 NESHAP, and state and local regulations. Commenters
stated that the overlap between regulations will lead to
confusion, uncertainty, and frustration for sources and
regulators.
The EPA has clarified the applicability of subpart CC as
it relates to other NSPS and parts 61 and 63 NESHAP that apply
to the same source in § 63.640 of the final rule.
The final rule clarifies the applicability of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC storage vessel provisions to storage
vessels at existing and new petroleum refinery sources subject
to 40 CFR part 60., subpartsfK, Ka, or Kb. The specific
provisions are structured such that each vessel is subject to
only the more stringent rule. For example, a Group 1 storage
vessel at an existing refinery that is also subject to
subpart K or Ka is required only to comply with the petroleum
refinery NESHAP storage vessel provisions.
The final rule clarifies the applicability of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC wastewater provisions by stating that a
Group 1 wastewater stream managed in a piece of equipment that
is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ is required only to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC. The final rule also clarifies that a Group 2
wastewater stream managed in equipment.that is-also subject to
the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ is required only
to comply with subpart QQQ. Clarification of the applicable
provisions for a wastewater stream that is conveyed, stored,
or treated in a wastewater stream management unit that also
receives streams subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart F has also been included in the final rule.
There should not be any process vent applicability
overlap between subpart CC and any other Federal rule.
Process vents regulated under the HON are not subject to the
petroleum refinery NESHAP.
The EPA clarifies the applicability of subpart CC
equipment leak provisions In the final rule by stating that
1-13
-------
petroleum refinery sources subject to 40 CFR parts 60 or 61
equipment leaks regulations are required to comply only with
the petroleum refinery NESHAP equipment leak provisions.
The EPA has also included a Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code definition for petroleum refining
(2911) to the petroleum refinery process units definition in
the final rule in order to clarify which provisions of the
rule apply to storage vessels and equipment leaks. The EPA
believes that the inclusion of the SIC code reference in the
definition of refinery process unit will alleviate confusion
about applicability of this rule (reducing potential confusion
regarding process unit regulatory overlap) and other source
categories scheduled for the development of NESHAP under the
Act. The EPA has also added a list of pollutants covered
under the rule to assist facilities in the determination of
whether emission points are covered under the rule.
Another issue raised by several commenters was the
potential for overlap between the petroleum refinery MACT and
other MACT standards such as the HON. These commenters
requested that the EPA clarify the distinction between process
units subject to the HON or other MACT standards and process
units subject to the petroleum refinery MACT standard. These
commenters thought that the description of refinery process
units was too general and could include chemical processes
subject to the HON or other MACT standards.
The final rule provides that 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC
does not apply to units that are also subject to the
provisions of the HON. The applicability of subpart CC versus
the HON or other MACT standard to an emission point is
determined by the primary product produced in the unit. The
primary product is the product that is produced in the
greatest mass or volume that the unit produces. For example,
if a refinery operates a unit that produces upgraded feedstock
for the alkylation unit and this unit also produces a small
quantity (less than 20 percent) of the chemical MTBE, that
unit is considered to be subject to the petroleum refinery
1-14
-------
MACT standard and not to the HON. In contrast, if a facility
operated a process unit that produced MTBE as the primary
product and also produced small quantities of a mixed
hydrocarbon stream, the unit would be subject to the HON
because the unit produces MTBE as the primary product and the
HON applies to chemical manufacturing units that produce MTBE.
The distinction between the units is the difference in the
primary product produced in the different units. In the first
case, the unit is integral to the petroleum refinery's
operations and the MTBE is a by-product of the unit. In the
second case, the unit's operation could be replaced by
purchased MTBE and the operation is not integral to the
petroleum refinery's operations.
The EPA believes that by specifying the applicability
determination procedures for a process unit in addition to
including the applicable process unit definitions clarifies
the applicability of the petroleum refinery MACT standard and
other MACT standards for the same emission point and pollutant
to the same process unit. The EPA also believes that by
directly stating that units subject to the HON are also
subject to this rule, the commenter's concerns over
applicability issues have been addressed.
1.1.6 Source Category Definition
In the July 1994'notice of proposed rulemaking, the
proposed rule preamble provided notice of and sought comment
on the issues of a broad affected source definition and source
category; source-wide averaging; and the relationship between
the gasoline distribution affected source definition and
source category and refineries. In the preamble of the
proposed refinery rule, the EPA noted that it did not intend
to include emission points that are subject to the gasoline
distribution standard in the refinery source category, that
all emission points within the refinery source category would
be treated as one stationary source for purposes of the
refinery standard, and that the EPA intended to permit
1-15
-------
averaging among all emission points within the source category
except for equipment leaks.
Comments on both the gasoline distribution rule and the
refinery proposal indicated that the Agency needed to clarify
which rule applied to which emissions points and whether
averaging would apply to collocated emission points. Both
proposed rules addressed similar emission points; for example,
both proposed rules addressed storage tanks and equipment
leaks where refineries were collocated with gasoline
distribution operations. In the preamble accompanying the
final gasoline distribution rule, the EPA indicated the intent
.to rely on SIC codes to distinguish between emission points -at
refineries covered by the gasoline distribution standard and
those covered by the refinery standard. The Agency noted that
the SIC code for particular equipment would indicate the
department with managerial oversight responsibility for each
emission point. However, the EPA specifically provided that
this rule, if appropriate, would modify the gasoline
distribution standard to incorporate SIC code limits.
The final rule identifies petroleum refinery process
units and the gasoline loading rack emission points by SIC
code for purposes of identifying the appropriate control
requirements. A broad source category and affected source
definition increases the-opportunity to use flexible . ... .-.
compliance options such as emissions averaging. Because the
control technology under -today's rule for gasoline loading
racks is the same as the requirements under the gasoline
distribution NESHAP, the required emissions reductions from
gasoline loading racks would be at least as great as would
have been required had gasoline loading racks been excluded
from the petroleum refinery source category and affected
source; due to the credit discount factors, overall emissions
may be less than otherwise would be required if gasoline
loading racks are included in an emissions averaging plan.
1-16
-------
1.1.7 Emissions Averaging
The preamble to the proposed petroleum refinery rule
requested comments on whether marine loading operations at
refineries should be included in emissions averaging. The EPA
also reopened the comment period for the proposed NESHAP for
marine tank vessel loading operations (59 FR 44955) to request
comment on whether marine terminals collocated at refineries
should be moved to the petroleum refinery source category. In
addition, as noted above, issues related to including gasoline
distribution emissions in averaging at refineries were also
raised in the proposed rule preamble.
During the comment period for the gasoline distribution ••
NESHAP, commenters requested that gasoline bulk terminals
contiguous to a refinery be regulated by the petroleum
refinery NESHAP. Several commenters on the proposed petroleum
refinery NESHAP and proposed marine tank vessel loading
operations NESHAP supported averaging of refinery process unit
emissions with emissions from marine terminals and gasoline
distribution operations that are located at refineries. The
commenters cited more cost-effective emission reduction as the
advantage of including these emission points in emissions
averaging, and specifically commented that the costs per
megagram emission reduction of the marine loading controls are
high. These commenters also claimed that-emission calculation
procedures for loading are well established and that adding
marine loading to the averaging provisions will not
appreciably increase the complexity of enforcement. Other
commenters opposed including marine loading and gasoline
distribution emission points in emissions averaging. Some
commenters claimed that these are separate source categories
and that the Act does not permit averaging across source
categories. Other commenters were of the opinion that the EPA
has the flexibility to allow trading within a facility that
includes units in different source categories. These
commenters argued that it is unnecessary to redefine the
1-17
-------
source category to include marine loading operations and
gasoline distribution operations colocated at refineries.
In the final rule, the definitions of the petroleum
refinery source category and affected source have been changed
to include gasoline loading racks classified under SIC
code 2911 (Petroleum Refrneries) and marine tank vessel
loading operations that are located at refinery plant sites.
Because marine loading operations and bulk gasoline transfer
operations located at refineries are supplying raw materials
to, or transferring products from, petroleum refinery process
units, they are logically considered to be part of the same
source as the petroleum refinery process units. The EPA ..,
considers this definition to be the most appropriate
definition and, as noted by several commenters, to present
fewer implementation problems.
A gasoline loading rack classified under SIC code 2911 or
a marine tank vessel loading operation that is located at a
petroleum refinery may be included in an emissions average
with other refinery process unit emission points. Because
these operations are included as part of a single source
within one source category intersource averaging is not an
issue.
In keeping with the EPA's stated goal of increasing
flexibility in rulemakings, this decision has been made to
provide more opportunities to average. This increases the
opportunities for refiners to find cost-effective emission
reductions from overall facility operations onsite. Costs and
cost effectiveness of controlling a particular kind of
emission point, such as marine loading, will vary depending on
many site-specific factors. Emissions averaging allows the
owner and operator to find the optimal control strategy for
their particular situation.
The EPA is presently reviewing the emission averaging
policy and considering whether any more flexibility can be
provided while maintaining environmental protection. The
issue of intersource averaging will be considered along with
1-18
-------
other aspects of the emissions averaging policy. The EPA
believes that any decision to provide additional flexibility
must be based on careful consideration of enforcement issues
as well as equity in environmental protection. Given the
complexity of these issues, the EPA does not believe that the
Refinery MACT standard is the appropriate place to address
these issues. The EPA plans to examine the issue
independently of any specific rulemaking. In this, the EPA
plans to work closely with both the refining and chemical
industries and other interested parties to determine if there
are opportunities for increasing flexibility and reducing the
burden associated with demonstrating compliance with the MACT
rules while remaining within the law.
The EPA would like to clarify that the emissions
averaging program was designed to result in equal or greater
environmental protection while providing sources flexibility
to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective manner.
Specifically, allowing marine loading operations, and gasoline
loading racks classified under SIC code 2911, located at a
refinery to be included in emissions averages will result in
equivalent or greater overall HAP emission reduction at each
refinery. The averaging provisions are structured such that
"debits" generated by not controlling an emission point that
otherwise would require control must be balanced by achieving
extra control at other refinery emission points covered by the
NESHAP. The averaging provisions also require that a source
demonstrate that compliance through averaging will not result
in greater risk or hazard than compliance without averaging.
Some commenters were concerned that including marine
loading in averages could result in uncontrolled peak
emissions. With regard to the commenters' concerns about peak
emissions, the quarterly cap on the ratio of debits to credits
is intended to limit the possibility of exposure peaks.
Furthermore, because loading occurs fairly frequently, and
emissions from an individual vessel filling or loading event
are relatively small, such emissions are not expected to cause
1-19
-------
significant exposure peaks.- Moreover, no evidence has been
presented that emissions averaging would permit a very
different mix of emissions to occur than would point-by-point
compliance. That is, peaks of exposures from batch streams,
storage, and loading operations should be equally likely under
point-by-point compliance as under emissions averaging, so
emissions averaging does not represent a less effective
control strategy. Furthermore, in order to receive approval
for an emissions average, the owner or operator is required to
demonstrate that the emissions average does not increase the
risk or hazard relative to compliance without averaging.
1.1.8 Monitoring, Recordkeepina. and Reporting
Several commenters alleged that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the proposed rule were extremely
burdensome. The commenters requested that the EPA reduce the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden associated
with the proposed rule. Commenters also requested that
provisions be added to the final rule to avoid duplicative
reporting for equipment subject to multiple NESHAP and NSPS.
Other commenters requested that flexibility to allow
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting be
incorporated into the final rule.
The EPA recognizes that unnecessary monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements would burden both .
the source and enforcement agencies. Prior to proposal, the
EPA attempted to reduce the amount of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to only that which is necessary
to demonstrate compliance. For example, at proposal almost
all reports were consolidated into the Notification of
Compliance Status, and the Periodic Reports. This was done to
simplify and reduce the frequency of reporting. Sources also
have the option of retaining records either in paper copy or
in computer-readable formats, whichever is less burdensome.
If multiple performance tests are conducted for the same kind
of emission point using the same test method, only one
complete test report is submitted along with summaries of the
1-20
-------
results of other tests. This reduces the number of lengthy
test reports to be copied, reviewed, and submitted.
Site-specific test plans describing quality assurance in
§ 63.7(c) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A are not required
because the test methods cited in subpart CC already contain
applicable quality assurance protocols. The quality assurance
provisions in the individual test methods remain applicable
and are not superseded by the nonapplicability of § 63.7(c) of
subpart A. For continuously monitored parameters, periodic
reporting is limited to excursions outside the established
ranges and the in-range values are not required to be ,
reported.
In response to the commenters, the EPA reevaluated
whether monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
could be further reduced while maintaining the enforceability
of the rule. The EPA has made the following changes in the
promulgated rule to further reduce the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting burden:
(1) The requirement to submit an Initial Notification
has been eliminated;
(2) periodic reports are required to be submitted
semiannually for all facilities that do not use emissions
averaging (the proposal required quarterly reports if
monitored parameters were out of range more than a specified
percentage of the time);
(3) a reduction in the frequency for parameter
monitoring and recording. The proposal required values of
monitored parameters to be recorded every 15 minutes and all
15-minute records had to be retained for those days when
excess emissions occurred. The final rule allows hourly
monitoring and recording;
(4) recordkeeping and reporting provisions that
eliminate duplicate reporting for equipment subject to
multiple NESHAP and NSPS were added to the applicability
section (§ 63.640) of the final rule. The additions specify
which rule applies and overrides the less stringent NSPS or
1-21
-------
NESHAP. For State and local regulation applicability
determination, the final rule has been amended to state that
the local regulatory authority (e.g., State or permitting
authority) can decide how monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements can be consolidated, and can approve
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
These reductions reduce the proposal monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting burden by 25 percent. The EPA
plans to continue to work- with the industry as well as with
other interested parties to identify further opportunities for
reduction of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
burden of the rule. The EPA will consider ways to eliminate
overlapping requirements and to address any inconsistencies
among the rules. The EPA will investigate the possibility of
consolidating and simplifying the various rules while
maintaining the same level of environmental protection.
Assuming that the pilot project with the chemical industry is
successful, the EPA expects to be able to complete the review
of the Refinery rule monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements before the compliance date.
1.1.9 Subcateaorization
Several coramenters to the proposed petroleum refinery
NESHAP requested that the EPA subcategorize :refineries by size
and/or location in an ozone attainment area. Other commenters
stated that subcategorizing small refineries because of an
arbitrary size exemption can result in an unfair competitive
advantage. These commenters further elaborated that large
refineries should not be penalized for an economy of scale
achieved through its own effective competitiveness.
In response to these comments, the refinery data bases
were subcategorized based on crude charge capacity. The
refineries were also subcategorized by ozone attainment status
and by refineries containing processes that are used to
produce gasoline (such as catalytic cracking, coking, and
catalytic reforming). Within each subcategory, the process
1-22
-------
vents, storage vessels, and equipment leaks data bases were
sorted from most stringent control to least stringent. The
MACT floor (average of the top 12 percent of sources) for each
subcategory was identified.
The MACT floors for small refineries are not
significantly different from the industry as a whole. The
floor for process vents is the same for small refiners as for
the entire industry. The floor for storage tanks would
increase the materials vapor pressure cutoff from 10 kPa
(1.5 psia) to 11 kPa (1.7 psia), which would result in a
minimal cost savings since there are few petroleum liquids in
this volatility range. The floor for equipment leaks would-
reduce the monitoring frequency; however, small refiners would
still incur the cost of setting up and implementing an LDAR
program.
Based on the EPA's analysis and the comments received
during the public comment period, a separate subcategory for
small refineries has not been included in the final rule.
This decision was based on there being no clear relationship
between refinery size or design and emission potential.
1.1.10 Economic Analysis
Comments were received on both the methodology of the
economic analysis and the potential impacts of the analysis
results. The EPA's economic model focused on estimating
changes in product price and quantity of production for
several petroleum products. Once the effects on price and
quantity were evaluated, other impacts were estimated. The
model the EPA used is predicated on neoclassical microeconomic
theory.
The model assumed that those refineries with the highest
per-unit control are marginal (i.e., near the margin between
shutdown and continuing operation) in the post-control
markets, and that they also have the highest underlying per-
unit cost of production. This assumption may result in an
overstatement of the adverse impacts, such as closure, since
the assumed relationship between per-unit control cost and
1-23
-------
per-unit production cost may not hold for all refineries. For
more information, consult the "Economic Impact Analysis for
the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP" in the docket.
Most of the comments about the economic analyses
methodology were focused "on possible impacts on other parts of
the petroleum industry other than refineries. The economic
analysis for this rule, like most of the EPA's economic
analyses, focuses on the impacts on the industry being
regulated and does not calculate impacts to other industries
indirectly affected unless those impacts are significant. In
this case, the impacts indirectly affected industries were not
calculated since the impacts estimated for the petroleum x.
refinery industry were not significant, impacts to indirectly
affected industries would likely be insignificant also.
1.1.11 Benefits Analysis
Comments noted that naphthalene is classified as a
possible carcinogen, not a known carcinogen, and therefore
should hot be included in the risk analysis. Commenters also
argued that the estimates for monetized VOC benefits were too
high, since the VOC reductions claimed in the regulation would
occur as a result of SIP's required by the Act. Other
commenters wrote that the level of benefits from HAP emissions
reduction was not of sufficient justification for pursuing the
regulation.
When the rule was proposed, naphthalene was classified as
a possible human carcinogen. Naphthalene is no longer
classified as a possible human carcinogen and is not included
in the risk analysis for the final rule.
To estimate the benefits of reducing VOC, the EPA used a
1989 study conducted by the OTA. The study examined a variety
of acute health impacts related to ozone exposure as well as
the benefits of reduced ozone concentrations for selected
agricultural crops. However, two factors not considered in
the analysis suggest that higher benefits may be realized than
were estimated. First, chronic health effects, including
leukemia, craniofacial and limb abnormalities in newborns,
1-24
-------
nausea, dizziness, headaches, and irritation of upper
respiratory track and eyes, are difficult to quantify and
consequently were not monetised. Second, health impacts in
the OTA study were estimated for nonattainment areas only.
The potential impacts of this second factor are likely to be
underestimated due to recent evidence suggesting acute health
effects may also be experienced at ozone concentrations below
the current national ambient air quality standards.
As to the comment about some of the benefits being
attributable to VOC emission reductions brought about by
implementing SIP's, the EPA attempted to include all impacts
possible from SIP implementation in the regulatory baseline.
Control of VOC in this rule will be incorporated into future
SIP's by affecting their baselines, thus making the emission
reductions needed to meet them less, and leading to lower
costs for petroleum refineries to meet those SIP's.
Therefore, control of VOC emissions in this rule will lead to
lower c.osts to future SIP implementation. Also, the emission
streams from petroleum refineries are primarily VOC, with a
small fraction of VOC being HAP. Control of any petroleum
refinery emission stream involves control of VOC as well as
HAP. Thus, any benefits estimated to occur from a rule that
controls VOC, though their control is of secondary importance,
should be included as benefits of the rule.
1.1.12 Emissions Data
Commenters raised concerns about the amount and quality
of the data on HAP emissions, and the uncertainties in the
emission estimates. Throughout the rulemaking, the EPA has
been aware of these concerns. During the course of this
rulemaking, the EPA requested information from the petroleum
refining industry on emissions and emission control
technologies. The industry provided sufficient information on
the emission control technologies to determine the best
controlled facilities, as required by section 1.12 of the Act.
However, the information received on existing emission control
levels was limited because it was not available. Thus, there
1-25
-------
is uncertainty in the refinery baseline emission estimates,
and emission reductions and other benefits achieved from the
emission controls required to comply with the rule. The EPA
and the petroleum refinery industry are unable to reduce this
uncertainty at this time. The Agency has characterized the
costs and emission reductions of the requirements of this rule
as accurately as possible. While there is a great deal of
qualitative information on the benefits of this rule, the
uncertainty in the emission estimates and the monetary value
that can be placed on the emission reductions limits the
Agency's ability to directly quantify all the benefits of the
refinery MACT rule. The EPA does know, however, that the
controls required in this rulemaking are in widespread use in
the refining industry and. that they provide substantial
emission reductions.
Under section 112(f) of the Act, the EPA must determine
whether further control of refinery emissions is necessary to
protect the health of the general public. This determination
will require more accurate emission estimates than currently
exist. The EPA has made a commitment to work cooperatively
with industry to identify the data needed to improve the
emission estimates and any other information that is required
to determine the health risks that may remain after
implementation of the refinery MACT rule.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
The impacts presented in this section include process
vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks, and wastewater
streams from petroleum refinery process units. Impacts for
control of marine tank vessel loading operations and gasoline
loading rack operations classified under SIC code 2911 located
at refineries are presented in the background documentation
for 40 CFR part 63, subparts Y and R.
These standards will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP
from petroleum refineries by 48,000 Mg/yr (53,000 tpy), or
59 percent by 1998 compared to the emissions that would result
in the absence of standards. No adverse secondary air
1-26
-------
impacts, water or solid waste impacts are anticipated from the
promulgation of these standards.
The national electric usage required to comply with the
rule is expected to increase by 48 million kilowatt-hours per
year, which is equivalent to approximately 77,500 barrels of
oil.
The implementation of this regulation is expected to
result in an overall annual national cost of $79 million.
This includes a cost of $59 million from operation of control
devices, and a monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting cost
of $20 million. The monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
cost has been reduced by 25 percent from proposal. Table 1
presents the national control cost impacts for petroleum
refinery process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, and
equipment leaks. The control costs for gasoline loading racks
and marine vessel loading operations are discussed in
supporting material for the Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)
and the Marine Vessel Loading Operations rules.
The EPA estimates that changes in the compliance times
for storage vessels with floating roofs and changes to the
existing and new process vents Group 1 applicability cutoffs
will provide substantial cost savings and emissions reductions
for refineries. Estimates of degassing and cleaning storage
tank costs provided by the refining industry indicate that
premature (within 3 years of promulgation) degassing and
cleaning activities would cost between $34,000 and
$213,000 per floating roof tank depending on the type of
material stored. If extrapolated to the entire refining
industry for floating roof tanks, the cost savings from
allowing floating roofs to comply at the next scheduled
maintenance would be $6.6 million per year.
The EPA determined that substantial HAP emissions occur
when storage vessels are degassed and cleaned. Typically,
storage vessels are inspected and maintained on a 10-year
schedule, at which time tanks are degassed and cleaned. If a
3-year compliance schedule were required, storage vessels
1-27
-------
o
O
^
ty
nJ
«
Q)
>
^3
&
<3
CJ
to
w
^J
^«
•
—f
f—
(C
•
^™
c
c.
c^
03 .
01
?J 0
5 o
|!>>
\ ^*^.
«
O ?*
/1\ ^^
®
UH »-^
^H
QJ
01
•P ^^
m o s
i— i o ^C
<0 VD
o m °
^"^
N—'
CM
t
i—i
^^^
CS1
*•"
t-[
CM
laneous
rH
QJ
O
03
•H
S
03
•P
C
2
03
03
QJ
O
O
ft
O
o
••*
o
o
in
rH
t-
H
CO
in
_^
vo
H
CM
^u
J_J
03
m
Q)
4-»
Q)
g
ft
-H
tr*
w
o
CO O
CO
,
o
o
H O
VD
^_^
r-l
^- O
CO
.
^^
^
""' O
CO
"*
e vessels
ater
ection and
tment
oi Ł H m
m QJ rH QJ
to -P 0 to
O 03 O 4-3
•p m
co &
•o
•o
rH
CM
tp
c
QJ
m
CO
tH 03 *^" QJ m
recordkeepi
reporting
^
QJ
X!
•P
O
•c
c
o
H
CO
O
O
VO
rH
O
CM
*— •
CT>
f^»
^-,
j-
CM
^^
ro
f-
CM
n
4J
O
EH
m QJ o to g
4J -H JJ rt -H
O 4J Q) -P
-P -H TJ -P 01
> C - 3 CO
c -H m g .Q
•H 4J Q) -P
O C7<-P - 03
•o m c 01 01 o
Q) -H >-(4-> O
•a ~ tn 01 01
d 01 &> O rH
rH X (0 -P O «J
o m -p c -P
C CO QJ 13»-H
§C ft
-H m
03 4-> Cn tP-P O
4J c • m to
01 QJ CO C O cH
o g v-' m ft m
O ft g 0) 4->
•H g MO
tJ"* d ^ tO •P
C D1 to -P T3
•H QJ &> (0 C 13
4J o 13 m c
M M M m •
o o ft to tn •a
ft p4 C -P O
Q) Oi ft-H 03 -H
M < d ft o M
. Q QJ O QJ
T3 01 v-3 &> Q) ft
CO) G X rH
m jj M d m
t? g CT>-P O C OJ
C-H c a) o c >i
-H .p -H 01 QJ m i
(24 01 -P to in
QJ co m * -H
QJ to >i.^ m o
T3 01 ft-P QJ O -P
to 0 0 C rH 4->
o o o c
O T3 4J Ai -H
>-i
mm - d c d
o tr> cj< tj1 QJ o
01 C C CO g C
Q) rH -H -H ft-rl
tn m 4-> M co --H
Q) 4-> 4-> O X! d 03
XI O QJ 4J -P D14->
JJ 4J 03 -H OJ 01
C C C 0
Q) T3 X! O -H QJ O
}-l C -P g Xl
m «0 --H «O 4-> rH
ft s - Q) m
4J Cr>4-> C 4J
C 01 TJ C O -H -H
-H O QJ -H 0) ft
o 4-> >I«-H «o m
01 m IH
-------
would be degassed and cleaned prematurely, resulting in
substantial HAP emissions caused by the rule. These HAP
emissions could not be balanced in less than 5 years for
floating roof tanks by the emission reduction achieved from
complying with the rule. By changing the proposed rule to
allow floating roof tanks to comply with the storage vessel
requirements 10 years after promulgation of the rule or at the
next scheduled inspection, the EPA estimates that 3,000 Mg/yr
(2,700 tpy) of HAP, or 8,000 Mg (7,200 tpy) of HAP over
3 years, would be prevented from being emitted.
The process vent appliceibility cutoff (33 kg/VOC/day
(72 Ib/VOG/day)) per vent will exclude 3,000 vents from
requiring control at a total annual cost savings of
$4.5 million. The new process vent applicability cutoff
(6.8 kg/VOC/day (15 Ib/VOC/day)) per vent will exclude
35 vents from requiring control at a total annual cost savings
of $25,000. The total annual cost reduction of these changes
in the rule is a reduction of approximately $11 million.
The economic impact analysis for the selected regulatory
alternatives shows that the estimated price increases for
affected products range from 0.24 percent for residual fuel
oil to 0.53 percent for jet fuel. Estimated decreases in
product output range from 0.13 percent for jet fuel to
0.50 percent for residual fuel oil. Annual net exports
(exports minus imports) are predicted to decrease by
2.3 million barrels, with the range of reductions varying from
0.21 million barrels for liquid petroleum gas to 0.91 million
barrels for residual fuel oil.
Between zero and seven refineries, all of which are
classified as small, may close due to the regulation. For
more information, consult the "Economic Impact Analysis for
the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP" in the docket for this rule
(Docket No. A-93-48). The docket for the final rule is
available for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays,
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
1-29
-------
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington DC 20460;
telephone: (202) 260-7548.
1-30
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
\
A total of 62 written and 4 verbal comments were received
on the proposed standards. A list of the commenters, their
affiliations, and the EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence is given in table 2-1.
For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments
have been categorized under the following topics:
• Applicability.
• Selection of MACT floor and MACT-general procedures.
• Process vent emissions.
• Storage .vessel -provisions.
• . Equipment leaks provisions.
• General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
comments,
Provisions on emissions averaging.
Economics and benefits analysis.
General policy issues.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1.
LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Docket numbera
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-01
IV-D-02
IV-D-03 \
IV-D-04
IV-D-05
IV-D-06
IV-D-08
IV-D-09
Mr. David C. Copeland
Environmental Specialist
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Post Office Box 728
Niagr-a Falls, New York 14302-0728
Mr. Jim Veach
Senior Attorney
Fina Oil and Chemical Company
Post Office Box 2159
Dallas, Texas 75221
Mr. Alan J. Cabodi
Vice President
U.S. Oil and Refining Company
Post Office Box 2255
Tacoma, Washington 98401
Mr. D Sibert
Director, Safety, Health and
Environmental Affairs
Witco Corporation
One American Lane
Greenwich, Connecticut 06831-2559
Mr. Norman L. Morrow
Environmental Affairs Department
Post Office Box 3272
Houston, Texas 77253-3272
Mr. John B. Krider
General Manager-, Technical
Chevron U.S.A. Products Company
575 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Ms. Sandra M. Alofs
Regulatory Affairs Analyst
Giant Industries, Inc.
237333 North Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
Mr. Walter R. Quanstrom
Environmental Health and Safety
Department
Amoco Corporation
Post Office Box 87703
Chicago, Illinois 60680-0703
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-10
IV-D-11
IV-D-12
IV-D-13
I-V-D-14
IV-D-15
IV-D-16
IV-D-17
Mr. Arthur Lee
Texaco Incorporated
Post Office Box 509
Beacon, New York 12508
Mr. E. F. Kondis
Vice President, Manufacturing
Mobil Oil Corporation
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22037-0001
Mr. C. A. Moyer
Western Independent Refiners Association
801 South Grand Avenue, Tenth Floor
Los angeles, California 90017
Mr. Pat Leyden
Deputy Executive Officer
Stationary Source Compliance
21865 E. Coply Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182
Ms. Denise A. Bode ,
President
Independent Petroleum Association
of America
1101 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 2O036
Mr. Stephen P. Piatek
Environmental Health and Safety Manager
Post Office Box. 1257 .-
Wilmington, California" 90748-1257
Mr. James Randies
Assistant Control Officer
Northwest Air Pollution Authority
302 Pine Street, No. 207
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273-3852
Mr. Dale L. McKinnon
Technical Director
Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association
1707 L Street/ NW
Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036-4201 -
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-18
IV-D-19
IV-D-20
IV-D-21
IV-D-22
IV-D-23
IV-D-24
Mr. David W. Gustafson
Environmental and Health Regulatory
Affairs, and
Mr. Toby A Treet
Legal Department
The Dow Chemical Company
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48674
Mr. John W. Cassey
Environmental Support
Shell Oil Company
One Shell Plaza
Post Office Box 4320
Houston, Texas 77210
Ms. Barbara J. Price
Vice President
Health, Environmental and Safety
Phillips Petroleum Company
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
Mr. Brent D. Patterson
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Post Office Box 2180
Houston, Texas 77252-2180
Mr. Norbert Dee, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Affairs
National Petroleum Refiners Association
Suite 1000, 1899 L. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. John L. Wittenburn
Mrs. LeAnn M. Johnson
Counsel to the Somerset Refinery, Inc.
Collier, Shannol, Rill, and Scott
3050 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
Mr. R. T. Columbus
Mr. Gregory M. Scott
Council to the Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America
Collier, Shannon, Rill, and Scott
3050 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-25 Mr. Paul C. Bailey
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
IV-D-26 Mr. M. L. Mullins
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
IV-D-27 Mr. Chuck Tilbrook
Environmental and> Quality Control Manager
Pride Refinery, Inc.
Post Office Box 3237
Abilene, Texas 79604
IV-D-28 Mr. Richard L. Charter
General Manager, Safety and Environmental
Services
Fina Oil and Chemical Company
Post Office Box 2159
Dallas, Texas 75221
IV-D-29 Caufield Enterprises
1904 Kathryn Court
Bakersfield, California 93312
IV-D-30 Mr. William J. Doyle, Ph.D.
Manager, HES Policy and Analysis
539 South Main Street
.: , Findlay, Ohio. 45840-3295
IV-D-31 Mr. Richard T. Metcalf
Health, Safety and Environmental
Coordinator
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas
Association
801 North Boulevard
Suite 201
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802-5727
IV-D-32 Mr. Charles D. Malloch
Director, Regulatory Management
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-33
IV-D-34
IV-D-35
IV-D-36
IV-D-37
IV-D-38
IV-D-39
Ms. Nancy A. Wildeboer
Manager, Health, Environmental, and
Safety Policy
Sun Company, Inc.
Ten Penn Center
1801 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1699
Mr. Robert D. Fletcher
Chief, Toxic Air Contaminant Control
Branch
Air Resources Board
Post Office Box 2815
Sacramento, California 95814-2815
Ms. Ellen Silbergeld, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
Ms. Jenna Roberts
Staff Scientist
Mr. Lois Epstein, PE
Staff Engineer
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW •
Washington, DC 20009
Ms. Ann Farner
Director, Government Relations
Toxco Refining Company
2300 Clayton Road
Suite 1100
Concord, California 94520-2100
Mr. A. S. Anderson
Executive Vice President
Texas Independent Producers and Royalty
Owners Association
515 Congress Avenue
Suite 1910
Austin, Texas 78701
Mr. Allen Ellett
Environmental Consultant
BP Oil Company
200 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2375
Mr. Ray F. Bragg, Jr.
Director
American Independent Refiners Association
Suite 330
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket, number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-40 Mr. John A,. Dege
Manager, Air Programs
Dupont SHE Excellence Center
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
IV-D-41 Mr. Michael J. Wax, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Institute of Clean Air Companies
1707 L Street NW
Sutie 570
Washington, DC 20036-4201
IV-D-42 Mr. Sarosh J. Mariekshaw
Director-Environmental, Safety and Health
Affairs
Penzoil Company
Penzoil Place
Post .Office Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77252-2967
IV-D-43 Mr. Joseph A. Tiernan
Vice President-Corporate Affairs
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
39 West Lexington Street
19th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
IV-D-44 Ms. Melanie S. Kelly
Vice President-Environment, Safety and
Public Affairs
PosfOffice .Box 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2523
IV-D-45 Mr. George R. Snodgrass
Staff Engineer, Air Sciences
ARCO Alaska, Incorporated
Post Office Box 100360
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0360
IV-D-46 Ms. Beverly Hartsock
Deputy Executive Director
Office of Air Quality
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Post Office Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
IV-D-47 Mr. Patrick Dolan
Vice President
Adsitor Technology Incorporated
Post Office Box 51160
Seattle, Washington 98115
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket numbera
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-48
IV-D-49
IV-D-50
IV-D-51
IV-D-52
IV-D-53
IV-D-54
IV-D-55
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Ave. , NW
Washington, DC 20005
Ms. Deborah W. Gates
Vice President, Environment and Health
Ashland Petroleum Company
Post Office Box 391
Ashland, Kentucky 41114
Mr. Clint W. Ensign
Manager, Government Relations
Small Refiners Coalition
550 E. South Temple
Post Office Box 30825
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0825
Mr. George A. Walker
Vice President, Health, Environment
and Safety
Unocal Corporation
Post Office Box 7600
Los Angeles, California 6683 (No.
missing)
Mr. William O1 Sullivan, P.E.
Administrator
Air Quality Regulation Program
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
D,onald E-. Thieler, Director
'Bureau of Air Management
State of Wisconsin/ Department of Natural
Resources
101 South Webster Street Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Sierra Club
Lone Star Chapter
Post Office Box 1931
Austin, Texas 78767
Mr. S.W. Becker
State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators
Association of Local Air Pollution
Central Officials
444 Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001 _
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS . (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-56
IV-D-57
IV-D-58
IV-D-59
IV-D-60
IV-D-61
IV-D-62
IV-F-1
Mr. John W. Walton, P.E.
Technical Secretary
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
401 Church Street
L and C Annex, 9th Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531
Mr. Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Mr. Harry A. Spannaus
Executive Vice President
Permian Basin Petroleum Association
Post Office Box 132
Midland, Texas 79702
Mr. David M. Driesen
Senior Project Attorney
Natural Resource Defense Council
1350 New York Ave., NW '
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Donald P. Schnacke
Kansas Independent Oil and Gas
Association
105 South Broadway
Suite 500
Wichita, Kansas 67202-4262
Mr. Matthew L. Kuryla
Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue
North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Ms. Susan Tierney
Assistant Secretary
Office of Policy, Planning and Program
Evaluation
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Public Hearing in the Matter of:
Proposed Petroleum Refinery NESHAP.
Transcript of Hearing held in the
ERG Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
August 15, 1994
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Commenter and affiliation
IV-G-03
IV-G-04
IV-G-05
IV-G-06
IV-G-08
IV-G-09
Mr. Norbert Dee, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Affairs
National Petroleum Refiners Association
Suite 1000, 1899 L. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. Clint W. Ensign
Coordinator
Small Refineries Coalition
P.O. Box 30825
Salt Lake City, UT 84130
Ms. Kelly A Sakir
Demetriou, Del Guercio, Springer and
Moyer
Attorneys at Law
801 South Grand Avenue, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Ms. Melanie S. Kelley
Vice President
Environment, Safety and Public Affairs
Total Petroleum, Incorporated
Total Tower
Post Office. Box 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Mr, Gary E. Goodman
Assistant Plant Manager
Tosco Northwest Company
Ferndale Refinery
3901 Unick Road
Post Office Box 8
Ferndale, WA 98248
Ms. Lois N. Epsteine, P.E., Engineer
Environmental Defense Fund
and Mr. David Driesen, Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
a The docket number for the petroleum refinery docket is
A-93-48.
2-10
-------
3.0 APPLICABILITY
3.1 DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
3.1.1 General Source Category Definition Comments
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the Act
[section 112(c)(9)] allows the EPA to not impose toxic air
rules in instances where the public air is not threatened.
The commenter (IV-D-50) contended that petroleum refineries,
especially those facilities located in attainment areas, may
qualify as a source category for the delisting criteria
contained in section 112(c)(9).
Response; To be delisted under 112(c)(9), the cancer
risk to the maximum exposed individual for every source in the
source category must be less than 1-in-l-million, and
emissions of pollutants with other toxic effects must be low
enough to provide an "ample margin of safety and no adverse
environmental effect." /The'EPA's cancer-risk analysis
indicates that the maximum exposed individual for every source
in the source category is greater than l~in-l-million.
Additionally, a number of other adverse acute and chronic
health effects, and ecological effects can be attributed to
HAP emissions from petroleum refineries. Therefore, based on
available information the petroleum refinery source category
does not qualify for delisting under section 112(c)(9).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) objected to the EPA
combining two categories of sources for petroleum refineries
and listing requirements for a single petroleum refinery
category that is not listed on the original source category
list. The commenter (IV-D-42) added that the EPA should have
3-1
-------
proposed the change in the description of the source category
for refineries with this rule so that comments could be made
in conjunction with the refinery MACT standard.
Response: The EPA recognized when the initial list of
source categories and descriptions was published in the
Federal Register (July 16, 1992, 57 FR 31590) that the source
category descriptions and list may be revised from time to
time as better information becomes available. The Agency
stated that it would revise these descriptions as part of the
process of establishing standards for each category. As
stated in the July 16, 1992 notice, it was never the EPA's
in-bent that the descriptions limit what may b&: included under
each category for the purposes of establishing emission
standards or for purposes relating to other parts of
section 112 involving the definition of source or category of
sources. Therefore, in establishing emission standards for
the petroleum refinery source category, the EPA defined the
petroleum refinery source category for regulation within the
rule to include those emission points for which sufficient
information was available to establish standards at this time.
The EPA did request comment on the redefinition of the
source category in the July 15, 1994 Federal Register notice
proposing the petroleum refinery MACT standard. Therefore,
the EPA believes that .the commenter's concern;has been
addressed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that the
refinery MACT rule should cover transfer operations of all
refinery raw materials, byproducts, and products. The
commenter (IV-D-57) stated that the EPA may not have included
transfer operations on the assumption that the marine vessel
loading NESHAP, the stage I gasoline distribution NESHAP, and
future rulemakings will control all otherwise subject sources,
The commenter (IV-D-57) contended that these rules would not
regulate non-gasoline refinery products and it was unclear
what sources would be regulated under the Organic Liquids
3-2
-------
Distribution source category, for which a standard is due in
2000.
Another commenter (IV-D-34) requested that non-gasoline
transfer operations be included in the petroleum refinery
NESHAP, instead of regulating them in the year 2000 as they
are scheduled. The commenter stated that the standards
contained in the California regulations constitute the MACT
floor for these operations.
Response; The petroleum refinery "affected source"
category is defined to include equipment specifically used to
produce fuels, heating oils, or lubricants by separating,
cracking, or reforming unfinished petroleum derivatives. The
final rule also includes marine vessel loading at refineries
and gasoline loading racks at refineries classified under SIC
2911. (The gasoline distribution NESHAP covers gasoline
terminals classified under other SIC's.) The EPA did riot
assume that the marine vessel loading and unloading or the
stage I. gasoline distribution NESHAP would control non-
gasoline refinery products. However, as one commenter
(IV-D-34) noted, these operations will be covered under the
Organic Liquids Distribution source category, for which a
NESHAP is scheduled to be promulgated in the year 2000. As
stated in the preamble, the Organic Liquids Distribution
NESHAP regulation of non-gasoline refinery products will
evaluate and control emissions from organic liquids
distribution (non-gasoline) in the liquids distribution
industry/ which includes transfer emissions of non-gasoline
refinery products.
In determining the MACT floor for a source, the EPA
cannot assume that the MACT floor is at the level established
by existing regulations. Under the Act, the EPA is required
to determine the floor based on the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources. The EPA will not cover transfer operations
of non-gasoline refinery products under this NESHAP because
they will be cdvered under the Organic Liquids Distribution
3-3
-------
NESHAP where the MACT floor for the organic liquids
distribution industry can be evaluated as required under the
Act.
3.1.2 Marine Vessel Loading
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-46, IV-D-48,
IV-D-55) opposed the inclusion of marine tank vessel loading
operations in the petroleum refineries source category. One
of the commenters (IV-D-55) stated that including marine tank
vessel loading operations in the source category adds
complexity to the regulation because of differences in
dispersion characteristics, control technologies, and
recordkeepincf and reporting -requirements..-.- One commenter
(IV-D-46) predicted that additional regulatory and enforcement
complexities would result if the source category was redefined
to include marine tank vessel loading operations. The
commenter (IV-D-46) stated that, though the Act allows for
changes in the definition of source categories, if the
petroleum refinery source category is defined to include
marine tank vessel loading operations, a precedent may be set,
unduly complicating the process of establishing source
categories. The commenter (IV-D-46) further stated that the
Coast Guard is required to approve any equipment that impacts
the safety of a vessel or its occupants. The commenter
(IV-D-46). elaborated that if :the "affacted source" was
redefined to include marine tank vessel loading operations,
the Coast Guard could decide that land emissions affect marine
safety and refineries could require Coast Guard approval.
Two commenters (IV-D-48, IV-D-55) expressed opposition to
the inclusion of marine tank vessel loading operations in the
petroleum refineries source category in order to allow
emissions averaging. One commenter (IV-D-55) alleged that
adding these operations to the source category would allow
emissions from marine tank vessel loading operations to go
uncontrolled due to emissions averaging. These commenters
(IV-D-48, IV-D-55) asserted that marine tank vessel loading
operations and petroleum refineries are separate source
3-4
-------
categories and emissions cannot be averaged across the two
unless it is determined that keeping them apart is
impracticable. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the Act
allows the EPA to adjust source categories by distinguishing
among different types of sources within an already defined
source category during promulgation of regulation, but does
not allow for redefinition of the source category. One of the
commenters (IV-D-48) stated that if the source category is
redefined to include marine tank vessel loading, promulgation
of the petroleum refinery MACT standard would have to be
accelerated.
Response; The EPA has- redefined the petroleum refinery
source category and the "affected source" covered by this rule
to permit averaging among co-located operations subject to the
refinery MACT. In particular, the EPA permits gasoline
loading racks classified under SIC 2911 and marine tank vessel
loading operations co-located at refineries subject to the
petroleum refinery MACT rule to average emissions with other
refinery process unit emission points (process vents, storage,
wastewater) to demonstrate compliance. The EPA has done this
to provide a facility the flexibility to comply with the MACT
standards in the least costly manner while maintaining a
regulation that is effective in achieving emission reductions.
... Averaging across collocated refinery process units, and
marine tank vessel loading and gasoline loading racks
operations will not result in less emission reductions. If
emissions from one emission point are not controlled, then
greater emission reductions will need to be required of other
refinery emission points. Total emission reductions will be
the same or greater. The emissions averaging provisions
require a demonstration that the emissions average will not
increase risk or hazard relative to compliance without
emissions averaging. Furthermore, the EPA does not agree that
Coast Guard approval would b& required on other refinery
equipment because marine vessel loading operations are
3-5
-------
included in the definition of ''affected source." See chapter
9.0 for further discussion of emissions averaging.
3.1.3 Crude Oil Topping Units
comment; Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-38) suggested an
exemption for "crude oil topping units associated with a crude
oil pipeline that do not produce fuels for consumption
external to the operation of the pipeline." One commenter
(IV-D-38) explained that COTU's are generally located in oil
fields adjacent to refineries. The COTU's distill a
slipstream of crude oil to power pumps in the field, where a
source of electricity is not convenient. The commenter
(IV-D-38) suggested" that these units be covered <,by the MACT
rule for organic liquid distribution.
One commenter (IV-D-45) requested that the EPA either
(1) create a subcategory for their two COTU's that are totally
enclosed in buildings, or (2) specifically exempt their two
COTU's. The commenter (IV-D-45) stated that their units have
been previously evaluated by the EPA and received an exemption
from the NSPS subpart GGG LDAR requirements. The commenter
(IV-D-45) stated that their COTU's operate in a very remote
attainment area and are not major sources of HAP's. The
commenter (IV-D-45) asserted that their in-place state-of-the-
art hydrocarbon gas detection systems and standard procedures
.-for maintenance and repair reduce emissions without costly
federally mandated controls.
Response: The EPA has clarified that process units
covered under the petroleum refinery NESHAP are those used in
an establishment primarily engaged in petroleum refining, as
defined in the SIC code for petroleum refining (2911). Under
this new definition the exemption language suggested by the
commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-38) is unnecessary as the COTU's
associated with a crude oil pipeline that does not produce
fuels for consumption external to the operation of the
pipeline would not be included as a covered process unit.
3-6
-------
3.2 SUBCATEGORIZATION
3.2.1 Small Refineries
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-23, IV-D-24,
IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-37, IV-D-50, IV-F-1, IV-D-58, IV-D-60)
urged the EPA to withdraw the proposed petroleum refinery
NESHAP, and reissue it after taking small refineries into
consideration.
Many commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-08, IV-D-12, IV-D-14,
IV-D-19, IV-D-22, IV-D-23, IV-D-24, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-29,
IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-39, IV-D-44, IV-D-50, IV-D-58, IV-D-60,
IV-F-1) supported subcategorization of the NESHAP based on
refinery size. Several commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-22, IV-D-23,
IV-D-28, IV-D-29, IV-D-39, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1, IV-D-58,
IV-D-60) maintained that small refineries would be more
affected by the proposed rule than large refineries and
therefore should be given separate regulatory consideration
(subcategorization), instead of adopting a single standard
applicable to all refineries. Reasons provided for not
adopting a single standard were that it: (1) fails to meet the
EPA's own criteria for defining a category of sources to which
a MACT standard should apply, (2) violates President Clinton's
Executive Order directing Federal agencies to adopt cost-
beneficial policies; (3) violates the "Common Sense
Initiative" approach enunciated by the EPA Administrator, and
(4) fails to meet the statutory requirement of
section 112(d)(l) of the Act, which stipulates that MACT
standards must be cost-effective. Several commenters
(IV-D-28, IV-D-50, IV-D-58) stated that by failing to
differentiate among refineries based on size and location, the
EPA threatens to impose disproportionate costs, without
environmental benefits, on small refineries located in
attainment areas. These sources are the smallest contributor
to overall air quality problems.
Seven commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-25,
IV-D-30, IV-D-38, IV-D-53) opposed subcategorizing small
refineries. One commenter (IV-D-09) opposed subcategorizing
3-7
-------
refineries based on size (crude running capacity). The
commenter (IV-D-09) cited that it is not the nature of the
processes that changes with crude run, but the number and
capacity of the individual process units that changes. One
commenter (IV-D-30) asserted that refinery size does have a
bearing on "major source" thresholds. However, the commenter
(IV-D-30) contended that vapor pressure and HAP content are
not dependent on refinery size or location. One commenter
(IV-D-38) expressed opposition to exemptions based on crude
throughput. Another commenter (IV-D-38) recommended that the
wastewater provision of the proposed rule be maintained as is,.
without subcategorization regarding small refineries. The
commenter (IV-D-38) contended that the cutoff of 10 metric
tons of benzene containing waste included in the BWON provides
an adequate exemption. The commenter (IV-D-38) supported
exemptions from rules or parts of rules for facilities that
are not major sources of emissions or for facilities that have
reduced" their emissions to low levels, regardless of size.
The commenter (IV-D-38) argued that these exemptions would
reward better-controlled or lower-emitting facilities.
Another commenter (IV-D-06) also asserted that any refinery
throughput exemption would be arbitrary because the
application of controls is not based on throughput.
One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that there is no simple
basis for subcategorizing small refineries when considering
available data on the wastewater MACT floor and control costs.
The commenter (IV-D-25) asserted that refinery size does not
show a strong correlation with HAP emissions from wastewater
or applicability of the BWON. Furthermore, the commenter
(IV-D-25) stated that data gathered on the cost-effectiveness
of wastewater controls (see section 7.3.2) not correlate with
refinery size. The commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the
refinery NESHAP will not cause any additional wastewater
controls at refineries over what is already required by the
BWON.
3-8
-------
Two commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-10) asserted that an
exemption for small refineries would not be justified because
it is not supported by differences in toxic emissions between
refineries of various sizes. One commenter (IV-D-10) stated
that small refineries produce sufficient HAP's to trigger the
9.1/22.7 Mg (10/25 tpy) major source requirements.
Two commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-10) opposed subcategorizing
small refineries because an arbitrary size exemption could
result in unfair competitive advantages. One commenter
(IV-D-10) stated that large refineries should not be penalized
for an economy of scale achieved through their own effective
competitiveness. -,
Nine commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22, IV-D-27, IV-D-30,
IV-D-42, IV-D-44, IV-D-49, IV-D-50, IV-F-1) recommended that
the EPA subcategorize based on the definition of a small
refinery as having a crude throughput of 75,000 barrels a day,
which is contained in the Small Business Association and Acid
Rain provisions of the Act [42 U.S.C. 7651(i)(h)(3)]. Some
commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-49, IV-D-50, IV-F-l) stated that the
definition should not contain any ownership or employment
restrictions. The commenters (IV-D-50, IV-F-1) requested that
the small refinery size definition be defined in terms of
crude oil throughput as reported to DOE each month, rather
than rated capacity.
Other commenters (IV-D-29, IV-D-39, IV-D-45, IV-D-46,
IV-D-58) recommended definitions of small refinery that ranged
from 20,000 to 50,000 barrels per day of throughput or actual
operation. One commenter (IV-D-45) supported the creation of
a subcategory for refineries with a 20,000 barrels per day or
less throughput, that are totally enclosed within a building.
The commenter (IV-D-45) stated that then the commenter's
refineries would be covered, and they would establish the MACT
floor for such plants and therefore no additional controls
would be required. One commenter (IV-D-46) suggested that
refineries with large capacities be recognized as small
refineries if they take a federally enforced capacity limit of
3-9
-------
50,000 barrels per day. Two commenters (IV-D-39, IV-D-58)
recommended the EPA subcategorize using a 50,000 barrels per
day or less throughput as the definition of small refinery,
which is the same definition used to define a small refinery
under section 4lO(h) in Title IV of the Act.
Response: Information on small refineries supplied by
commenters did not provide a sufficient basis for withdrawing
the proposed petroleum refinery NESHAP. Information indicated
that many small refineries are major sources of HAP emissions.
Therefore, the final determination of the MACT floor, MACT,
and estimates of impacts include small refineries. The EPA
evaluated whether small refineries should-be given^separate
regulatory consideration (subcategorization), instead of
adopting a single standard applicable to all refineries. Upon
evaluation, it was found that refinery design and emissions do
not correlate well with size and that the MACT floor for a
small refinery subcategory would not be significantly
different from the source category as a whole. Therefore, a
separate subcategory for small refineries has not been
included in the final rule.
No information was submitted to refute the EPA's
conclusion that the cutoff of 10 metric tons of benzene in the
wastewater provisions (included in the BWON) provides an
adequate applicability exemption from the rule for small
sources. Therefore, this applicability exemption for
wastewater has been maintained in the final rule. In
addition, an emission rate cutoff for small process vents has;
also been added (see chapter 5).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that the EPA
needs to consider the financial impacts of other regulations
in regards to small refineries when establishing compliance
periods. Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-25), however, claimed
that there is no basis in the Act to grant entities relief
from compliance or even an established schedule of compliance
based on size of the owner or operator. One commenter
(IV-D-25) stated that any changes to the rule, such as an
3-10
-------
extension of the time allowed for the equipment leaks
compliance, should apply to all refineries regardless of size.
Response: The EPA considered the additional financial
impacts of this regulation across the source category,
regardless of size, when establishing compliance periods. The
EPA decided that there is no basis for an extension of time
for compliance based on size. However, the EPA has concluded
that all refineries (especially small refineries) would
benefit from additional time to comply with the equipment leak
provisions of the petroleum refinery NESHAP. The EPA decided
that small refineries as well as a number of large refineries
may not have the experience to implement a LDAR program for
equipment leaks in a short time frame without significant
expense. Therefore, an extension of time for equipment leak
compliance has been included in the final rule for all
refineries. The EPA has increased the equipment leak
compliance time to a full three years to meet Phase I leak
definition requirements for LDAR control (equivalent to the
NSPS requirements), and another 2.5 years, which is 5.5 years
total for a refinery to meet Phase III leak definition
requirements for LDAR control (equivalent to the HON
requirements). This change lessens the burden on all affected
sources equitably.
Comment: In response, to the EPA's request for
information from small refineries, one commenter (IV-D-42)
provided the following information: (1) small refineries
would be considered major sources; (2) the HAP content of
process vents is not below 20 ppmv; (3) the HAP content of
petroleum liquids in the processing lines is above the'
5 percent by weight applicability level in the equipment leak
provisions; (4) the true vajpor pressures of the petroleum
liquids in storage vessels are above the 8.3 kPa (1.2 psia)
applicability level and (5) the cost of production for many
small refiners is approaching, or exceeds, the average selling
price of base oils. The commenter (IV-D-42) contended that
small refineries should meet the NSPS requirement for
3-11
-------
equipment leaks rather than the proposed refinery MACT and
that small refineries should be given 36 months to achieve the
equipment leak requirement rather than 18 months.
Another commenter (IV-D-57) provided the following
information: (1) the Bay Area District has one refinery that
is considered an area source, (2) refineries processing 10,000
to 20,000 barrels per day of crude oil should be considered
major sources, (3) the HAP content of process streams is not
below the applicability limits for the leak provisions, and
(4) the vapor pressure of stored liquids should depend on the
source of the crude oil processed.
Response;- The information supplied by cpmmenters was
considered along with'other information in the selection of
the final requirements in the petroleum refinery rule. As
discussed in the previous response, the EPA decided, based on
provided information and analysis, that subcategorizing based
on refinery size or location was not warranted.
3.2.2 subcateaorization bv Ozone Attainment Status.
Comment: Many commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-14, IV-D-23,
IV-D-24, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-30, IV-D-36, IV-D-37, IV-D-39,
IV_D_49f iv-D-50, IV-D-58, IV-D-60) supported
subcategorization based on current ozone attainment status.
Two commenters (IV-D-23, IV-D-24) urged the EPA to revise the
proposal so. that the more stringentiprovisions do not apply to
refineries located in ozone attainment areas. The commenters
(IV-D-23, IV-D-24) stated that refineries in ozone attainment
areas should not be forced to undertake high investments to
reduce ozone-forming emissions when ozone is not a problem in
their area. The commenters (IV-D-23, IV-D-24) asserted that
requiring refineries in ozone attainment areas to adopt the
same emission control standards as refineries in
non-attainment areas is a wasteful use of limited industry
resources. One of.the commenters (IV-D-23) was specifically
concerned about small refineries within attainment areas.
One commenter (IV-D-24) maintained that the various
emissions control mandates contained in the Act are directed
3-12
-------
at non-attainment areas. The commenter (IV-D-24) asserted
that unless the EPA quantified the risk from these emissions
in attainment areas, the agency will be hard pressed to defend
a final rule treating refineries in both attainment and
non-attainment areas equally.
One commenter (IV-D-24) recommended that the EPA withdraw
the proposal for further study and limit its scope by
exempting refineries in ozone attainment areas from the
provisions of the final rule. The commenter (IV-D-24)
maintained that the risk of harm from emissions in ozone
attainment areas is low.
One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that, small refineries are
predominantly located in rural areas that are in compliance
with Federal ozone standards and have not implemented programs
and procedures, such as LDAR programs, that have been started
by large refineries to control VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas.
Two commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-30) recommended that
varying degrees of -control similar to VOC control in
non-attainment areas be developed for refineries. One
eommenter (IV-D-44) claimed that to require small refineries
to comply with the same standards as large refineries located
in nonattainment areas would be unnecessary, overly rigid, and
wasteful of limited .fdnancia.1 resources. „ ....
One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) stated that the
refineries located in attainment areas will be confronted with
extremely high compliance costs as a result of this rule. The
commenter (IV-D-50) suggested subcategorizing based on ozone
attainment/nonattainment status because nonattainment areas
are usually associated with large industrialized urban areas
where a large number of people are exposed to HAP emissions
from refineries.
One commenter (IV-D-37) stated that over half of the
nation's refineries are located in attainment areas and that
it is not sensible to cause these refineries to close. In
addition, two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-27) stated that
3-13
-------
refineries located in nonattainment areas are already required
to have many of the proposed controls to meet VOC reduction
requirements.
Four commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-58)
explained that attainment areas are largely comprised of small
rural communities containing small refineries which usually
serve niche markets that could be adversely affected by the
proposed NESHAP and be forced to go out of business. One
commenter (IV-D-28) stated that the proposed rule may actually
increase human exposure to HAP's, as refineries in
nonattainment areas increase throughput to make up for the
lost refinery capacity in.attainment.^areas.
One commenter (IV-D-28) presented a table showing that
significant capital and operating costs will be incurred to
comply with the proposed rule by one of their 60,000 bpd
refineries located in an attainment area. The commenter
(IV-D-28) related capital costs of over $4 million in the
first year, with annual operating expenditures around
$2 million in subsequent years. The commenter (IV-D-28)
contended that these estimated compliance costs are
illustrative of the burden other small refineries in
attainment areas will be faced with under the proposed rule.
The commenter (IV-D-28) explained that their larger
150,000 bpd facility located in a non-attainment area already
must comply with State nonattainment rules and regulations
which are similar to, and in some cases more stringent than,
the proposed rules. The commenter (IV-D-28) included a table
(Attachment I of their comments) comparing the requirements of
the proposed rule to requirements already imposed on them for
being in a nonattainment area. The comraenter (IV-D-28)
explained that under the proposed rule, the only additional
requirements the 150,000 bpd refinery located in the
nonattainment area would only incur were the administrative,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs.
Two commenters (IV-D-28, IV-D-39) stated that costs
incurred by small refineries would not be shared by larger
3-14
-------
refineries, and that small refineries in attainment areas
would be unable to recover the costs by raising prices,
creating a disparity in compliance costs that will increase
when the other petroleum refinery NESHAP is promulgated.
Response; The EPA agrees that refineries located in
attainment areas will have higher compliance costs as a result
of this rule when compared to refineries located in
nonattainment areas. However, as noted by a number of
commenters, the basis for the difference in costs is HAP
emissions control already in place due to VOC emissions
control in ozone nonattainment areas. Refineries in
attainment areas may. -i>e uncontrolled, and have greater
emissions than refineries in non-attainment areas. The HAP
emissions in ozone attainments areas will cause similar health
hazards as in nonattainment areas. The Ccincer and other
health risk to the most exposed individuals near the refinery
are based on emission rate, dispersion, and how close an
individual lives to the refinery; and does not depend on the
area's population density. Thus, there are health and
environmental concerns regarding uncontrolled refineries in
rural attainment areas. In order to control HAP emissions
equitably across the nation (as required under the Act), it is
not feasible to control HAP to a lesser degree in one area
than another. ....
Subcategorization of a source, under the Act, can be
employed among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory. This would not include
subcategorization based on the location of a source. Measures
to reduce the burden for the entire petroleum refinery source
category have been incorporated in the final rule to address
the commenter's concerns. Measures include extended
compliance times, and reduction in monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements.
3.2.3 Subcateqorization for Equipment Leaks.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-44) supported the
equipment leaks option proposed for small refineries. One
3-15
-------
commenter (IV-D-44) asserted that small refineries with modest
LDAR programs need additional time to '-comply with the proposed
regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-53) claimed that Wisconsin's only
refinery is in an attainment area. The commenter (IV-D-53)
stated that the refinery has a throughput of 35,000 bpd and
has had a LDAR program in place since the early 1980's. The
commenter (IV-D-53) stated that the LDAR program was not too
burdensome and provided a copy of their LDAR program.
One commenter (IV-D-50) believed that the small refinery
LDAR requirements should not be based on the negotiated rule,
which requires a-,2> OOO^ppm level of control. The commenter
(IV-D-50) stated that this level of control would be difficult
and costly to achieve. The commenter (IV-D-50) stated that if
the EPA were to establish an equipment leak subcategory for
small refineries, the best LDAR controls would be found at
small facilities producing light liquid products in moderate
ozone nonattainment areas.
One commenter (IV-D-36) suggested, that a separate
compliance schedule for the equipment leaks provision be
established for refineries in attainment areas. The commenter
(IV-D-36) pointed out that the reason the EPA requested
comment on allowing small refineries a full 18 months to
ccomply with the.equipment leaks provision was that many are
located in attainment areas and have never been required to
implement an LDAR program. Thus they might require more time
to establish and implement an LDAR program. The commenter
(IV-D-36) submitted that all facilities in attainment areas
will require additional time to institute a comprehensive LDAR
program, regardless of size.
One commenter (IV-D-30) stated that special exemptions or
delays for small refineries in rural areas that have not been
required to implement LDAR are not appropriate. The commenter
(IV-D-30) asserted that special exemptions or delays for
specific refineries may be appropriate if reasonable
justification is given. The commenter (IV-D-30) also pointed
3-16
-------
out that a discussion on the savings that would occur from
LDAR exemptions was not provided. Another commenter (IV-D-38)
suggested that if more time is allowed for small refineries
that do not have a LDAR program, it should also be allowed for
other refineries (regardless of size) in the same situation.
Response; The EPA has concluded that special exemptions
or delays for small refineries in rural cireas are not
appropriate. As noted in previous responses, there is no
basis for regulating HAP sources in ozone attainment areas
differently than in ozone nonattainment cireas. However, the
EPA concurs that refineries (especially ssmall refineries)
located in attainment areas could benefit from additional time
to comply with the equipment leak provisions of the petroleum
refinery NESHAP. Therefore, as requested by a commenter
(IV-D-38), the EPA has increased the compliance time for all
facilities to a full 3 years from 6 months, to meet Phase I
requirements for LDAR control. Sources choosing to comply
with the modified HON negotiated rule must phase in the more
stringent leak definitions between 3 and 5.5 years after
promulgation.
3.3 SELECTION/DEFINITION OF SOURCE
3.3.1 Petroleum Refinery Process Units
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) disagreed with the
proposed regulation's definition of an affected-, source. The
commenter (IV-D-48) contended that the definition of
stationary source for petroleum refineries has always meant a
type of emissions unit. The commenter (IV-D-48) cited several
Act references to support this conclusion. The commenter
(IV-D-48) provided that the definition of an affected source
in the proposed regulation describes several unrelated parts
of a plant, a set of emission points involved in carrying out
a certain process that are not necessarily part of the same
process or located in a contiguous part of the plant. The
commenter (IV-D-48) asserted that this definition is
inconsistent with the definition in section 111(a)(3) of the
Act which defines a stationary source as a "building,
3-17
-------
structure, facility or installation." Four commenters
(IV-D-10,. IV-D-11, IV-D-21, IV-D-25) supported the proposed
broad definition of an "affected source."
Response; The EPA does not agree with the commenter's
(IV-D-48) interpretation of previous rules or of the Act. The
EPA has not set a universal practice of a narrow definition
for an "affected facility" or "affected source." For example,
under the NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations, chemical
manufacturing plants, petroleum refineries, coke by-product
recovery plants, and TSDF's that treat wastes from these
industries are the "affected facilities." The Benzene NESHAP
for Transfer Operations also has a broad definition of source,
which includes all of the loading racks at a site, including
loading racks where benzene is loaded into marine vessels,
railcars, or tank trucks. There are also NSPS's where the
"affected facility" is broad. For example, the Coal
Preparation Plant NSPS's definition of "affected facility"
includes thermal dryers, pneumatic coal cleaning equipment,
processing and conveying equipment, storage systems, and
transfer and loading systems. There are also NSPS's that
define the "affected facility" as a process unit. Reasons for
selection of a broad definition of source for petroleum
refineries were stated in the proposal preamble (59 FR 36130).
The EPA has maintained this broad definition of:11 source" in
the final rule. In fact, the definition of "source" has been
revised to also include gasoline loading racks classified
under SIC 2911 and marine loading operations at refineries.
These operations are closely associated with refinery process
units because they include the storage and transfer of
refinery products.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that the
provisions associating storage vessels with process units is
confusing. The commenter (IV-D-29) maintained that refineries
must remain flexible in their tank usage and suggested that
all tanks of the same type require the same controls.
3-18
-------
Response; The purpose of the storage tank assignment
procedures in § 63.640 is to determine whether the storage
vessels are associated with petroleum refinery process units
covered by subpart CC or other types of process units (such as
chemical manufacturing process units) that are covered by
other NESHAP. This avoids conflicting requirements for the
same vessel as only one NESHAP would apply to the storage
vessel. Provisions are included for storage vessels that can
be used by different process units. If a storage vessel is
assigned to any petroleum refinery process unit, it is subject
to the storage control requirements in subpart CC. if the
vessel is assigned to a chemical process unit, ±t-will be
subject to the HON (40 CFR part 60, subparts F and G) instead
of subpart CC.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that the
definition of source should be clarified for new source MACT
requirements. The commenter (IV-D-57) recommended that the
definition of source be consistent with the proposed 112(g)
rule, i.e., that a new source be any emission unit or
aggregation thereof, with a potential to emit at least
9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of
any combination of HAP.
Response; The petroleum refinery NESHAP definition of
source does not need to be consistent with 112(g)'s definition
since each are developed for a different purpose. For this
reason, provisions developed under 112(d) and (h) rulemaking
supersedes 112(g). This rule (§ § 63.640 (i) and (j))
elaborates on the criteria for determining whether an addition
to an existing source qualifies as a new source. These
provisions were developed after consideration of the specific
characteristics of this industry. The EPA has concluded that
further clarification to assist owners or operators in
determining new source MACT applicability is unnecessary.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that there are
several types of emission sources that are not easily
categorized as miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels,
3-19
-------
wastewater, or equipment leaks. In particular, the commenter
(IV-D-25) requested clarification of which, if any, provisions
are applicable to sumps and sulfur pits. The commenter
(IV-D-25) recommended that sumps not be covered because of
their small capacity (usually less than 10 barrels). . The
commenter (IV-D-25) also requested exclusion of sulfur pits
used for underground storage that vent small amounts of
hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere.
Response: Hydrogen sulfide emissions are not covered
under the NESHAP. Therefore, sulfur pits are not covered
under the NESHAP. Insufficient information regarding the
sumps that the commenter refers to was supplied to determine
where and whether the sumps are covered by the NESHAP.
However, if the sump does not emit any of the listed HAP's, as
with the sulfur pits, it would not be covered under the
NESHAP. In general, emission points that do not meet the
definitions of either miscellaneous process vent, storage
vessel, or equipment leaks, and are not subject to the benzene
wastewater NESHAP, are not covered by subpart CC. The EPA has
also added a list of pollutants covered under the rule to
assist facilities in the determination of whether a process
unit is covered under the rule. Furthermore, process units
that do not meet the'definition of a "petroleum refining
process unit" in § 63-.641-are not covered by the rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) contended that new
transfer operations and transfer of organic HAP from new
processes at petroleum refineries should be required to meet
the most stringent emission limitations achieved in practice.
Response; Marine loading at refineries and gasoline
loading racks classified under SIC code 2911 at refineries are
subject to the petroleum refinery NESHAP. Loading operations
at new sources must be controlled to the new source MACT level
of control determined under the gasoline distribution and
marine vessel loading NESHAP's. Organic liquid distribution
(non-gasoline) loading emissions will be covered under a
separate MACT standard to be developed by the year 2000. The
3-20
-------
EPA listed organic liquid distribution (non-gasoline) sources
for regulation at a later date because more time is necessary
to assess the MACT floor and MACT for this source. The new
source MACT level of control for new loading racks for organic
liquid distribution (non-gasoline) will be determined under
that rulemaking.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) objected to the
refinery MACT regulating, several types of facilities that are
not typical refineries, such as specialty plants that produce
white oils and waxes. The commenter (IV-D-42) argued that
these facilities do not process crude, and do not fall under
the-OMB's SIC code for'.refineries, but are classified as
facilities that process "Product of Petroleum and Coal, not
elsewhere classified." The commenter (IV-D-42) asserted that
based on the wording of petroleum refining process units, any
processes that separate petroleum and/or separate, crack,
react or reform intermediate petroleum streams could be
subject to the rule. The commenter (IV-D-42) stated that
specialty plants are currently exempt from the refinery MACT
because they are not major sources, but the commenter
(IV-D-42) expressed concern that they could be included under
future expansions. The commenter (IV-D-42) suggested only
referencing facilities that meet the SIC code in the
definition of refinery process units.
One commenter (IV-D-42) stated that the language of the
definition could also be interpreted to include oil and gas
facilities. The commenter (IV-D-42) explained that tanks that
separate water from crude oil via gravity could be
misconstrued as a separation process. The commenter (IV-D-42)
recommended that in order to alleviate any confusion, the EPA
should clearly state that oil and gas facilities are not
intended to be covered in the rule.
One commenter (IV-D-26) was concerned with overlap of the
refinery NESHAP and other sources categories. The commenter
(IV-D-26) maintained that the broad petroleum refining process
unit definition, which gives; isomerization, polymerization and
3-21
-------
thermal processes as examples, could be interpreted to cover
chemical operations that are to be regulated*under other
source categories in the future. The commenter (IV-D-26)
cited processes to produce butyl rubber and phthalate
plasticizers as examples. The commenter (IV-D-26) suggested
that the word "react" be deleted from subparagraph 3 of the
proposed definition, and "isomerization" and "polymerization"
deleted from the examples in the definition. The commenter
(IV-D-26) also requested that the EPA provide preamble
language clarifying that the petroleum refinery process unit
does not include those units that may feed material originally
produced in a-.'refinery.
One commenter (IV-D-05) contended that the proposed
definition of petroleum refining process unit is broad enough
to cover many processes that are chemical processes and may be
covered by the HON. The commenter (IV-D-05) recommended
excluding facilities covered under the HON and that paragraph
3 of the definition should be modified to clarify that units
whose primary product is a chemical are not petroleum refining
process units.
One commenter (IV-D-61) requested that instead of
applying to "petroleum refinery process units" at all major
source facilities, the proposed rule should apply to selected
"process units" at "petroleum refineries," as defined in the
NSPS rules. The commenter (IV-D-61) stated that this approach
would eliminate interpretive issues regarding the rule's
applicability to non-refinery facilities. Specifically, the
commenter (IV-D-61) requested that major source facilities
producing "lubricants" not be subject to the rule because they
do not refine, distill or process crude oil or unfinished
petroleum derivatives.
One commenter (IV-D-20) supported the exclusion of
natural gas liquid processing Units from the proposed rule;
however, the commenter (IV-D-20) stated that the applicability
criteria listed in the regulation were vague in defining the
differences between a natural gas liquid process unit and a
3-22
-------
petroleum refining process unit. The commenter (IV-D-20)
requested that the promulgation preamble explain these
differences and that a definition of a natural gas liquid
process unit be put in the definition section of the rule.
One commenter (IV-D-21) asserted that the existing
definition of a process unit may leave some refinery process
units out or overlap with other source categories. The
commenter (IV-D-21) explained that some refinery units that
contain HAP's produce solvents. The commenter (IV-D-21)
expressed concern that these units will not be regulated
because they produce highly aromatic compounds not on the list
-of common refinery products and-, are not subject to HON because
they are flexible operation units. The commenter (IV-D-21)
stated that these units should be included because their
operations are similar to those of refinery units. The
comraenter (IV-D-21) asserted that these units should not be
regulated by section 112(g) of the Act.
Response; In the final rule the EPA has incorporated the
SIC code definition for petroleum refining (2911) into the
petroleum refinery process units definition in order to
clarify the process units covered by the rule. This
clarification excludes those facilities that manufacture
lubricating oils and greases by blending and compounding
purchased materials, and those facilities that re-.refine used
lubricating oils. Based upon this definition, oils and waxes
produced in a petroleum refinery will be covered under the
petroleum refineries NESHAP and those establishments that
blend oils or waxes from purchased materials will not be
covered under the NESHAP. Under the new definition, it is
clear that natural gas liquid processing units would not be
covered by the rule because they are classified under mining
industries (a different SIC code). The list of example
process units has been expanded to include petroleum-based
solvent units, to avoid any potential ambiguity regarding
these units. Thus, it should be clear that solvents produced
3-23
-------
The
in petroleum refineries and their production units are covered
under the rule.
The EPA believes that the inclusion of the SIC code
reference in the definition of refinery process unit will
alleviate most of the confusion about overlap with other
source categories scheduled for regulation under the Act.
EPA has also explicitly excluded units subject to the RON,
ethylene processes, shale oil extraction units, and other
units where there may be confusion from applicability of the
rule. Therefore deleting the words "react," "polymerization,"
and "isomerization" from the definition is unnecessary. These
process-unit examples are for those units that process crude
oil, which would eliminate butyl rubber and phthalate
plasticizer production process units as "polymerization" or
"isomerization" refinery process units subject to the rule.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the SIC code reference in the
definition should sufficiently clarify that the petroleum
refinery process unit does not include those units that may
feed material originally produced in a refinery.
The EPA has also added a list of pollutants covered under
the rule to assist facilities in the determination of whether
a processing unit or a specific emission point is covered
under the rule. It is important to understand that the HAP
list is not the only consideration in .determining if a process
unit is subject. The first consideration is to determine if
the process unit meets the definition of a petroleum refining
process unit in the rule (including the SIC code wording that
was added). The next step is to determine if the process unit
could emit one of the listed organic HAP's. If none of the
listed HAP's are present in the process unit, it is not
subject. It should be stressed that a process unit may emit a
listed HAP and still not be covered by the petroleum refinery
NESHAP if the process unit does not'meet the definition of a
petroleum refining process unit. For example, a chemical unit
that emits HAP's located at a refinery may be subject to the
3-24
-------
HON or another source category standard and not the petroleum
refinery NESHAP.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
"blending" and "sweetening or treating" be added to the list
of examples of refinery process units. The commenter
(IV-D-21) explained that the sweetening process converts
methyl mercaptans to disulfides to reduce odor.
The commenter (IV-D-21) requested that "petroleum-based
solvent production units" be added to the list of examples of
process units.
Response; The list of example refinery process units in
the proposed rule was not meant to be all-inclusive. It would
not be feasible, and is not necessary, to provide a complete
list due to the many variations among refinery plants, and
differences in terminology. However, "blending" and
"sweetening or treating" and "petroleum-based solvent
production units" would be covered under the petroleum
refinery process unit definition when "production" and
"blending or sweetening" is done in a petroleum refinery and
crude oil or petroleum derivatives are involved in the
process.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) suggested that the
current wording of the rule in § 63.640(f)(3), which stated
that any distillation unit that ever ;receives a.refinery
stream is subject to the rule, even if the stream is a minor
part of its feed or is only processed on one occasion should
exclude: (1) any distillation unit that receives less than
40 percent of its feed on an annual basis from a petroleum
process unit, and (2) any distillation unit that sends less
than 40 percent of output on an annual basis to a petroleum
process unit.
One commenter (IV-D-20) contended that a distillation
unit should not have its applicability determined forever due
to the previous year's service. The commenter (IV-D-20)
stated that notification that a distillation unit will not
3-25
-------
process petroleum products should allow a unit to be exempted
from the-rule [63.640(f)(5)].
Response; The EPA has not included the commenter's
(IV-D-20) suggested exclusions in the final rule. The
commenter (IV-D-20) misinterpreted § 63.640(f)(3). It is not
true that any distillation unit that ever receives a refinery
stream is subject to the rule. The rule only applies to those
units for which the predominant use is from a petroleum
refining process unit (e.g., if the distillation unit is fed
by multiple on-site process units, it is assigned to the
process unit that contributes the greatest amount). The EPA
proposed to determine the applicability of a distillation unit
to the NESHAP based on the previous year's service when there
is no single predominant use because there needs to be a clear
basis as to where the unit will be permitted. When a
distillation unit receives its feed from off-site, the rule
assigns the distillation unit to the process unit that
receives the greatest amount of material from the distillation
unit. This is also based on usage during the previous year
when there is no single predominant use of the distillation
unit. The distillation unit applicability determination needs
to be made, and predominant use is the most logical
determining factor. If the predominant use is, for example, a
chemical manufacturing process unit instead 'of a refinery
process unit, the distillation column would be subject to the
HON rather than the refineries NESHAP. This approach also
avoids overlapping MACT standards since there can only be one
predominant use.
3.3.2 Area Source Designation
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-44)
stated that all limits under EPA-approved programs should be
considered in determining potential to emit, not just
emissions that have federally enforceable controls. One
commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that including only federally
enforceable emissions controls exceeds the intent of the
1990 Amendments. The commenter (IV-D-22) claimed that this
3-26
-------
was inconsistent with the statute and Congressional intent
because section 112(a)(1) makes no mention, of Federal
enforceability. One commenter (IV-D-20) contended that to
require additional paperwork simply to meet the definition of
"federally enforceable" overburdens the system without
contributing any benefit to the environment.
Response; The definition for a petroleum refineries'
"potential to emit" is consistent with the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The EPA has
consistently interpreted section 112(a)(1) to allow the use of
only "federally enforceable" emissions controls in determining
a source's potential to emit. These controls are the only
controls that EPA would have the authority to require the use
of. The reader is referred to the General Provisions preamble
(59 FR 12413) for the promulgated rule for more information.
Comment; In response to the request for comments on
whether area sources are within the petroleum refinery source
category, one commenter (IV-D-46) requested that permitting of
area sources as per 40 CFR part 70.3 (b)(1) and (b)(2) be
deferred.
Response; States can override the 40 CFR part 70.3 area
source permitting deferral or any deferral that may be written
into individual NESHAP developed under the Act. The EPA does
not want to mislead area source facilities into believing they
have a deference when the State requires a permit. Therefore,
the EPA has hot included a deference of permitting
requirements of area sources within the petroleum refinery
source category in the final rule. However, the NESHAP does
not apply to the area sources.
Comment; In response to the EPA's request for comment on
whether small refineries are. major sources, one commenter
(IV-D-23) stated that based on 40 years of operation, the HAP
emissions from their 3,000 barrel per day refinery would be
over 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of a single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy)
of a combination of HAP's.
3-27
-------
One commenter (IV-D-50) believed that many small
refineries currently emit less than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of
HAP's. The commenter (IV-D-50) also believed that the
9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) limitation per HAP in section 112 will
cause most small refineries to be considered a "major source,"
but that the classification will ultimately depend on how the
EPA requires facilities to calculate and estimate HAP
emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-45) provided emissions information
demonstrating that they were not a major source, and contended
that since their plants are located in remote nonattainment
areas there is no reason to-evaluate them.for regulation as an
area source. The commenter's (IV-D-45) evaluation of
emissions from their COTU's was conducted using EPA AP-42
emissions factors for tanks, flares, heaters and emergency
generators. The commenter's (IV-D-45) fugitive emissions were
calculated from actual plant tests included in an appendix to
their comments. The commenter (IV-D-45) included Arctic
heating fuel vapor pressures. The commenter (IV-D-45)
explained that the small volume throughput to tankage and the
low vapor pressure resulting from operation in the arctic,
where the average temperature for nine months of the year is
zero degrees Fahrenheit and the other three months of the year
it is fifty degrees Fahrenheit, results in small HAP emissions
from tanks and transfer operations. The commenter (IV-D-45)
stated that the COTU's have no process vents to the
atmosphere, all gas produced in the refining operations is
either recycled for recompression and reuse or is routed to a
flare, and all pressure safety valves relieve to a flare
system.
Response; The EPA requires facilities to calculate and
estimate HAP emissions based on a facility's potential to emit
HAP, considering controls, from all activities at the plant
site. Area HAP sources located in a remote nonattainment area
would need to be evaluated for regulation along with other
attainment or nonattainment area HAP sources. The commenter's
3-28
-------
(IV-D-45) contention that their petroleum refinery area HAP
source should not be evaluated for regulation'along with other
area HAP sources implies that industries located in remote
areas should not have to control their HAP emissions.
If the commenter's (IV-D-45) plant is demonstrated to be
an area source, it would not be subject to the petroleum
refinery rule. Furthermore, with the inclusion of the SIC
code definition 2911 for petroleum refineries in the
definition of a "petroleum refinery process unit," the
commenter's COTU's may be excluded from coverage under this
rule.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-15) contended
that the 9.1/22.7 Mg/yr (10/25 tpy) HAP limit should be
expanded to 10/35 tons per year and be based on actual
emissions instead of potential emissions. One commenter
(IV-D-15) stated that small facilities may barely meet the
22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) cutoff, but potential expansions to the
HAP list may occur which would increase a facility's combined
HAP emissions resulting in more small refineries exceeding the
22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) limit. Another commenter (IV-D-12)
objected to the 9.1/22.7 Mg/yr (10/25 tpy) limit because some
HAP's are double counted, once as a generic chemical pollutamt
for State requirements, and again for each hazardous
constituent contained in the generic pollutant for Federal
MACT standards.
Response; The Act establishes the 9.1/22.7 Mg/yr
(10/25 tpy) major source determination limit criteria based on
a source's potential to emit. The individual NESHAP,
developed under the Act, cannot change these major source
determination limit criteria.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that in the HON
and proposed refinery MACT, the EPA states that a facility may
have more than one HAP emission source, and that marine or
gasoline loading operations by virtue of their co-location at
a refinery, could qualify the refinery as a major source. One
commenter (IV-D-22) objected to the rule regulating co-located
3-29
-------
emission sources based on their location at a facility that
qualifies as a major HAP source rather than the emissions that
occur from the co-located emission source. The commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that gasoline loading terminals should be
subject to the MACT only when they have the same environmental
impact as other "free standing" terminals.
Response: The Act requires the EPA to regulate major HAP
sources. A major HAP source is defined as "any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls..." This means that
the EPA is .obligated'to consider the whole site when
determining if a source is major and to regulate co-located
emission sources (e.g., marine or gasoline loading
operations), when applicable.
3.3.3 Process Changes and Additions
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) disagreed with the use
of the phrase "the new or reconstructed source" in reference
to additions or changes subject to new source requirements.
The commenter (IV-D-21) contended that changes to a process
unit should not trigger new source requirements unless they
meet the criteria for "reconstruction." The commenter
(IV-D-21) recommended that in § 63.640(k)(1), (2) and (2)(ii),
"new or reconstructed source" should be replaced with
"reconstructed source, addition or change." The commenter
(IV-D-21) suggested that the entire proposal be searched for
similar phrases that could cause a misinterpretation,
subjecting an entire refinery to new source MACT requirements.
Three commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-42, IV-D-44) supported
the proposal in § 63.640(i) that additional process units and
additional emissions points or deliberate operational changes
at a process unit should be subject to existing source MACT
provisions instead of new source MACT unless they meet the
criteria in § 63.640(i) or (j).
Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-11) agreed with the EPA's
definition of source. The commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-11) also
3-30
-------
stated that any determination of new source control
requirements must be based on the application of the criteria
to the refinery as a whole (e.g., 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable
new refinery).
Response; The EPA evaluated the commenter's (IV-D-21)
request and determined that the commenter's (IV-D-21) proposed
editorial changes met with the intended requirements of the
rule [that additional process units and additional emissions
points or deliberate operational changes at a process unit
should be subject to existing source MACT provisions instead
of,-new .source MACT unless they meet the criteria in
§§ 63.640(i) or (j)]. The EPA determined that the proposed
changes would not change the integrity of the rule and had the
potential to reduce misinterpretation of the rule. Therefore,
the EPA incorporated the commenter's (IV-D-21) proposed
editorial changes in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
proposed § 63.640(e)(2)(iv) be deleted. The commenter
(IV-D-21) agreed that if the material in a vessel is changed,
the vessel should become subject to any applicable
regulations. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that this is
covered under § 63.640(1), therefore 63.640(e)(2)(iv) is
unnecessary. If § 63 . 640=(e) (2) (iv) is not deleted, the
commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the term "reevaluate" be
defined. The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
evaluation be through engineering judgment, and that no
special notification beyond the Notification of Compliance
Status be required. The commenter (IV-D-21) also requested
that if § 63.640(e)(2)(iv) is not deleted, provisions be added
stating that storage vessels that already have the required
control technology do not require reevaluation. The commenter
(IV-D-21) also requested that provisions be added that
reevaluation is not required if the new material to be stored
is of a group of materials previously determined to be
storable in a vessel without triggering additional controls.
3-31
-------
Response: The EPA concurs that the requirements cited
under § 63.640(e-)(2)(iv) are already covered under
§ 63.640(1). The EPA has deleted § 63.640(e)(2)(iv) from the
final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that
"material" be defined as "common classes of liquids, such as
gasoline, naphtha, distillate, solvent and lubricating oil."
The commenter (IV-D-21) requested that material changes not
include changes in product grades or specifications.
Response; The EPA intended for "material changes" to be
changes in wholesale materials and not changes in product
grades or specifications.! A definition for "material" has
been added to the final rule for clarification of the rule's
intent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the
provisions in § 63.460(1) were confusing because the terms
Group 1 and Group 2 emission points were not defined.
Response; Group 1 and Group 2 emission point definitions
were included in § 63.641 of the proposed rule. The EPA has
maintained these definitions in § 63.641 and has added a
reference to these definitions in § 63.460(1) of the final
rule.
3.4 REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-07) claimed: that VOC are
regulated by this rule as much as HAP's are. The commenter
(IV-D-07) contended that VOC are sufficiently regulated under
Title I of the Act. The commenter (IV-D-07) recommended that
the EPA find a way to reduce HAP's without infringing on
Title I requirements.
Response; The EPA agrees that VOC, as well as HAP, would
be controlled by the technologies utilized to comply with this
rule. Over 85 percent of the listed HAP's are VOC, therefore,
control measures for HAP will often end up controlling VOC.
However, under the Act, the EPA is required to establish MACT
for major HAP sources. If•MACT requires greater control than
what exists through Title I requirements, it needs to be
3-32
-------
instituted. If controls installed to meet Title I
requirements are»sufficient to meet MACT requirements, further
control is unnecessary. Hazardous air pollutants are
controlled under MACT to protect human health, welfare, and
environment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-21, XV-D-25) noted that
refineries emit fewer than 40 of the chemicals on the HAP list
in the Act and suggested that testing would be less costly and
the regulation would be more consistently interpreted if the
rule regulated only the organic HAP's applicable to refineries
rather than all "organic HAP's." One commenter (IV-D-21),
explained that polycyclic organic matter (POM) was not
included on their proposed list because, although POM does
exist'in petroleum refineries, the emission levels are
insignificant. One commenter (IV-D-21), provided a table of
these 40 HAP's and requested that a table of organic HAP's be
included in the rule. The commenter (IV-D-21) expressed
concern over the phrase "organic chemical" not being defined.
The commenter, (IV-D-21), provided a table indicating which
pollutants they believe are organic HAP's.
One commenter (IV-D-29) suggested that all refineries
that do not have light hydrocarbons be exempt from the
proposed regulation. The commenter (IV-D-29) stated that some
small California refiners exclusively handle.heavy crude oil
and do not have fuel gas systems or flares as they do not
contain volatile compounds. The commenter (IV-D-29) stated
that some refineries do not produce any products lighter than
kerosene.
One commenter (IV-D-52) urged the EPA to consider that
petroleum refineries emit pollutants other than organic HAP's,
such as hydrogen chloride, an inorganic HAP. The commenter
stated that focusing on a limited list of pollutants may
underestimate the cost effectiveness of the control options
being proposed for this rule.
One commenter (IV-D-51) concurred with the EPA that the
proposed rule should only address emissions of organic HAP's
3-33
-------
and that metal HAP's, hydrogen chloride, carbonyl sulfide and
carbon disulfide emitted from FCCU catalyst regeneration
vents, catalytic reformer catalyst regeneration vents, and
sulfur plant vents be considered separately. The commenter
(IV-D-51) stated that these pollutants will be regulated under
a separate source category that has a 1997 promulgation date.
Response; The petroleum refinery process units regulated
by subpart CC emit organic rather than inorganic HAP's.
Inorganic HAP's are emitted from catalytic cracking catalyst
regeneration vents, sulfur plant vents, and catalytic reformer
catalyst regeneration vents, which will be evaluated for
regulation in the future.
The definition of "miscellaneous process vents" in both
the proposed and final rule specifically excludes the vents
mentioned by the commenters. The EPA has also added a list of
pollutants covered under the rule to assist facilities in the
determination of whether a processing unit or emission point
is covered under the rule and to simplify compliance
determination. Refineries only emit a subset of the organic
HAP's listed in the Act. Those organic HAP's emitted by
refineries are included in the list of regulated HAP's. There
is no need for the rule to cover organic HAP's that refineries
do not emit.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the
exemption from subpart CC for equipment containing no HAP's is
too restrictive. The commenter (IV-D-21) recommended setting
a de minimis concentration of 0.1 weight percent total
carcinogens and 1.0 weight percent total HAP's. The commenter
(IV-D-21) requested that the de minimis level be no lower than
20 ppmv for total organic HAP's. The commenter (IV-D-21)
recommended that § 63.640(g)(2) be modified to read;
"Equipment containing organic HAP's in any liquid and vapor at
concentrations below 0.1 weight percent total carcinogens and
below 1.0 weight percent total."
Response; Section 112 of the Act requires technology-
based standards and not health-based standards. Therefore, a
3-34
-------
health-based de minimis (i.e., 0.1 weight percent total
carcinogens) would be inappropriate under a NESHAP. However,
the refineries rule includes applicability criteria to
determine if controls must be applied to individual emission
points. For example, there are size and vapor pressure
criteria to determine if storage vessels must apply control.
As explained in chapter 4 of this document, the final rule
also includes criteria for determining which process vents
require control.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that, when
determining the applicability of a process vent
[§ 63.640(f) (4)], engineering judgement be allowed to
determine if a process vent's organic HAP emissions exceed
20 ppmv in lieu of EPA Method 18 (unless the engineering
judgement is not accepted by the permitting authority).
Response: Miscellaneous process vents are defined to
include only vents with concentrations above 20 ppmv. Those
with concentrations below this level are not subject to any
requirements of the rule. This determination can be based on
testing or process knowledge/engineering assessment. As
explained in Chapter 4 of this document, an emission rate cut-
off of 33 kg/day (72 Ibs/day) for existing sources and
6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new sources has been added to
distinguish Group 1 from Group 2 vents. Only Group 1 vents
with emissions greater than 33 kg/day (72 Ibs/day) for
existing sources and 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new sources,
are required to apply controls. The determination of whether
a vent is Group 1 or Group 2 can also be based on either
Method 18 or Method 25A testing or process
knowledge/engineering assessment. Specific language has been
added to the process vent provisions to clarify what
constitutes an "engineering assessment."
3.5 COORDINATION/OVERLAP WITH OTHER RULES
3 • 5 • .1 Overlap With Other NESHAP and NSPS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-33) suggested
that the petroleum refinery NESHAP rule supersede the HON for
3-35
-------
wastewater streams from chemical manufacturing process units
that'are treated within refinery wastewater systems. (The
petroleum refineries NESHAP requires compliance with the BWON,
which is different from the HON.) Two commenters (IV-D-25,
IV-D-33) stated that wastewater streams from chemical process
units are mixed with other refinery wastewater streams for
treatment and benzene could be used as a surrogate for other
HAP's in chemical process wastewater streams at refineries.
One of the commenters (IV-D-25) asserted that the section 114
responses include chemical process unit wastewater. The
commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-33) stated that the BWON and HON
wastewater requirements for'biodegradation unite'conflict, in
that the benzene waste NESHAP allows operation within general
guidelines, whereas the HON requires a specific HAP removal
demonstration that includes all streams treated in the unit.
One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that it would be burdensome to
test all the refinery streams as well as HON streams that are
treated in biounits.
One commenter (IV-D-10) supported streamlining refinery
MACT wastewater and HON wastewater applicability using the
section 114 data. Two commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-10) contended
that chemical and refinery wastewater streams are co-mingled.
Additionally, the commenters (IV-D-06; IV-D-10) asserted that
benzene could still be used as a surrogate because'it would
still be the largest HAP contributor. The commenters
(IV-D-06, IV-D-10) stated that the HON wastewater standards
applicable to a refinery's chemical manufacturing process
units should be superseded by the refinery MACT standard once
they are promulgated, one commenter (IV-D-06) emphasized that
this was especially important for mixed streams entering
biodegradation units because the BWON regulation allows
operation within general guidelines and the HON requires
specific HAP removal efficiencies.
Response; Any conflicts that may exist between the BWON
and the HON wastewater provisions need to be addressed within
the context of those rules. The EPA is currently working to
3-36
-------
eliminate true conflicts in the requirements. However, the
BWON cannot override the HON because the HON covers 112
organic HAP's whereas the BWON only covers emissions of
benzene ^because the potential for good biodegradation versus
loss is dependent on the chemical, and because the BWON
applies to waste and wastewater and the HON only applies to
wastewater. The EPA does not believe that demonstration of
control of benzene can equate to sufficient control of all
organic HAP's. For petroleum refinery sources, benzene is a
good.surrogate for all organic HAP's because it is the largest
HAP contributor from this source.
The final rule clarifies that a petroleum refinery
wastewater stream that is conveyed, stored, or treated in a
wastewater stream management unit that also receives streams
subject to the provisions of the HON, §§ 63.133 through 63.147
of subpart G shall comply with the provisions in §§ 63.133
through 63.137 and § 63.140 of subpart G for all equipment
used in the storage and conveyance of the Group 1 or Group 2
wastewater stream, the provisions in both 40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF (BWON) and in §§ 63.138 and 63.139 of subpart G for
the treatment and control of the Group 1 or Group 2 wastewater
stream, and the provisions in §§ 63.143 through 63.148 of
subpart G for monitoring and inspections of equipment and for
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The final rule also
clarifies that the owner or operator of a wastewater stream
subject to both the BWON and HON is not required to comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with the treatment and control requirements in
40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that there are
several provisions in the refinery wastewater NSPS that
conflict with the BWON, and therefore, conflict with the
proposed refinery rule. The commenter (IV-D-06) recommended
modifying the NSPS by specifying that compliance with
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements be
identical to those in the BWON.
3-37
-------
Three commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-25), in regard
to wastewater monitoring, recordkeeping'and reporting,
requested a statement be included in the rule indicating that
the NESHAP supersedes the NSPS, when both are applicable. The
commenter (IV-D-19) contended that this regulation, combined
with the BWON, SOCMI RON and NSPS will be very confusing to
facilities that must comply with all four, especially in
regard to part 70 operating permits. One commenter (IV-D-38)
suggested that the EPA coordinate the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that effect petroleum refinery
wastewater systems. The commenter recommended that the
requirements of-the petroleum refinery rule take precedence.
Another commenter (IV-D-20) urged the EPA to state that
compliance with the BWON overrides the requirements of NSPS
QQQ so that a source only has one set of compliance and
reporting duties.
Response; The EPA agrees that, combined with other
rulemakings that may apply to a petroleum refinery wastewater
stream and/or wastewater stream managed in a piece of
equipment, there may be some confusion and overlapping
requirements. In order to address the commenters1 (IV-D-06,
IV-D-19, IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-25) concern regarding the
potential confusion when a petroleum refinery wastewater
stream, and/or wastewater stream managed in a piece of
equipment is subject to multiple regulations, the final rule
clarifies the wastewater provisions that would apply to a
petroleum refinery wastewater stream and/or wastewater stream
managed in a piece of equipment subject to multiple rules.
The final rule clarifies the applicability of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC wastewater provisions by stating that a
Group 1 wastewater stream managed in a piece of equipment that
is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ is required only to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC. The final rule also clarifies that a Group 2
wastewater stream managed in equipment that is also subject to
the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ is. required only
3-38
-------
to comply with subpart QQQ. Clarification of the applicable
provisions for a wastewater stream that is conveyed, stored,
or treated in a wastewater stream management unit that also
receives streams subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart F has been included in the final rule.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25) suggested
that, similar to the HON, the refinery NESHAP should specify
that the equipment leaks provisions of the refinery NESHAP
over-ride other NSPS and NESHAP that apply to the same
equipment.
Response: The EPA has clarified the applicability of
40;CFR part 63, subpart CC equipment leak provisions in the
final rule. The final rule clarifies that petroleum refinery
sources subject to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 regulations are
required to comply only with the petroleum refinery NESHAP
equipment leak provisions. This clarification is consistent
with what was done in the HON. Petroleum refinery process
unit equipment leak emission points are distinguished from
SOCMI process unit equipment leak emission points by the
inclusion of SIC code 2911 definition in the petroleum
refinery process unit definition in the final rule.
Therefore, there should not be any applicability conflicts
between 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, petroleum refinery
equipment leak provisions and 40 CFR part 63-, subpart H HON
equipment leak provisions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) requested that the EPA
clarify the relationship between the proposed refinery NESHAP
and the gasoline distribution NESHAP currently under
development. The commenter (IV-D-25) recommended that the
gasoline distribution rule apply only to loading racks at
marketing terminals and pipeline breakout stations classified
under SIC codes 5171 and 4613 whereas the refinery NESHAP
storage and fugitive provisions apply to operations at
refineries (SIC Code 2911) .
Response; The final rule has been clarified after
consideration of this comment. The NESHAP for Gasoline
3-39
-------
Distribution Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart R) covers
bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations in SIC
codes 5171 and 4613 that may be co-located at a petroleum
refinery in addition to independently located facilities. The
petroleum refinery "affected source" has been clarified in the
final rule to include gasoline loading racks located at:
petroleum refineries if they are classified under the
petroleum refineries SIC code (2911). The gasoline loading
rack emission points in SIC 2911 at refineries may be included
in emissions averages. The EPA has done this to encourage the
use of flexible compliance approaches (i.e., averaging) where
-they can be properly monitored and enforced. Furthermore,
gasoline loading operations classified under 2911 receive
their products directly from refinery process units and are
operated by the same entity, so their operation is closely
tied to refinery process units. It is logical to regulate
them under the same rule as part of the same source.
The EPA has also referenced the SIC code (2911) in the
petroleum refinery process units definition in order to
clarify the process units covered by the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21), suggested that the
cost to refineries of complying with similar regulations could
be reduced if the refineries were allowed to comply with only
the most stringent. The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
compliance with subpart CC of this regulation should exempt
refineries from less stringent NSPS and NESHAP regulations.
The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that process vents subject
to subpart CC of this rule be exempt from 40 CFR part 60,
subparts III, NNN, and RRR. The commenter (IV-D-21) also
suggested that storage vessels subject to subpart CC of this
rule be exempt from 40 CFR 60, subparts K and Ka and
40 CFR 61, subpart Y. Conversely, the commenter (IV-D-21)
suggested that storage vessels subject to 40 CFR 60,
subpart Kb be exempt from subpart CC of this rule, because
subpart Kb is more stringent.
3-40
-------
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter (IV-D-21)
that the-cost to refineries of complying with similar
regulations could be reduced if the refineries were allowed to
comply with only the most stringent. Section 63.640 of the
final rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) has been amended (as
stated in the previous response) to clarify the provisions
that apply to petroleum refinery emission points that may be
subject to multiple regulations. Petroleum refinery process
unit emission points are distinguished from SOCMI process unit
emission points by the inclusion of SIC code 2911 in the
petroleum refinery process unit definition in the final rule.
Therefore, there should be no regulatory coverlap between
process vents subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC and 40 CFR
part 60, subpart III, NNN, and RRR.
The final rule clarifies the applicability of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC storage vessel provisions to storage
vessels at existing and new petroleum refinery sources subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, or Kb. The specific
provisions are structured such that each vessel is subject to
only the more stringent rule. For example, a Group 1 storage
vessel at an existing refinery that is also subject to
subpart K or Ka is required only to comply with the petroleum
refinery NESHAP storage vessel provisions. The benzene
storage Vessel NESHAP (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y) would apply
to a SOCMI process unit storage vessel and not a petroleum
refinery process unit storage vessel; therefore, clarification
of applicability in the final rule was unnecessary.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that when the
EPA applies existing emission standards to HAP sources in this
regulation, such as 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb for storage
tanks, BWON for Wastewater and SOCMI HON to equipment leaks,
that it be clearly stated that compliance with the
requirements under those rules is sufficient to comply with
this rule. The commenter (IV-D-36) also requested that the
EPA clearly state any new standards and where they apply.
3-41
-------
Response; -The petroleum refinery NESHAP rule, in
referencing the provisions of other regulations, clearly
specifies those sections of the referenced rules that do and
do not apply. Subpart CC also clearly specifies any
additional provisions that are not included in the cross-
referenced rules. Subpart CC does not impose any requirements
beyond the benzene waste operations NESHAP for wastewater.
Subpart CC does not reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb for
storage vessels in refinery process units. Instead it
references HON storage vessel provisions without certain
fitting requirements. The equipment leaks section of
subpart CC lists which parts of 40= CFR part 60V subpart W or
HON apply and which have -been changed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-19) recommended that it be
made clear that certain provisions supersede other Federal
rulemakings in the applicability section (§ 63.640) of the
final rule. Two commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21) suggested that
a table be provided delineating the applicability of
overlapping regulations to a petroleum refinery source subject
to the petroleum refinery NESHAP.
One commenter (IV-D-10) contended that conflicts exist
between existing NSPS requirements and NESHAP's (under the old
section 112) requirements. The commenter (IV-D-10) requested
that the EPA establish whether* the i NSPS or- the NESHAP
requirements supersede in this rulemaking.
Response: As suggested by the commenter (IV-D-19), the
EPA has clarified the applicability of the petroleum refinery
NESHAP as it relates to o'ther Federal regulations affecting
the same source in § 63.640 of the final rule. The text cites
specific overlaps and clarifies which rule the source must
comply with in each case. The EPA did not use a table format,
,as suggested by the commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21), because of
the level of specific detail that had to be included in a
table would be more confusing than clarifying.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21), stated that a process
unit should not be regulated by both subpart CC of this
3-42
-------
regulation and HON or the Gasoline Distribution MACT. The
commenter (IV-D-21), requested that the following exemption be
added to § 63.640(g): "(7) Process units and emission points
subject to subparts F, G, H, I, and R of this subpart."
One commenter (IV-D-24) was concerned with overlap with
the HON and the proposed petroleum refinery NESHAP. The
commenter specifically mentioned MTBE, benzene, toluene, and
xylene units that are clearly subject to HON and in the broad
petroleum refinery process unit definition. The commenter
suggested that units and emission permits subject to
subparts F, G or H be specifically exempted. The commenter
provided specific regulatory language. s
One commenter (IV-D-01) requested that the applicability
section of the proposed rule be clarified to state that a
manufacturing process unit that is subject to the SOCMI source
category, and thus the HON, is exempt from the proposed
petroleum refinery NESHAP. The commenter stated that this
would reflect the wording of section VI(A)(1)(a) of the
proposal preamble.
Response; The EPA agrees that if a process unit is
subject to the HON, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC should not
aPPly- The applicability provisions of the refineries rule
were structured to avoid overlapping regulations. Petroleum
refinery process unit.emission points are distinguished from
SOCMI process unit emission points by the inclusion of
SIC code 2911 definition for petroleum refining in the
petroleum refinery process unit definition in the final rule.
The inclusion of the SIC code for petroleum refinery in the
definition of a petroleum refinery process unit should
alleviate any applicability conflicts between a SOCMI and
petroleum refinery process unit. The definition of the
"affected source" has also been changed in the refineries rule
to clarify that gasoline loading racks at refineries are
subject to 40 CFR part 63, svibpart CC rather than the gasoline
distribution NESHAP if the transfer operation is classified
under SIC code 2911. If the transfer operation has an SIC
3-43
-------
code other than 2911, it is covered by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart R.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-49) contended
that the applicability of this rule overlaps the proposed
Stage I Gasoline Distribution NESHAP and that the EPA should
clarify which rule applies for gasoline tanks and waste
operations located at petroleum refineries. One of the
commenters (IV-D-20) suggested that the EPA allow refinery
sources the option of subjecting their gasoline storage tanks
to either the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP or the Petroleum
Refinery NESHAP. The commenter (IV-D-20) suggested notifying
the EPA of the choice, through the Initial Notification
Requirements.
Response: The EPA has not included the commenter's
(IV-D-20) suggestion to allow petroleum refineries the option
of subjecting their gasoline storage tanks to either the
Gasoline Distribution NESHAP or the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP.
Clarification of the applicability of the rule regarding
storage vessels covered by the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP has
been included in the final rule. If a storage vessel can be
classified as a petroleum refining process unit, as defined in
the final rule and is classified under SIC code 2911, then the
storage vessel is subject to the petroleum refinery NESHAP.
If the storage vessel is part of a gasoline terminal
classified under an SIC code other than 2911 it is not subject
to the petroleum refinery NESHAP.
The definition of a "petroleum refining process unit" has
been clarified in the final rule as being a process unit used
in an establishment primarily engaged in petroleum refining,
as defined in the SIC for petroleum refining (2911). Standard
Industrial Classification codes are assigned and used by
facilities to distinguish between equipment. The
incorporation of the SIC code definition for petroleum
refining to the definition keeps the management of air
pollution control equipment under the same management
structure as the surrounding process equipment.
3-44
-------
3.5.2 Overlap With Title V
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-42, IV-D-51)
supported streamlining the Act regulations by coordinating
requirements in the Title V program, SOCMI, HON, and NESHAP
standards. One commenter (IV-D-42) contended that refineries
were already heavily regulated and before any new regulations
are issued, the EPA should consider these existing regulations
and focus their efforts on what additional regulations are
needed.
Response; Existing regulations were considered in
developing the petroleum refineries NESHAP. The HON affects
only-certain chemical manufacturings units at refineries.
Applicability provisions of the refineries rule were
structured to avoid overlapping with HON. The refineries
NESHAP wastewater rule refers to the BWON, to avoid placing
additional burden on refineries. The NSPS were considered in
developing the NESHAP. Because the NSPS apply only to new
sources and only to VOC's, there are many HAP emission points
at refineries that are not regulated by the NSPS. The
petroleum refineries NESHAP is necessary to regulate these HAP
emissions as mandated by the Act. Title V does not impose any
new control requirements, so will not conflict with the NESHAP
in terms of control requirements. The recordkeeping and
reporting .requirements of the refineries NESHAP have been
structured to be consistent with Title V and avoid duplicative
reporting.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) pointed out that
section 63.642(a) of subpart CC requires sources affected by
the proposed regulation to obtain a title V operating permit
or submit an implementation plan as a temporary alternative to
comply with the regulation. The commenter {IV-D-21) suggested
that section 63.642(a) of subpart CC be deleted or it be made
clear that the part 70 or 71 application is not required until
the deadline required by those permits. The commenter
(IV-D-21) pointed out that where there are references to an
operating permit in the proposal, there are good alternatives
3-45
-------
to the operating permit, such as submitting information in a
separate "submittal."
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter (IV-D-21)
that a part 70 or 71 application is not required until the
deadline required by those permits. However, the EPA does not
agree that clarification of this is necessary in the rule. As
written, § 63.642(a) of subpart CC simply requires sources to
obtain part 70 or part 71 permits. It does not specify a date
and it does not mention an "implementation plan". The only
time an implementation plan is needed is if a source chooses
to comply by using emissions averaging. The provisions in
§ 63.653(d) of subpart CC state that the required information
"may be submitted in an operating permit application, in an
amendment to an operating permit application, in a separate
submittal, or in any combination of the three". A deadline
for submittal is provided. Where the proposal gives
alternatives such as the .notification of compliance status.
The use of the word "or" reflects an option, not a sole
requirement.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that if
acquiring a Title V permit is a requirement of the proposed
regulation, that it be made clear that the rule requires the
application for a Title V permit. The commenter (IV-D-21)
..suggested that the word "apply" replace '.'obtain." since
obtaining a permit is not wholly within the control of the
owner/operator.
Response; The EPA concurs that obtaining a title V
operating permit is not wholly within the owner or operator's
power, and that it is required as a result of this rulemaking.
Therefore, the EPA has made the commenter's suggested change
to the final rule.
3.5.3 NESHAP General Provisions Comments
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-05) expressed concern that
the potential overlap between MACT regulations will be an
ongoing issue and the EPA should consider ways of addressing
the issues in more general ways such as amending the General
3-46
-------
Provisions to specify that no emission point will be subject
to more than one MACT standard. Another commenter (IV-D-21)
stated that no emissions unit should be regulated under more
than one part 63 source category standard. The commenter
(IV-D-21) asserted that if a emission unit was regulated by
more than one, it is likely that they would conflict. The
commenter (IV-D-21) urged the EPA to add "No emissions unit
shall be regulated under more than one source category under
part 63" to subpart A of the proposed regulation. The
commenter (IV-D-21) provided an explanation of how certain
rules, including the HON, the Gasoline Distribution MACT, and
Non-SOCMI chemical MACT standards may overlap with the
petroleum refinery NESHAP.
One commenter requested that the EPA consider amending
the part 63 "General Provisions" to specifically state that no
emission point is subject to more than one part 63 subpart.
Response; The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) were promulgated on March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12408).
These provisions codify general procedures and criteria to
implement emission standards. It is up to the individual
standards under part 63 to discern the applicability of a
standard to an emission point. The EPA has amended § 63.640
of the final rule to address the applicability of the
petroleum refinery NESHAP when there is potential for overlap
among different MACT standards. The EPA has also made changes
to the applicability and definition sections to avoid overlap.
3.5.4 Overlap With State and Local Rules
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25) suggested
that, as allowed by § 63.102(b) of the HON, refineries subject
to State or local requirements that provide comparable HAP
emission reductions to the refineries NESHAP should be allowed
to comply with the existing State or local requirements. The
commenter (IV-D-25) further requested that, if a facility can
demonstrate that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of a State or local rule would be sufficient to demonstrate
3-47
-------
compliance with the refinery NESHAP, then they should be
allowed to use the State or local paperwork requirements.
Response; The EPA has amended § 63.640 of subpart CC to
state that the permitting authority for the affected facility
may allow consolidation of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements under this subpart with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under other
applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, and in
any 40 CFR part 52 approved State implementation plan provided
the implementation plan allows for approval of alternative
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and
provided that the permit "contains an equivalent degree of - ** .
compliance and control. This would allow an affected source
to submit one set of compliance reports for the source.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-12) complained that the
proposed rule will threaten the survival of small refineries
by imposing additional compliance, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, which in many cases duplicate State and local
provisions. Another commenter (IV-D-15) expressed concern
that the proposed rule, by specifying HAP's would result in
significant data collection burdens. The commenter (IV-D-12)
stated that this was because many States require generic
information on pollutants in addition to the Federal HAP;list.
Therefore, the commenter contended, many HAP's-would be double
counted.
One commenter (IV-D-12) supported the EPA's assertion
that the HAP's emitted from refineries are all VOC's.
Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-12) stated that any regulation
which generally controls VOC's will control HAP's. The
commenter (IV-D-12) asserted that there are existing State and
local regulations more stringent than those proposed. The
commenter (IV-D-12) stated that the EPA should either rescind
the rule or provide an exemption for sources already subject
to State and local measures that result in HAP reduction or
control as effectively as the proposed NESHAP, or include
provisions for the EPA approval of more stringent State and
3-48
-------
local measures to take the place of the Federal rule in
approved air quality control jurisdiction. The commenter
(IV-D-12) stated that refineries in the SCAQMD should be
exempt from the requirements of the rule.
Response; As noted in a previous response, the EPA has
amended § 63.640 of subpart CC to state that the permitting
authority for the source may allow consolidation of the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC with the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements under other applicable requirements
in 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, and in any 40 CFR part 52
approved State implementation plan provided the^implementation
plan allows for approval of alternative monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and provided that
the permit contains an equivalent degree of compliance and
control. This would allow an affected source to submit one
set of compliance reports for the source.
3.5.5 Relationship to Section 112fq)
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) requested clarification
as to whether 40 CFR 63, subpart B [112(g)] applies to changes
at a refinery after promulgation of this rule. The commenter
(IV-D-20) requested that explicit exclusions of sources
subject to this rule from subpart B requirements be noted in
the rule.
Response; The petroleum refinery NESHAP (subpart CC)
overrides 40 CFR part 63, subpart B (under the proposed
subpart B) when changes at a petroleum refinery occur to a
process unit emission point covered under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC. However, 40 CFR part 63, subpart B would apply to
those process unit emission points that are not covered under
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC and are located at a refinery. The
petroleum refinery rule includes specific provisions to
determine if additions or changes are subject to the new or
existing source provisions under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
3-49
-------
3.6 OTHER APPLICABILITY ISSUES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) recommended including
definitions for the following terms within the proposed rule::
natural gas liquid, natural gas liquid process, petroleum, and
petroleum refinery.
Response; The EPA has included the SIC code 2911
definition for petroleum refining in the definition of
"petroleum refinery process unit," which clarifies the
applicability of the petroleum refinery NESHAP. Natural
liquid gas processes are classified under a different SIC
code. Therefore, clarifying definitions, as suggested by the
commenter (IV-D-20), were unnecessary in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) agreed with the
exclusions in the definitions of "process changes." The
commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the exclusions be extended
to include startup and shutdown and temporary process changes
made to protect human life, the environment or property from
serious harm.
Response; The proposed rule never intended for "process
changes" to include startup and shutdown and temporary process
changes. The "process change" definition in the final rule
clarifies that a "process change would not include a change or
modification of an emission point." Requirements for startup,
shutdown, or malfunction of -an affected source"are dictated by
the General Provisions for part 63 (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that in the
list of refinery products, the "residual" in "residual fuel
oil" be deleted because home heating oil and other heating
oils are often called "fuel oils." The commenter (IV-D-21)
also requested that asphalt be added to the list of refinery
products.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter (IV-D-21)
that "residual" should be deleted from "residual fuel oil" in
the list of refinery products regulated by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC. Therefore, the EPA has deleted the word
3-50
-------
"residual" from the definition of "residual fuel oil" in the
final rule. The final rule has not added "asphalt" to the
list of refinery products regulated by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC because "asphalt processing" is scheduled for
development of a MACT standard in the year 2000.
3-51
-------
-------
4.0 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR AND MACT - GENERAL PROCEDURES
4.1 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25, IV-D-42, IV-D-44) objected to setting the MACT
standard based on the 94th percentile as opposed to the
88th percentile. One commenter (IV-D^25) reasoned that a
94th percentile interpretation leads to more stringent
requirements with poor cost-^ef f ectiveness. The commenter
(IV-D-25) cited pulp and paper, refinery storage tanks, and
HON storage tanks as examples of poor cost-effectiveness.
Another commenter (IV-D-09) opposed the higher floor method
because it leads to application of California style controls
nationwide because the higher floor method requires control at
the level equivalent to the 94th percentile. The commenter
(IV-D-09) also contended that this makes the MACT floor for
existing sources identical to the floor for new sources, and
results in half of the top 12 percent of existing sources
being out of compliance with-the- controls specified. The -
commenter (IV-D-09) concluded that adoption of the
94th percentile undermines productive work by industry,
States, environmental organizations, and the EPA.
One commenter (IV-D-42) contended that the EPA had
already established a precedent for the 88th percentile in the
HON. The commenter (IV-D-42) stated that the EPA
interpretation is contrary to Congressional intent and
severely restricts the EPA's ability and requirement to take
into consideration other factors such as the cost of achieving
emission reductions or/and nonair quality health and
environmental impacts. The commenter (IV-D-42) noted that the
4-1
-------
EPA may always set the standard on a case-by-case basis at
greater'than the 88th percentlie.
One commenter (IV-D-09) specifically suggested that the
lower floor (88th percentile) method is more appropriate for
storage vessels. The commenter (IV-D-09) agreed that the EPA
has discretion to adopt the lower floor interpretation method.
Response; Section 112 (d) (3) (A) requires that standards
be no less stringent than "the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources." The EPA has interpreted this language to mean that
EPA first determines the emission limitations achieved by
sources within the best performing 12 percent,, .and then : * .
averages those limitations (See 59 FR 29196, 6/6/94). The EPA
interprets the word "average" in section 112(d)(3) to
authorize the Agency to use any reasonable method, in a
particular factual context, of determining the central
tendency of a data set. In most cases, "average" was
interpreted to be the arithmetic mean or the median. For
example, the "floor" for storage vessels is based upon the
average vapor pressure of the top 12 percent (arithmetic mean)
while the process vent "floor" is based upon the
94th percentile (median). The choice between using the median
value or mean value depends on which value the EPA determines
best represents the central;tendency =af. the data. ,..---..
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) disagreed with the
procedure used in selecting MACT floor level of controls
because cost effectiveness was not included in the
determinations. The commenter (IV-D-21), cited examples from
API of the cost effectiveness for some miscellaneous process
vents. The commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that the EPA
inappropriately interpreted the Act to require that cost of
achieving emissions reductions can only be considered when
setting a level of control more stringent than the MACT floor.
The commenter (IV-D-21) contended that Congress did not intend
cost effectiveness only to be considered in setting a level of
control more stringent than the MACT floor.
4-2,
-------
One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the EPA's
interpretation of the Act regarding establishing the MACT
floor does not allow non-air quality health impacts to be
taken into consideration. The commenter (IV-D-21) claimed
that this interpretation could prevent the MACT floor from
being lowered, no matter how detrimental the non-air quality
health impacts of controls are. The commenter (IV-D-21)
contended that Congress did not intend non-air quality health
impacts only to be considered in setting a level of control
more stringent than the MACT floor.
Response; Section 112(a)(3)(A) of the Act states that
the MACT floor shall be based on «fche averagsfc emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
sources. Under the Act, a MACT standard can be no less
stringent than the MACT floor. Therefore, additional criteria
are not a legal means to evaluate and set the MACT floor. The
cost of control and cost effectiveness of control beyond the
floor are evaluated to determine if control beyond the floor
is feasible. The benefits at the floor and control options
beyond the floor, including non-air quality health impacts,
are evaluated and presented in the preamble. The commenter
did not provide any details specifically regarding non-air
quality impacts or other benefits of the proposed rule.
Comment:- ^=&evera-1; coarnienters (IV-D-48y-Hf-.D-.49, IV-D-55,
IV-D-57) alleged that the EPA did not determine the MACT floor
for existing sources from the average of the limitations
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
as required by the Act. One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that
the calculation of existing source MACT floor would be
simplified if a narrow source definition was used. The
commenter (IV-D-48) suggested that the emission reductions
achieved at the best controlled sources be compared and the
average of the best performing 12 percent of vents, wastewater
streams, storage tanks, and equipment leaks, respectively, be
calculated and emission limits set for each component. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that calculating a floor from an
4-3
-------
abstraction, such as a collection of process vents, in each
refinery is more difficult. The commenter (IV-D-48) requested
a numerical value for the MACT floor and if the EPA cannot
arrive at a numerical value, a more narrow source definition
is necessary. The commenter (IV-D-48) requested that the EPA
provide an explanation, with supporting facts, that shows how
the proposed MACT floors for individual types of sources
correspond to a proper floor for petroleum refineries as a
whole. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated that if this is not
possible, a more narrow source definition be used.
Three commenters (IV-D-55, IV-D-34, IV-D-16) suggested
.that the EPADevaluate current information provided by the
California State and local agencies and recalculate MACT for
new and existing sources. Two commenters (IV-D-55, IV-D-57)
stated that the Bay Area and South Coast Area Districts of
California have over 12 percent of the affected sources in the
nation in terms of volume of crude oil processed and the
number of facilities. Two commenters (IV-D-55, IV-D-57) also
stated that the two regions have some of the most stringent
air regulations, which are more stringent than the proposed
new source MACT. Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-57) contended
that the programs implemented in these regions constitute MACT
for the refinery industry.
Response; The average emissions limitation determined as
the MACT floor for existing sources was developed based on the
best available data, which was the data provided in the
section 114 and ICR questionnaire responses. These responses
included facilities located in California. The California
rules are based on a narrow definition of affected source, not
the whole facility. While the narrow definition of affected
source approach may seem to make determining the floor
"simpler", it is not necessarily the best or correct approach
to determine the average emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing sources.
The Act does not define "affected source." An affected
source may be a facility, a kind of emission point, or a
4-4
-------
collection of emission points. The definition chosen for each
MACT standard is dependent on the characteristics of the
industry being regulated and the information available to
characterize the source category. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed regulation, the standard defines
affected source as the collection of emission points in HAP-
emitting petroleum refinery processes within the source
category that are part of a major source. This broad
definition of affected source was chosen because it
(1) provides the flexibility to achieve the emission
reductions in a more efficient and cost-effective manner,
(2) is compatible with the BWON definitabon. .of affected source,
and (3) provides more flexibility to replace or modify
equipment without triggering the regulatory provisions
governing reconstruction.
The EPA recognizes that State and local air pollution
control standards may have different requirements for
controlling emissions than Federal standards. Many of the
State and local requirements, such as in California, are not
directly comparable to Federal requirements due to differences
in format, applicability, definitions, test methods, and
intent. In addition, many State and local standards, such as
in California, require emission controls or techniques for
which the EPA doesinot- have--adequate.control effectiveness
information. Without data, such as VOC or HAP control
efficiency of equipment and controls, the EPA cannot determine
if the State or local standard are equal to or more stringent
than Federal standards. Therefore, the EPA does not agree
that control requirements for storage vessels, wastewater, or
equipment leaks are necessarily more stringent in the Bay Area
or South Coast Air Pollution Control District. The EPA re-
evaluated some aspects of the MACT floor after proposal and
these changes are discussed in sections 3.2 and 5.4.1 of this
document.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-49) suggested that the EPA
reevaluate the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
4-5
-------
because the EPA's methodology is too stringent. The commenter
(IV-D-49) asserted that the EPA's methodology has produced
results which may be more stringent and costly than any
actually achieved and which has resulted in a hypothetical
refinery based on the best performing emission points located
within the source and not the best performing refineries.
Response; Due to the limitations of the data available
for each kind of emission point, the MACT floor analysis for
the affected source was based on the combination of control
levels for the collection of emission points rather than the
overall facility. The EPA approximated the source-wide floor
by», the combinations of point-by-point determined control
levels (i.e., the combinations of the miscellaneous process
vents "floor", storage vessels "floor", equipment leaks
"floor", and wastewater "floor").
The approximation of the source-wide floor by
combinations of point-by-point determined control levels was •
based on the paucity of data for all three kinds of emission
points and the modeling of wastewater emissions and control
characteristics. The EPA considered whether to aggregate the
available information by facility, and therefore estimate the
source-wide level of control for each facility to determine
the best performing refineries. However, the EPA rejected
-that approach to^determine-the-floor-as introducing additional
assumptions and such large uncertainties as to render the
analysis meaningless.
The EPA believes that the approach it used for developing
point-by-point approximations of the source-wide floor level
of control was the most appropriate use of the available data
base to determine the floor. Moreover, the EPA does not
believe that its methodology, when all aspects are considered,
overstated the floor. The choice of methodology was
reasonable since it provided additional assurance that,
notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in the data base,
the floor determined by the EPA would be no less stringent
than the actual source-wide floor.
4-6
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) requested an
explanation of why a percentage reduction requirement
constitutes an emissions limitation for the purposes of a
floor calculation. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the
law requires consistency between the floor and the emission
limitation required in the statute.
Response; The emissions limitation achieved at the floor
was based on the application of control technologies to
control specific emission points. The performance of these
technologies was documented under several other regulatory
efforts, such as the SOCMI NSPS for Air Oxidation Processes,
Distillation Operations,:.and ReactornP^ocesses (40 CFR
part 60, subparts III, NNN, and RRR) and in the HON.
Therefore, since a direct correlation can be made between the
emissions reduction via the documented performance of the
reference control technology, the percent reduction is
equivalent to the emissions limitation achieved.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-48, IV-D-55) alleged that
the EPA did not determine the emissions limitations achieved
by the best performing source to determine the new source
limitations.
Response; Evaluation of the MACT floor for new sources
was based on the best available information, including
section.- 114 questionnaires and ICR xesponses^and evaluation of
regulations. This information was used to determine the best
controls in use at any refinery, and the characteristics of
emission points that are controlled using the best controls.
Based on this evaluation, the applicability criteria and
achievable control levels (percent reduction or control
equipment/work practices) that comprise the new source MACT
floor were determined. An emission rate limitation (e.g., '
Ib/yr) was not used to determine the MACT floor because the
achievable emission level depends on the size, types of
process units, specific products and other factors that vary
greatly among refineries. See chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 for
4-7
-------
specific comments and responses on the floor level of control
for miscellaneous PV, ST, WW, and EL.
Łomment: Two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48) stated that
if marine loading operations are to be included in the source
category, the MACT floor for marine loading operations will
have to be recalculated for refinery marine loading operations
since the current floor does not distinguish between refinery
and non-refinery marine loading operations. Two commenters
(IV-D-46, IV-D-48) insisted that the rule must be reproposed
to determine the maximum achievable emission reduction for
petroleum refineries and marine loading operations combined.
One commenter (IV-D-46) .estimated *fchat establishing a new MACT
floor will result in a delay of promulgation of the refinery
MACT standards of 2-3 years. One commenter (IV-D-46)
predicted that the floor for non-refinery marine loading would
become less stringent if refinery marine loading operations
are excluded from the determination. The commenter (IV-D-46)
contended that it is inappropriate to make a distinction
between refinery-linked marine vessel loading operations and
other marine vessel loading operations.
Response; At proposal, the MACT floor for refinery
marine loading operations was determined separately from the
rest of the refinery but as part of marine loading operations.
The same controls are applicable to marine, loading at
refineries as other marine loading operations. Therefore,
there is no reason to believe the floor would be different for
marine loading at refineries.
The commenter did not provide any specific reasons to
support why reproposal would be needed or why the promulgation
would be delayed 2 to 3 years. The refineries proposal
clearly stated that EPA may include marine loading in the
refineries source category and gave ample opportunity for
comment.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-52, IV-D-54) said that the
total mass emission rates have not been adequately evaluated.
One commenter (IV-D-52) was concerned that the EPA did not
4-8
-------
have sufficient data on actual emissions from petroleum
refineries to determine the MACT floors, and that they had
used MACT floors based on the applicable NSPS and NESHAPs and
other limited data collected from existing petroleum
refineries. The commenter (IV-D-52) recommended that the EPA
request additional actual emissions data from the best-
controlled refineries, review State regulations, and
reevaluate all the regulated emission points before
promulgating the rule. One commenter (IV-D-54) expressed
concern that total mass emission rates from refineries were
not being studied, and high emissions were being permitted to
save industry money. •; .
Response: The total mass emissions from applicable
sources within the refineries have been evaluated using the
best available data in the determination of the MACT floor and
in estimating impacts of going beyond the floor for MACT.
These emissions and reductions were presented in the proposed
rule and have been revised in the promulgated rule and in the
memorandum "Revised Impacts from Controlling Emissions from
Petroleum Refineries" (June 28, 1995). The emission estimates
and reductions are based on applying the best control
technologies. The regulation uses percent reduction and
equipment/work practice formats instead of limiting the total
mass of emissions" because the same emission limit is not
achievable at all refineries given differences in size, types
of process units, products, and other factors. It is not the
intent of the rule to limit production (i.e., penalizing large
facilities).
Prior to proposal, available data were collected through
section 114 and ICR's for a majority of refineries, and State
and Federal regulations were* reviewed as a further source of
information on control levels. The commenter stated that more
data should be evaluated, however, the commenter did not
provide any additional data., The preamble to the proposed
regulation requested additional data in numerous places.
Since no additional data were provided by this or other
4-9
-------
commenters, it has been judged that additional emissions datei
from commenters are not available. 'As described in chapter S
of this document, some additional information on State
regulations of process vent and emissions has been evaluated
since proposal and used to revise the floor analyses.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) contended that
facilities that do not produce typical refinery products, such
as white oils and waxes, were not included during development
of the refinery MACT floors, although they may be regulated by
the proposed rule.
Response: As discussed in section 3.3, the regulation
has been clarified to be applicableHto.-SIC. Code 2911. If
those facilities are included in that SIC code, they would be
subject to the regulation. If not, then they would not be
subject to the rule.
4.2 SELECTION OF MACT
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-49) contended that the EPA
cannot justify going beyond floor controls because the overly
conservative analysis used already results in control levels
beyond any likely to be found in an actual refinery.
Response: As stated earlier, the MACT floor analysis Weis
based on section 112(d)(3)(A) which requires that the
standards be based on "the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent af.existing
sources." The approach used to determine the level of
performance for each emission source is discussed in each
section and has been demonstrated as reasonable under the
statute. Additionally, the impacts for going beyond the floor
were considered, but options beyond the floor were not
selected.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-55) alleged that, according
to the preamble, the EPA used a cost-benefit analysis to
determine MACT. The commenter (IV-D-55) claimed that
subjecting MACT decisions to a cost-benefit analysis is
inappropriate and illegal. The commenter (IV-D-55) cited
Senate Report 101-228 as not supporting the use of
4-10
-------
cost-benefit analysis in determining MACT due to the
uncertainty associated with quantifying the benefits and costs
of controls. Two commenters (IV-D-55, IV-D-16) stated that
the EPA should not include cost-benefit analysis in the MACT
standards of the proposed regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the EPA may consider
cost effectiveness in determining MACT but can not determine
maximum reductions achievable excluding known existing
technology. The commenter (IV-D-48) requested that the EPA
not convert the program from technology-based to cost-benefit
based but that the EPA find a way to take cost into
consideration and establish standards that realize the maximum
emission reductions achievable. The commenter (IV-D-48)
suggested that this may be accomplished by determining the
level of maximum emission reductions achieved with existing
techniques. The commenter (IV-D-48) contended that the fact
that these controls have been applied in practice proves that
they are achievable considering cost. The commenter (IV-D-48)
cited S. Rep. 101-228 at 168-169 to support this conclusion.
The commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that the Act requires the
maximum degree of reduction achievable. The commenter
(IV-D-48) cited the 101st Cong. 2d Sess., H. Rep. 101-952 at
339 (1990) (Conference Report) as an example of legislative
history reflecting an. emphasis on-maximum reductions. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the report states that MACT
standards would generally be stricter than NSPS and stricter
than RACT. The commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that the Act
indicated that MACT standards would often be stricter than
LAER and BACT standards by allowing some sources subject to
all three to delay compliance with MACT standards for five
years to avoid retrofitting.
Response; The MACT floor was determined as discussed in
section 4.1. The cost-benefit analysis is to determine if it
is feasible to set MACT at a level higher than the MACT floor.
The options above the floor that were examined are
technologically feasible, and are based on technologies in use
4-11,
-------
at some refineries, but would be more costly than the floor.
Section 112(d) of the Act specifically states that MACT
decisions are, to consider costs of achieving the emissions
reductions, non-air quality health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements. Thus, costs and benefits of options
above the floor can be considered.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-59) contended that if the
EPA defines source broadly and cost effectiveness determines
MACT, the cost effectiveness of the source-wide reductions for
the broader source definition, not the cost effectiveness of
individual pieces of equipment, must be the basis for MACT.
; Response: Typically, different controls, are applied to
process vents, storage, wastewater, and equipment leak
emission sources. Thus, the only way to determine costs and
costs effectiveness is to calculate costs for each emission
point. Costs determined for individual emission points would
simply be summed to get total source costs and cost
effectiveness. Cost effectiveness for each kind of emission
point can, therefore, be used in selecting MACT alternatives
above the floor. Also, by evaluating the emission points
separately, the most cost effective, or optimum, control
option can be selected for each source type. (For example, if
process vents Option 1 is much more cost effective to control
than equipment.leaks Option 1, the method used, by EPA would
allow this determination to be made and the process vents
option would be selected while the equipment leaks option
would not. If the analysis were made on a refinery basis, as
has been suggested, MACT floor results would be overly
influenced by the process vent results and a cost-ineffective
option for equipment leaks might be chosen because it would be
overshadowed by the process vents numbers.) There would only
be a difference in the overall cost effective results if ,
control combinations of equipment at a refinery are different
than typical combinations. Otherwise, the approach will not
have an impact.
4-12
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-46) supported the use of
criteria such as pollution prevention, environmental equity,
affordability and technological innovation in determining the
MACT level of control because it will make the regulation more
equitable. The commenter (IV-D-46) recommended that the
criteria be distinctly defined and the reasons for including
them prove that their inclusion is for the betterment of the
regulation. The commenter (IV-D-46) suggested that it be made
apparent how the criteria are to be implemented and the degree
of influence they have on the MACT floor. The commenter
(IV-D-46) stated that this will make the process effective, as
opposed to complicated. .
Response; The benefits of the standard are evaluated as
part of evaluating MACT. Emissions reductions, non-air
quality impacts, including health impacts, and cost and
economic impacts were considered in selecting MACT. The
format of the rules allows for pollution prevention
techniques. The rationale for the MACT decisions, considering
these factors, is discussed in the proposal and promulgation
preambles. MACT, however, cannot be less stringent than the
MACT floor. The MACT floor decision is based only on the
current level of control in the industry and the Act does not
allow for consideration of benefits and costs in determining
the floor.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-54) requested that the
wastewater provisions be tightened up since HAP's will be
emitted from wastewater streams also.
Response: Control of wastewater streams is required by
the rule. These provisions are based on the floor level of
control. Control beyond the floor was determined to be cost
prohibitive.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-40) suggested providing •
more incentive beyond the current philosophy of merely meeting
TRE's or concentration limits by allowing measures such as a
lower percent reduction or higher concentration limits for
pollution prevention instead of end-of-pipe controls.
4-13
-------
Response; The proposed regulation encourages pollution
prevention several ways. While the applicability for control
is based on emission or concentration levels, the means of
control is left for the facility to determine. For example, a
condenser instead of a combustion device could be used to
recover product in a process vent stream if it can reduce
emission rate or concentration to below the applicability
level. The storage controls (floating roofs) and equipment
leak controls (leak detection and repair) are pollution
prevention techniques.
Emissions averaging also encourages pollution prevention.
Averaging allows facilities the flexibility to control
different emission points and potentially use pollution
prevention technology.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-59) contended that using
the marginal cost effectiveness of controls as the criteria
for setting MACT is unacceptable if the standard is based on
averaging. The commenter (IV-D-59) stated that averaging
allows sources to forego the relatively high marginal costs of
control at certain emission points in exchange for,
presumably, cheaper reductions elsewhere. The commenter
(IV-D-59) urged that the EPA must require the maximum
achievable reductions from sources.
Response;- : The standard is based on maximum achievable
emission reductions, considering cost and other factors as
required by the Act. The purpose of averaging is to allow
facilities the flexibility to select the most cost-effective
emission points to achieve the maximum achievable reductions
required by the standard. The incremental costs estimated by
EPA reflect the typical costs of control for each kind of
emission point, and are appropriate to use in considering
alternatives above the floor. In most cases, the estimated
cost impacts are representative of the costs that refineries
will incur in complying with the standard. Many refineries
are expected to comply with the standards for each kind of
emission point without using emissions averaging. It is
4-14
-------
expected that emissions averaging will be used mainly in cases
where site-specific factors'make costs of control for an
emission point higher than those estimated by the EPA.
4-15
-------
-------
5.0 PROCESS VENT PROVISIONS
5.1 DEFINITION OF MISCELLANEOUS PROCESS VENTS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) offered support for
identifying process vents by name, rather than a partial list
of examples, to simplify interpretation. The commenter
(IV-D-21) claimed that difficulty would' result because some
emissions could be considered process vents, but are better
regulated with their associated equipment.
Response: The miscellaneous vent definition was
developed to be a comprehensive definition to allow all
process vents emitting a significant quantity of HAP's to be
regulated. Listing vents by name may cause vents that should
be controlled, according to the MACT floor analysis, to be
excluded. Vents of the same name may have significantly
different HAP emissions in different refineries.
Additionally, the absence of a vent may suggest that it is
excluded, while it may have been omitted as an oversight or
included under another name. Lis'ting every possible process
vent would be a time-consuming task that would provide little
benefit. The EPA contends that the existing definition is
sufficient in this regard.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-21,
IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-38, IV-D-51) supported expanding the
definition of miscellaneous process vents to include a
pressure threshold, below which delayed coker decoking
emissions may be vented to the atmosphere without control.
Three commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-38, IV-D-51) suggested
that "depressuring at or below a coke drum outlet pressure of
10 psig" or similar wording be added to the final sentence of
the proposed definition along with the other coker operations
5-1
-------
that are not considered process vents. -The commenters
(IV-D-21, -IV-D-38) explained the typical coker operations
prior to coke drum unheading, including venting the drum to
the atmosphere once the drum pressure is approximately
10 psig. One commenter (IV-D-21) estimated HAP emissions
vented during coker operation to be five pounds per year for a
95,000 bpcd coker. Four commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21,
IV-D-25, IV-D-38) asserted that a MACT floor analysis would
support that there is no incentive for controlling emissions
from coke drums depressured to 10 psig or less prior to
deheading.
One commenter (IV-D-38) suggested that "repressuring
operations at or below 10 psig" also be added to the coker
operations that are not considered a process vent. The
commenter (IV-D-38) suggested further wording changes to the
definition.
One commenter (IV-D-10) added that ducting or compressing
the steam vapors from the coke drum into a quench system would
allow air to enter the fuel gas system and potentially create
an explosion hazard, and other systems may create back
pressure at the coke drum and compromise safety during the
deheading process.
Response; The portion of the definition of miscellaneous
process vents- that- exclude specific coke-r- operations has been
amended to read as follows: "Coking unit vents associated
with coke drum depressuring at or below a coke drum outlet
pressure of 15 psig, deheading, draining or decoking (Coke
cutting)." The EPA has elected to set the pressure at or
below which emissions from coke drum depressuring do not
require control at 15 psig to encourage vapor recovery. Many
cokers have vapor recovery systems in which overhead vapors
from coke drums are cooled and condensed. Uncondensed gases
are recycled to the main fractionator or flared. According to
information received subsequent to the formal comment period,
the threshold of 10 psig suggested by several commenters
applies to older vapor recovery systems which depend on
5-2
-------
flaring. Newly constructed, state-of-the-art design cokers
have efficient closed collection systems that operate at up to
15 psig and recycle vapors to the fractionator. These systems
minimize flaring and maximize* vapor recovery. Operating such
a system at 10 psig would mestn more flaring, which is contrary
to the design purpose of maximum vapor recovery.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25, IV-D-38,
IV-D-53) supported the proposed definition of miscellaneous
process vents, which exempts FCC regeneration vents. One
commenter (IV-D-53) disagreed with the exclusion of catalyst
regeneration vents from fluid catalyst cracking units in the
.definition of miscellaneous process vents. The commenter
(IV-D-53) suggested that vents that exhaust from the control
device of a FCC also be included in the definition of
miscellaneous process vents. The commenter (IV-D-53) argued
that exhausts from FCC units are not exclusively metallic and
particulate. The commenter (IV-D-53) contended that FCC units
that use low temperature catalyst regeneration without the use
of a CO boiler have significant hazardous organic emissions.
The commenter (IV-D-53) provided emission factors to compare
emissions controlled by a CO boiler to emissions that are
uncontrolled. The commenter (IV-D-53) suggested a basis for
determining the MACT floor for existing sources as well as new
sources-. .The commenter (IV-D-53) also suggested ways that
older units can control their hazardous gaseous and
particulate emissions and cited an FCC unit in Wisconsin as an
example of a successful retrofit on emission-controlling
equipment.
Response; FCC catalyst regeneration vents are not
included in the definition of miscellaneous process vents
because emissions from FCC regeneration vents and control
technologies for FCC regeneration vents are significantly
different from miscellaneous process vents. While emissions
from FCC catalyst regeneration vents are not exclusively
metallic or particulate, the HAP's emitted are primarily metal
HAP's. The petroleum refineries NESHAP specifically regulates
5-3
-------
organic HAP emissions. FCC catalyst regeneration vents will
be addressed in a future regulation.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-36, IV-G-08) urged that
catalyst regeneration vents from Thermofor Catalytic Cracking
(TCC) units be added to the list of exemptions under the
definition of miscellaneous process vents. One commenter
(IV-D-36) claimed that the rationale for excluding FCC
catalyst regeneration vents, that the emitted HAP's are
significantly different and would be controlled differently
compared to other refinery emissions, is applicable to TCC
catalyst regeneration vents. The commenters (IV-D-36,
IV-G.-08) explained that while TCGt's and FCC's differ in
design, they perform the same function. Another commenter
(IV-D-20) explained that most TCC's are found in smaller
refineries which are expected to bear the heaviest economic
burden from the proposed rule. One commenter (IV-G-08)
included a diagram and a process description of a TCC.
Two commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-36) pointed out that TCC's
were included in the preamble among examples of units which
should be exempted from this rulemaking. Two commenters
(IV-D-36, IV-G-08) stated that the EPA has previously
indicated that the exclusion of TCC's from the exemption list
in the definition was an oversight.
One commenter (IV-D-36)- provided that some—information
concerning TCC catalyst regeneration vent emissions, control
technology and achievable control does not exist. The
commenter (IV-D-36) predicted that if TCC's catalyst
regeneration vents are included, data acquisition would be a
problem for the EPA and operator of these units.
One commenter (IV-D-20) contended that if the EPA does
not exclude non-fluidized bed catalytic cracking units, then
they should recognize that, unlike all the other miscellaneous
process vents, these units involve combustion. The commenter
(IV-D-20) recommended requiring non-fluidized bed catalytic
cracking units to add on a combustion device only if the CO
levels in the exit stream of the regenerator exceed 500 ppm, a
5-4
-------
good indicator of complete combustion, taken from the
subpart J NSPS for Refineries.
Two commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-25) suggested that the
exclusion for "fluidized catalytic cracking units catalyst
regeneration vents" be changed to "catalytic cracking unit
regeneration vents" because this is the more generic term for
such vents.
One commenter (IV-D-36) requested an extension of the
comment period for 120 days if catalyst regeneration vents for
TCC's are not included in the exemptions in the definition of
miscellaneous process vents. The commenter (IV-D-36) stated
that this time is required to Acquire and submit data on the
emissions characteristics of TCC's, the available control
technology and the level of control achieved by existing
TCC's.
Response: The EPA agrees that TCC's are similar in
operation and emissions characteristics to FCC units and
therefore should be similarly regulated. All references to
catalytic cracking in the definition of miscellaneous process
vents have been amended from "fluidized catalytic cracking" to
"catalytic cracking" to allow the same exemptions for TCC
units as FCC units. Emissions from TCC unit catalyst
regeneration vents will be addressed with FCC unit catalyst
regeneration vents in a future regulation scheduled for
development in 1997.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that
emissions from combustion devices be specifically excluded
since MACT for process vents is combustion.
Response; Combustion devices such as boilers and heaters
are not addressed by this regulation. Therefore, it is not
necessary to specifically exclude vents from combustion
devices from the definition of miscellaneous process vents.
The vent definition already excludes vents routed to refinery
fuel gas systems.
5-5
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) requested that
refineries that do not have fuel gas systems due to lack of
vapors be exempt from process vent provisions.
Response; Routing miscellaneous process vents to
refinery fuel gas system is not the only means of control
allowed by this regulation. Miscellaneous process vents
requiring control may be combusted in a refinery flare. Any
combustion device or other non-recovery control device that
reduces HAP's in a miscellaneous process vent stream by
98 percent reduction or to 20 ppmv is an acceptable control
technology. Pollution prevention or recovery devices can also
be-used to reduce emissions belotf the cutoff level, and
thereby avoid need for add-on control.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-38) suggested
clarifying the vents definition to exclude storage tank vents.
One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that PV or conservation vents
found on fixed roof storage vessels should not be considered
process vents, as long as they are not required to have a
closed vent system and control device by subpart CC. The
commenter (IV-D-21) requested confirmation of this
interpretation.
Response: The following was added to the exemptions in
the definition of miscellaneous process vents: "Vents from
storage vessels". Storage vessel vents are regulated under a
separate section of the proposed regulation. This change was
made to provide clarity for the definition of miscellaneous
process vents.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) requested clarification
of whether scrubbers are included or excluded from the
definition of "miscellaneous process vents."
Response; Miscellaneous process vents are defined as '"a
gas stream containing greater than 20 parts per million by
volume organic hazardous air pollutant that are continuously
or periodically discharged during normal operation of a
petroleum refining unit " with some exceptions. One of
these exceptions is "vents from control devices such as
5-6
-------
scrubbers, boilers, incinerators, and electrostatic
precipitators applied to catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regeneration vents, catalytic reformer regeneration vents, and
sulfur plant vents." A gas stream from a scrubber is a
miscellaneous process vent unless it contains less than
20 parts per million by volume organic hazardous air
pollutants or is a control device for one of the vents
described above.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the EPA
should exclude all vents from sulfur recovery plant operations
from the rule, including vents not from the "process", such as
sulfur storage pits, and from SRU tail gas units. The
commenter (IV-D-09) contended that the EPA should treat SRU's
as a whole in its next phase of refinery MACT rulemaking.
Response: The definition of miscellaneous process vents
excludes sulfur plant vents. All vents from sulfur plants
will be addressed in a future regulations scheduled for
development in 1997. This regulation will address all vents
from sulfur recovery units, both process and non-process, as
suggested by the commenter. The current definition does not
differentiate between process and non-process vents from
sulfur plants, but exempts "Sulfur Plant vents". The EPA
intends this exemption to be inclusive of all vents from
sulfur plants and contends that it is- not necessary -to revise
the current definition.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that process
vent provisions should specifically exempt wastewater systems,
tanks, Merox Treaters, Perco Treaters, and Hydrogen plant
vents because these vents are either covered in another
section of the regulation or are a negligible source of HAP's.
The commenter (IV-D-06) asserted that emissions from tanks and
wastewater systems are already regulated by the sections of
the rule concerning storage tanks and wastewater. The
commenter (IV-D-06) added that Merox treaters and Perco
treaters are catalytic processes used to remove mercaptans
from gaseous and light liquid streams. The commenter
5-7
-------
(IV-D-06) stated that the only process stream vented to the
atmosphere is labeled exeess air 'and is only vented during
startup and malfunction. The commenter (IV-D-06) compared the
vents operation to a pressure relief valve. The commenter
(IV-D-06) contended that the only emissions from hydrogen
plants are CO2 vents which do not contain any HAP. Therefore,
the commenter (IV-D-06) suggested that in order to reduce
administrative burden, the CO2 process vent from steam
reforming processes used to produce hydrogen be exempt from
requirements of the rule.
Response: Releases.due to start up, shutdown and
malfunction are not required to gieet the process vent emission
standards. This exemption is provided in § 63.6(f) of
subpart A (the NESHAP General Provisions). Vents with a HAP
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume or less are
not considered miscellaneous process vent as specified in the
definition of "miscellaneous process vents" in § 63.641 of
subpart CC. Such vents were excluded because they are
typically not controlled and because the combustion control
technologies that are the basis of the MACT standards cannot
consistently reduce emissions to less than 20 ppmv. The vents
described by the commenter are exempt from the miscellaneous
process vents provision by definition. However, sufficient
data has not been provided, to categorically exempt all vents
from all Merox units, Perco units, and Hydrogen Plants.
5.2 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-35) suggested that advanced
distillation processes be examined as an alternate control
strategy for miscellaneous process vents. The commenter
(IV-D-35) alleged that advanced distillation can reduce
furnace energy for distillation units by as much as 65 percent
with corresponding reductions in HAP's and VOC's. The
commenter (IV-D-35) claimed that advanced distillation could
result in a VOC reduction of 2 million Mg/yr nation-wide. The
commenter (IV-D-35) provided a paper further detailing
advanced,distillation. The commenter (IV-D-35) suggested that
5-8
-------
distillation units be separated from miscellaneous process
vents to utilize'the full potential of this new technology.
Response: The commenter suggested that advanced
distillation would reduce furnace energy and therefore the HAP
and VOC emissions. According to the paper provided, the HAP
and VOC reduction would be a result of decreased fuel
consumption in the furnace and the reduction would be in the
furnace emissions. Advanced distillation would not reduce
emissions vented from the distillation unit itself and this
regulation does not apply to emissions from furnaces.
Combustion devices (e.g., furnaces) are a possible control
-device to reduce organic HAP emissions from vents, not a,
miscellaneous process vent to be controlled. Furthermore, the
paper provided did not indicate that any refineries in the
United States were using advanced distillation. For these
reasons, advanced distillation was not considered as a control
strategy in determining the new or existing source MACT floor,
or in selecting MACT.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-17) stated that catalytic
incineration should be identified in the rule as an available
strategy for controlling HAP. The commenter (IV-D-17)
contends that catalyst technology has been proven to be
advantageous because, unlike flares, the effectiveness of the
technology can be measured. Additionally,.the .commenter
(IV-D-17) claims the catalytic incineration technology has
been proven in other applications to control VOC to greater
than 98 percent efficiency, whereas, destruction of VOC's in
process heaters or boilers may or may not reduce HAP by
98 percent or to 20 ppmv, depending on conditions. The
commenter (IV-D-17) gave no further details on catalytic
incineration technology.
One commenter (IV-D-41) suggested that the definition of
incinerator be modified to avoid discouraging the use of
catalytic incinerators. The commenter (IV-D-41) recommended
that the word "oxidation" be substituted for the word
5-9
-------
"combustion" wherever it appears in the definition of an
incinerator. . » •
Response; This regulation does not exclude the use of
catalytic incineration as a control device. The regulation
requires that the HAP's in a process vent stream be reduced by
98 percent or to 20 parts per million by volume. Catalytic
incineration is specifically mentioned as a possible control
option in § 63.644(ii).
5.3 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Database
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) asserted that the
process, vents provision should be withdrawn until the number
of vents that would be covered by this rule and their current
emission rates are determined. One commenter (IV-D-50) urged
the EPA to gain a clearer understanding of miscellaneous
process vents before proceeding with the rule because
miscellaneous process vent configurations differ significantly
from refinery to refinery and it is somewhat difficult to
standardize controls for the industry.
Response; The EPA provided several opportunities for
industry to provide data through two questionnaires and with
the proposal of this regulation. The EPA contends that any
information to be gained from industry regarding the number
and characteristics of miscellaneous process vents_has beeu-
obtained. The MACT floor and cost and emission impacts of
controlling miscellaneous process vents were reanalyzed after
proposal considering all available information, and the final
rule was revised considering the reanalysis. The process
vents provisions will not be withdrawn as promulgation of this
regulation is mandated by the statute schedule and subsequent
court order.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the
database developed from the section 114 survey overstates the
percentage of process vents controlled because facilities
tended to report vents which were already identified because
they are controlled. Small vents for which the facility had
5-10
-------
no data were less likely to be reported. Two commenters
(IV-D-10, IV-D-22) contended that the respondents to the MACT
floor survey did not fully understand the questionnaire and
may have only reported those vents that are controlled or that
a vent might have been so small that it was exempt under State
regulations and was not reported in the questionnaire at all.
The commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22) asserted that many
facilities could not report flow rates or compositions because
of a lack of data. One commenter (IV-D-21) estimated that the
number of vents reported was deficient by 100 vents per
refinery, most of them uncontrolled. One commenter (IV-D-22)
stated that the effect t>f underreporting was that average
emission factors are grossly overstated. Because of this
bias, two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22) requested the EPA to
recognize that miscellaneous process vents are not likely
controlled by the best performing 12 percent of the process
vents in the refinery source category. One commenter
(IV-D-21) does not believe that any refinery controls
100 percent of their miscellaneous process vents.
Response; The EPA recognizes that the percentage of
controlled vents in the database used to estimate emissions
may not have been representative of all refineries. The
database has been revised to include additional data received
concerning the number a.nd control -status of-miscellaneous
process vents. The addition of these data has decreased the
percentage of controlled vents from approximately 40 percent
to approximately 24 percent. Additionally, the EPA has
surveyed existing State regulations to provide information on
which miscellaneous process vents require control. The survey
indicated that the most stringent State regulations (in States
where refineries are located) do not require control of vents
with VOC or HAP emissions below a cutoff flowrate. The EPA
has developed an applicability criteria for the final rule
from the existing State regulations to define vents that
require control. The State regulations were used because the
database does not contain sufficient information on vent
5-11
-------
characteristics to allow determination of the cutoff included
in the miscellaneous*,process;vent component of the source-wide
MACT floor. Thus, the control requirement for miscellaneous
process vents is no longer based on the previous MACT floor
analysis.
5.3.2 Cost Impacts
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the EPA
significantly underestimated the cost-effectiveness and
emission reduction of controlling miscellaneous process vents
because it did not include necessary revisions to the
database. One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the cost-
effectiveness of controlling*, miscellaneous process vents = •
contained in the proposed rule for existing sources of
$l/700/Mg of HAP controlled is incorrect. The commenter
(IV-D-50) stated that once the emission estimates are revised,
it is likely that few controls will be needed or will be cost-
effective.
Response: No specific cost effectiveness estimates or
cost data were provided by these commenters. The cost and
emission reduction impacts analyses have been revised for
process vents to reflect the changes made to the process vents
database. The database has been revised to exclude emissions
from vents that do not fit the definition of miscellaneous
..process vents and to include additional data on the number.and
control status of process vents. Additionally, the method for
estimating emissions was revised such that data from process
units with relatively high VOC or HAP emissions are no longer
used to estimate emissions from process units for which
insufficient data was provided. Instead, more typical values
are used, as further described in other responses in this
section. Additional changes have been made to the emissions
estimate to allow the applicability criteria developed from
State regulations to be applied in estimating the emission
reduction. Using the revised database and estimating method,
VOC and HAP emission reductions and the cost effectiveness did
5-12
-------
not change significantly compared to the estimates provided at
proposal.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50) cautioned the EPA that
the cost of process vent emission controls are higher for a
small refinery than a large refinery on a per barrel basis and
that the expense of controlling some single emission points in
this area was as much as one-half million dollars. For these
reasons, the commenter (IV-D--50) , who referred to cost
information previously supplied to the EPA on vent emissions
controls for the FCCU regenerator, the sulfur recovery unit
vent, the CCR vent, and one miscellaneous process unit, urged
the EPA to explore and discuss the most cost-effective control:
measures before establishing requirements.
Response; The Clean Air Act does not allow cost
effectiveness to be taken into consideration in the
determination of the MACT floor. Cost effectiveness can be
considered in establishing standards more stringent than the
MACT floor. However, for the miscellaneous process vents
component of the source-wide MACT, the floor level of control
has been selected as MACT and the cost effectiveness of these
controls is not an issue.
5.3.3 Emissions Impact
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that wastewater
emissions and maintenance activities were- -improperly <• included
in the miscellaneous process vents determination. The
commenter (IV-D-44) alleged that the inclusion resulted in
higher than actual benefits estimates and over regulation of
the refining industry.
Response; The database used to estimate emissions has
been revised to exclude emissions from vents that do not meet
the definition of miscellaneous process vents. This includes
emissions from catalytic cracking catalyst regeneration,
catalytic reforming catalyst regeneration, coke drum deheading
and decoking, maintenance activities and wastewater. Several
changes have been made to the database and the method used to
estimate emissions. The HAP emissions estimate increased
5-13
-------
slightly and cost, effectiveness did not change significantly
as a result of the preanalysis. The revised estimate of
emission reduction from miscellaneous process vents is
6,412 Mg/yr (7,068 ton/yr) HAP.
The EPA would like to point out that the effect of
emissions from process vents on the benefits analysis is
small. The benefits analysis was most affected by data
regarding emissions from equipment leaks. The equipment leaks
data provided the speciation of HAP compounds used in the
benefits analysis. The only information included regarding
process vents was the total estimated HAP emissions. The
speciation of HAP compounds sfrom equipment leaks was applied.
to the total HAP emissions from process vents to determine the
emissions of individual compounds. The small percentage of
process vent emissions that may have been associated with
wastewater and maintenance activities is an even smaller
percentage of all emissions from refineries with little effect
on the overall benefits analysis.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22, IV-D-25,
IV-D-50) disagreed with the emissions extrapolation
methodology using reformer emissions, and stated that the HAP
to other hydrocarbon ratio is different for reformer vents
than for other vents. Three of the commenters (IV-D-10,
XV-D-22, IV-D-50) urged the EPA to correct.nationwide HAP
emission estimates. Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22)
asserted that HAP and VOC survey data from a catalytic
reformer should not be used in the calculation to estimate HAP
and VOC emissions from alkylation and vacuum distillation
units because these vents are significantly different. One
commenter (IV-D-46) provided that methods for emissions
estimation from vacuum distillation units include material
balance, monitoring and parameter factoring, and the permitted
industry chooses from these for emissions reporting. The
commenter (IV-D-46) recommended that the EPA use these methods
consistently, in close consultation with industry and that
they apply extrapolation and assumptions correctly in the
5-14
-------
future to avoid disagreement over emissions estimates. One
commehter (IV-D-22) objected to the EPA utilizing refinery
wide averages to estimate emissions when none was available
instead of estimating emissions factors on the types of
compounds present within the various units.
Response: The EPA agrees that using an average HAP to
VOC ratio, which included reformer emissions, did not provide
an accurate estimate of emissions from process units for which
HAP or VOC data was not provided. The revised method for
estimating emissions significantly decreases the amount of
data extrapolated from one unit to another. In the few cases
where sufficient data is not available for a process unit, it ,
is either derived from a similar process unit or from the
median value for all process, units. Using the median value as
opposed to the average value decreases the impact that one
unit, with relatively high or low emissions, can have on the
extrapolated data. Further details on the revised methodology
and results of the analysis are contained in a memorandum in
docket No. A-93-48.
5.4 SELECTION OF MACT AND MACT FLOOR FOR PROCESS VENTS
5.4.1 Selection of MACT Floor for Process Vents
Comment; Two .commenters (IV-D-21, IV-^D-38) asserted that
the data used in performing the MACT floor analysis was
incomplete due to lack of -information on ^process vents. One
commehter (IV-D-21) recommended that the MACT floor be
reevaluated, using technical judgment and considering cost
effectiveness.
Response: The EPA agreies that the data provided by
industry for miscellaneous process vents, on which the process
vent component of the source-wide MACT floor analysis was
performed, was limited and may have incorrectly represented
the percentage of miscellaneous process vents controlled at
the best performing 12 percent of refineries. For this
reason, the EPA elected to ssurvey existing State regulations
that are applicable to miscellaneous process vents at
petroleum refineries to gain additional information. The EPA
5-15
-------
found that there are enough refineries subject to State
regulations for miscellaneous process vents that a conclusion
can be drawn regarding the requirements that the best
performing 12 percent of refineries must meet. The provisions
for the miscellaneous process vent component of the source-
wide MACT floor have been revised to reflect the current level
of control, required by State regulation, of the best
performing 12 percent of refineries. The EPA evaluated the
current level of control for miscellaneous process vents in
eight States and two air districts that contain the majority
of refineries and were expected to have the most stringent
regulations. Of-the refineries in the U.S., the iL2 percent .
that are subject to the most stringent regulations are located
in three States. In these three States, miscellaneous process
vents emitting greater than 6.8 to 45 kg/day (15 to
100 Ib/day) of VOC are required to be controlled. The median
applicability cutoff level for the 12-percent of U.S.
refineries subject to the most stringent regulations is
33 kg/day VOC (72 Ib/day VOC). Thus, control of vents with
VOC emissions greater than 33 kg/day VOC (72 Ib/day) is the
miscellaneous process vent component of the source-wide MACT
floor for existing sources. The miscellaneous process vents
component of the source-wide MACT floor for new sources is
98 percent control of HAP's, .ofr=4:o 2 cuppas^-, -forevents with VOC .
emissions greater than 6.-8 kg/day (15 Ib/day), based on the
most stringent State regulation. The revised analysis is
documented in docket No. A-93-48.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-51)
recommended developing a TRE for refinery process vent
emissions as a mechanism for not applying MACT to individual
miscellaneous process vents that would otherwise be required
to install controls to meet the MACT floor criteria. One
commenter (IV-D-10) stated that a TRE option would recognize.
the floor as a type of control device reported at the top
12 percent level and would also recognize the diversity in the
characteristics of miscellaneous process vent streams.
5-16
-------
Several commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-25, IV-D-29, IV-D-38)
suggested that a methodology similar to the TRE in the SOCMI
HON should be used to segregate vents requiring control. One
commenter (IV-D-19) stated that this would insure those with
greatest potential HAP emissions are controlled. The
commenter (IV-D-19) cited section 112(d) of the Act as
allowing the EPA to consider characteristics of sources in
establishing MACT standards, and requiring that cost and
energy be taken into consideration. The commenter (IV-D-19)
asserted that the EPA has the authority to limit control of
process vents to those for which an economic justification is
made for control.
Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-25, IV-D-51) suggested
using the TRE equations from the HON with a cost-effectiveness
criteria of $5,000/Mg HAP reduction. Two commenters (IV-D-10,
IV-D-25) reasoned that the HON equations were appropriate
because the process vent controls, flaring and incineration,
are the same. One of the commenters (IV-D-25) compared vent
characteristics and control costs for 3 refinery process vents
and found them to be within the parameters of the 680 vents
EPA used to develop the HON TRE. Two commenters (IV-D-10,
IV-D-25) stated that a common approach makes sense because
refinery and chemical units are often located at the same
site, -and-vents are routed^ to=a .cosaaon control system and some
States make no distinction in control requirements. Another
commenter (IV-D-38) asserted that there are similarities
between petroleum refinery vents and SOCMI vents, especially
regarding control technology. One commenter (IV-D-19) does
not agree that the same equations should be used, as
refineries and chemical plants are entirely different.
Two commenters (IV-D-lO, IV-D-25) asserted that, based on
an analysis of vents in the section 114 database, a $5,000/Mg
TRE cutoff would result in an increase in the number of
controlled vents from 48 percent to 66 percent, and an
increase in total process vent HAP emissions control from the
current 17 percent to 94 percent. One commenter (IV-D-19)
5-17
-------
recommended that the methodology developed be published in the
Federal Register for comment.
One commenter (IV-D-25) used the EPA's process vent
database to perform a MACT floor analysis they claimed was
similar to the approach EPA used for the HON. The commenter
(IV-D-25) used detailed data available for 17 vents to
characterize 190 vents in the database, and then used the RON
flare TRE equation to calculate cost effectiveness for the
190 vents. The commenter (IV-D-25) then defined the control
status of each vent by assuming that vents located outside
ozone classification areas were not controlled (regardless of
control status information in the database) . The actual ••" ',
reported control status was used for vents in ozone
classification areas 1-6. The commenter (IV-D-25) claimed
this was similar to the EPA's modeling approach for the HON.
The commenter then ranked the vents by ascending HAP emissions
and plotted HAP emissions and flare TRE cost effectiveness
against the cumulative percent of vents assumed to be
controlled. The commenter (IV-D-25) claimed that, using this
ranking, 12 percent of the vents are controlled (cumulative)
at an incremental cost effectiveness level of $5/000/Mg. The
commenter (IV-D-25) found higher cost effectiveness values if
the median or average cost effectiveness at the 12 percent
point was used .or -if the top-6---garcent-point-was-'used. The
commenter (IV-D-25) stated that a MACT floor in the range of
$3,000 to $5,000/Mg would result in control of 94 percent of
HAP emissions.
Response; As stated in the preamble to the proposed
regulation, sufficient data was not provided to develop a TRE
equation for miscellaneous process vents. This finding is
confirmed by the fact that sufficient data to characterize the
vents were available for only 17 out of 190 vents. In
particular, information would be needed on vent stream
characteristics, such as flow rate, heating value, and VOC and
HAP content. Given that such information is not available,
the EPA contends that the HON flare TRE equation may not be
5-18
-------
appropriate for miscellaneous process vents and that a cost
-effectiveness estimate derived using the HON flare TRE
equation may not be accurate for miscellaneous process vents.
Rather than Including a TRE in the rule, the miscellaneous
process vent component of the source-wide MACT floor has been
reassessed to include an emission rate cutoff. The cost
estimate and cost effectiveness of the regulation have been
recalculated to include the emissions cutoff. Directionally,
the cutoff decreases the number of vents that will be required
to be controlled and therefore decreases the cost of this
regulation. However, the daitabase used for estimating
emissions has been revised based on comments and;;Tdata received
regarding the number of vents that are uncontrolled and were
previously not reported. Consequently, the number of
uncontrolled vents nationwide has increased significantly.
The combination of increasing the number of uncontrolled vents
nationwide and adding the applicability criteria cutoff
results in a decrease in the number of vents that will be
required to be controlled. Additional revisions-made to the
database resulted in slightly lower emissions estimates for
VOC and slightly higher estimates of HAP emissions. The cost
effectiveness of this regulation for VOC increased by
approximately 63 percent compared to the cost effectiveness
presented at proposai- The -. oast per -jraegagram -of HAE reduction
decreased by approximately 7 percent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) requested the
development of a separate MACT floor for miscellaneous process
vents for small refineries.
Response; The EPA examined the question of whether
subcategorization would result in a different floor for small
refineries. The EPA has .elected to base the miscellaneous
process vent component of the source-wide MACT floor on
existing State regulations for miscellaneous process vents.
Of the regulations included in the analysis, none provided
requirements that varied according to the size of the
refinery. Using State regulations, it is not possible to
5-19
-------
justify less stringent requirements for small refineries.
Furthermore, the database indicates that combustion controls
are in use at a substantial number of vents at small
refineries, which also indicates that the floor would not be
significantly different. However, using the State regulations
has resulted in an applicability criteria for process vents
based on the mass flowrate of emissions. Vents emitting less
than 33 kg/day of VOC (72 Ib/day of VOC) from existing sources
and vents emitting less than 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) from new
sources will not be required to be controlled. These criteria
may allow more vents in small refineries to remain
uncontrolled as emissions are generally related to material .
throughput.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-59) maintained that a floor
control level based on TRE is illegal under the Act because it
is a cost effectiveness criteria and not an emissions level.
The commenter (IV-D-59) stated that it does not make sense to
use TRE in either case.
Response; The EPA has elected to base the determination
of the miscellaneous process vent component of the source-wide
MACT floor on State regulations and has not adopted a TRE
approach. However, the EPA would like to point out that a TRE
approach, had it been used, would have been legal as long as
it was used correctly. - --Bssacess verefcs" eould be .ranked using
cost effectiveness of control (or TRE) as a criteria. TRE
reflects several factors that effect emission rates and
likelihood of current control (flow rate, HAP concentration,
net heating value, and corrosion properties). Using one
parameter, such as TRE, simplifies the comparison. Once
ranked by TRE, the averag'e of the best performing 12 percent
would be determined. The TRE is simply used to characterize
which vents are controlled by the top 12 percent of sources.
No judgement on whether the cost is reasonable would enter
into the floor decision. The reader is referred to the
preamble and supporting documentation for the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (promulgated April 22, 1994, 59 FR 19402).
5-20
-------
5.4.2 Selection of MACT for Process Vents
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) suggested that the EPA
adopt a control requirement of 95 percent rather than
98 percent to encourage adoption of recovery methods and
promote pollution prevention.
Response: The requirement to control HAP emissions to
98 percent was based on the miscellaneous process vent
component of the source-wide MACT Floor and MACT analysis.
Control of HAP's to 98 percent is consistent with available
technology. Requiring control to 95 percent would be below
the level established as part of the MACT floor.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-54) supported the
provisions to require controls on all miscellaneous process
vents. The commenter (IV-D-54) also supported the 20 ppm
cutoff and the 98 percent control efficiency requirements.
Response; The EPA thanks the commenter for their
support, but notes that for reasons previously described, an
emission cutoff has also been added to the process vent
provisions.
5.4.2.1 Selection of Vents Requiring Control.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-38) supported adding a
regulatory "stopping point" to exempt vents that emit less
than a certain de minimis level of HAP from control. The
commenter suggested^a_de minimus level of15 pounds of HAP per
day. Another commenter (IV-D-21) proposed a de minimis rate
of 100 Ib HAP/day. One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that a
de minimis rate has the advantage of simplicity and is
consistent with Group I/Group 2 distinctions drawn by the EPA
for the HON and with approaches taken by various States.* The
commenter (IV-D-09) stated that if a de minimis rate approach
is taken, it should be consistent with the cutoff between
Group 1 and Group 2 vents in the HON.
Response; As stated in the preamble to the proposed
regulation, the data provided with which to develop the
miscellaneous process vent component of the source-wide MACT
floor was limited. The EPA requested additional data at
5-21
-------
The
proposal; few responses containing data that could be
incorporated into the MACT floor analysis were received.
EPA elected to survey existing State regulations as an
alternative method of determining the current level of control
of process vents. The most stringent regulations in States
with refineries did not require control of miscellaneous
process vents emitting less than a specified rate of VOC's or
HAP's. In order to determine which vents must be controlled,
as required by State regulations, at the best performing
12 percent of refineries, the refineries with miscellaneous
process vents subject to regulation were ranked by the
stringency of 'the applicable regulation. The, -asegulations were
compared according to the maximum rate of VOC or HAP emissions
that was allowed without control. The best controlled
refinery and the median of the best performing 12 percent of
refineries were then determined to determine the process vent
component of the MACT floor for new and existing sources. The
MACT floors were determined to include emission cutoffs, which
were incorporated into the regulation. As suggested by the
commenter, miscellaneous process vents will now be considered
either Group 1 or Group 2 vents. For existing sources,
miscellaneous process vents emitting 33 kg/day (72 Ib/day) or
more of VOC are Group 1 vents and will be required to be
controlledr For new soureesv miscel^eous process vents --..
emitting 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) or more of VOC are Group 1 and
will be required to be controlled. All other miscellaneous
process vents will be considered Group 2 miscellaneous process
vents and will not be required to be controlled.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-30, IV-D-36, IV-D-44)
requested a minimum flow or pressure, below which process
vents need not be controlled, be included in the definition of
miscellaneous process vents. Two commenters (IV-D-30,
IV-D-36) asserted that the standard is not cost effective
without a flow component. One commenter, (IV-D-30), claimed
that by limiting the definition to continuous streams with an
organic HAP concentration greater than 0.005 weight percent
5-22
-------
(50 ppmv), the controls would be required where they would be
most effective. One commenter (IV-D-10) supported a
volumetric flow cutoff of 0.1 m3/min. The commenter (IV-D-10)
asserted that at these cut-offs, the amount of HAP emission is
approximately 20 pounds/day. Another commenter (IV-D-22)
suggested a cut-off of 0.005 m3/min. Two commenters (IV-D-36,
IV-D-44) expressed support for commenter IV-D-22's suggestion
which would be consistent with the HON definition. One
commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that the definition will allow for
control of vents which may result in organic HAP emissions,
but will eliminate regulation of vents of de minimis volumes
and concentrations. Alternatively, two comtmetetersv (IV-D-10,
IV-D-22) stated that the EPA could use a volumetric cut-off
coupled with a de minimis concentration of 50 ppmv.
Response: As stated in a previous response, the EPA has
revised the miscellaneous process vents requirement to
incorporate information from State regulations regarding which
vents in refineries are currently required to be controlled.
An applicability criteria has been added to the process vent
provisions that will allow vents emitting less than 33 kg/day
(72 Ib/day) of VOC for existing sources [or less than
6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) of VOC for new sources] not to be
controlled. The State regulations involved in the analysis
all include- e±tiier VOCvcaz H&R iraass^-flowrate. cutoff s? -The mass
flowrate cutoff has been retained so as to most accurately
represent the existing requirements. To convert to a
volumetric or concentration cutoff would require making
assumptions about the vent stream characteristics that may not
be accurate for all vents. The EPA contends that the mass
flowrate cutoff developed seitisfies the commenters' requests
for a cutoff that allows vents with relatively low HAP
concentrations to be excluded from the control requirement
while most accurately reflecting the control requirements at
the best performing 12 percent of facilities. The 20 ppmv
cutoff has also been retainesd in the process vent definition.
The 20 ppmv was included in the proposal because the available
5-23
-------
control technologies cannot consistently reduce emissions
below 20 ppmv, therefore, it would be technically unreasonable
to require control of such vents.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-44) stated that the 20 ppmv
benzene concentration is burdensome and not cost effective.
Response; The EPA assumes that the commenter was
referring to the exclusion of process vents with a HAP
concentration of less than 20 parts per million in the
definition of miscellaneous process vents. This exclusion was
based on the finding that combustion.control, which represents
MACT for the miscellaneous process vent component of the
source-wide floor, is capable of reducingt-HAP conceriiaration by
98 percent or to 20 ppmv. Reducing the HAP concentration of
vent streams with concentrations less than 20 ppmv by
incineration may not be possible. Therefore, these vents are
not included in the definition of miscellaneous process vents.
The miscellaneous process vents provisions have been revised
so that vents emitting less than 33 kg/day (72 Ib/day) of VOC
for existing sources [6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new sources]
will not be required to be controlled. This revision is based
on information obtained from State regulations for
miscellaneous process vents. However, the State regulations
surveyed required that those vents requiring control be
incinerated or controlled to-.-ajnaqudval^nt.'level. > -Thereforef
the there is no basis for increasing the 20 part per million
exclusion from the definition of miscellaneous process vents.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-30) supported a control •
cut-off based on cost effectiveness.
Response; The Clean Air Act requires that standards are
not less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources. The MACT floor is determined from this requirement.
The Clean Air Act does not allow for the consideration of cost
effectiveness in the determination of the MACT floor. Cost
effectiveness can be taken into consideration in establishing
standards more stringent than the floor. The provisions of
5-24
-------
this component of the source-wide MACT are not more stringent
than the source-wide MACT floor, therefore, cost effectiveness
was not considered in their development.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10) contended
that if a TRE is not used then an alternative cut-off level
should be used. One commenter (IV-D-10) stated the EPA should
consider the regulations provided in Louisiana and Texas,
because these States have more than 12 percent of all refinery
miscellaneous process vent sources. Therefore the commenter
(IV-D-10) contended that the cut-offs provided in these States
should be used in the refinery rule (100 pounds of VOC/day or
-15 pounds HAP/day) . Another commenter (IVS*-.D*-&5) suggested
using State rules to determine which process vents require
control. The commenter (IV-D-25) cited Texas and Louisiana
rules which exempt vents emitting less than 100 Ib VOC/day
(16.6 Mg/yr) and San Francisco Bay Area rules which exempt
vents emitting less than 15 Ib VOC/day (2.5 Mg/yr). Based .on
these rules, the commenter (IV-D-25) suggested an exemption of
at least 15 Ib HAP/day. -
Response; The EPA agrees that State regulations provide
a good basis for determining a cutoff for miscellaneous
process vents requiring control. The EPA has surveyed
existing State regulations, including those applicable to
refineries irt iouisianar^Texas^and the= §an. Brancdseo Bay Area,
and used this information to develop the applicability
criteria to be included in the miscellaneous process vents
provisions. • For existing sources, miscellaneous process vents
emitting less than 33 kg/day (72 Ib/day) of VOC will not be
required to be controlled. This cutoff corresponds to the
cutoff that the median of the best performing 12 percent of
facilities must comply with according to State regulations.
For new sources, miscellaneous process vents emitting less
than 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) of VOC will not be required to be
controlled. This cutoff "corresponds to the level the best
performing facility must comply with according to State
regulations.
5-25
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-46) stated that the
applicability levels for RON appear suitable for miscellaneous
process vents because they represent emissions of no more than
the fugitive emissions from a valve subject to LDAR. The
commenter (IV-D-46) contended that a stricter limit would have
little benefit.
Response; As stated in previous responses, applicability
criteria has been developed for miscellaneous process vents
from existing State regulations. The regulations included in
the analysis were all determined to be applicable to
miscellaneous process vents at petroleum refineries. The EPA
contends that using these State-regulations!as a basis is the
most accurate method currently available for determining which
vents are currently being controlled.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that the flow
rate and concentration cutoffs are too low. The commenter
(IV-D-29) stated that most of these streams are already
recovered for their energy value or pollution control.
Response; The EPA assumes that the commenter is
referring to the exclusion of vents with HAP concentrations of
less than 20 ppmv from the definition of miscellaneous process
vents. The EPA disagrees with the comment that the majority
of miscellaneous process vent streams are currently being
.recovered. Based on data-rece ived.^from^ industry,_ it is
estimated that approximately 24 percent of miscellaneous
process vents are currently being controlled. It is estimated
that the percent of controlled vents will be increased to
approximately 40 percent by this regulation.
Comment; In response to the EPA's question of whether
the HAP content of the process vents is below the 20 ppmv
applicability level, one commenter (IV-D-45) stated that their
COTU's do not have process vents going to the atmosphere and
all gas produced in the refining operations is either recycled
for recompression and reuse or is routed to a continuous
flare. All pressure safety valves relieve to a continuous
flare system. One commenter (IV-D-23) maintained that all of
5-26
-------
the process vents from their 3,000 barrel per day refinery
contained greater than 20 ppmv of HAP.
Response; The EPA appreciates the information provided
by the commenters. The EPA would like to point out that not
all COTU's are covered by the proposed rule. The EPA suggests
referencing SIC 2911 to determine applicability of this
regulation to specific COTU's.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-35) challenged that the
proposed rule does not sufficiently promote pollution
prevention over pollution control. The commenter (IV-D-35)
suggested that a lower concentration limit be used for control
devices than prevention strategies.^. The commenter recommended
that the limit for the prevention-based concentration be no
less than 20 ppmv. One commenter (IV-D-40) stated that the
miscellaneous process vents controls should only be applicable
above 50 ppm as in the HON rule definition for a Group 1
process vent, so as to encourage pollution prevention.
Response; The EPA has determined for existing sources
that miscellaneous process vents emitting less than 33 kg/day
(72 Ib/day) of VOC are not required to be controlled. For new
sources, the level is 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day). This is the
MACT floor level of control for the miscellaneous process vent
component-which is the minimum level of control allowed by the
ŁAA.. .iThe^EPA_contends that wi^th this cutoff pollution
prevention is encouraged. If the concentration or emission
rate of HAP's in a miscellaneous process vent stream is
reduced to below the applicability cutoff, the vent stream is
not required to be controlled.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-40) requested that the rule
state that where storage vessel or wastewater vents are routed
through a recovery device that includes miscellaneous process
vents, no controls are required if the exit stream is reduced
to 50 ppm organic HAP's or less or if the exit stream meets
the TRE requirements of the HON, §-63.115. The commenter
(IV-D-40) stated that this would help encourage pollution
prevention.
5-27
-------
Response; If a recovery device is used to control
emissions from storage or wastewater streams, it must meet the
95 percent control requirements included in those regulations.
If emissions from process vents at the outlet of the recovery
device are above the emission cutoff (33 kg/day or 72 Ib/day
of VOC for existing sources and 6.8 kg/day or 15 Ib/day of VOC
for new sources), additional control is required by the
process vent provisions. The EPA contends that providing this
cutoff encourages pollution prevention. If a miscellaneous
process vent stream is reduced to below the applicability
criteria, it is not required to be controlled.
As previously-stated,-sufficient data was not provided an
response to requests for information regarding miscellaneous
process vents to develop "TRE equations. According to
industry, additional data is not available. Therefore, the
rule does not include TRE equations for miscellaneous process
vents.
5.4.2.2 Selection of MACT Technology.
comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) encouraged using
product recovery before destruction as a means of better air
management because it would reduce the quantity of secondary
pollutants generated from combustion.
Response; The EPA contends that recovery is encouraged
-toy thsse. standards by.providing-^'.HAP emission rate cutoff
below which miscellaneous process vent are not required to be
controlled. A recovery device can be used to reduce emissions
to below this cutoff.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-36) supported combustion as
the selected level of control. One commenter (IV-D-57) stated
that there is a difference between control efficiency and
environmental benefit between various control devices that can
be used to meet the 98 percent control requirement in the
process vent provisions. The commenter (IV-D-57) recommended
for new sources that the rule should require the use of an
incinerator rather than allowing the use of a flare because
the firebox provides higher temperatures and longer residence
5-28
-------
times and therefore more complete combustion than a flare.
Another commenter (IV-D-46) provided that-Texas routinely
requires new sources to route to flares but expressed concern
about retrofitting existing sources. The commenter (IV-D-46)
did not have cost data to provide.
Response; The Clean Air Act requires that standards for
new sources are not less stringent than the emission control
level achieved by the best controlled similar source. For
existing sources, standards may not be less stringent than the
emission limitation achieved by the average of the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources. Numerical emission
standards must be established unless it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard. Only in such a
case is a design, equipment, or work practice standard allowed
(section 112(h) of the Act). Industry responses to ICR and
section 114 questionnaires indicated that the best controlled
source, and the best controlled 12 percent of sources achieve
emission limitation through combustion control. In developing
previous NSPS and the HON, it has been determined that
combustion achieves at least a 98 percent reduction in organic
HAP or a 20 ppmv outlet concentration. Thus, as required by
the Act, the EPA has established a numerical emission standard
of 98 percent HAP reduction or 20 ppmv outlet concentration.
-&L flarev incinerator,? boiler, = or any other npn-recovery
control device that can achieve the required level of control
can be used to comply with the emission standard.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) claimed that controls
should not be proposed based on reformer emissions since many
small refiners do not have reformers.
Response; The EPA agrees that the VOC to HAP ratio from
reformer emissions is not applicable to other units. The
miscellaneous process vents provisions have been revised to
include information obtained by surveying State regulations
for miscellaneous process vents. The result is the inclusion
of applicability criteria which will allow vents emitting less
than the cutoff not to be controlled. Additionally, the
5-29
-------
method for estimating emissions, which was influenced by
reformer emissions, has been revised. The revised method for
estimating emissions significantly decreases the amount of
data extrapolated from one unit to another. In the few cases
where sufficient data is not available for a process unit, it
is either derived from a similar process unit or from the
median value for all process units. Using the median value as
opposed to the average value decreases the impact that one
unit, with relatively high or low emissions, can have on the
extrapolated data.
The EPA examined the question of whether
subcategorization would result in* .a sdiff erent floor for small
refineries. The EPA has elected to base the miscellaneous
process vent component of the source-wide MACT floor on
existing State regulations for miscellaneous process vents.
Of the regulations included in the analysis, none provided
requirements that varied according to the size of the
refinery. Using State regulations, it is not possible to
justify less stringent requirements for small refineries.
' Furthermore, the database indicates that combustion controls
are in use at a substantial number of vents at small
refineries, which also indicates that the floor would not be
significantly different. However, use of the State
.reflations, has ^resulted, in applicability ..criteria for process
vents based on the mass flowrate of emissions. Vents emitting
less than 33 kg/day of VOC (72 Ib/day of VOC) for existing
sources or 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new sources will not be
required to be controlled. These criteria may allow more
vents in small refineries to remain uncontrolled as emissions
are generally related to material throughput.
5.5 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION FOR PROCESS VENTS
5.5.1 Testing
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that
Method 18 analysis not be required where engineering judgment
can be used to determine if a process vent's emissions exceed
5-30
-------
20 ppm organic HAP's, unless the permitting authority
disagrees with the "engineering judgment.
Response: The testing requirements of § 63.645 of the
regulation are applicable only to miscellaneous process vents
as defined in § 63.641. Vents with organic HAP concentrations
less than 20 ppm are exempt from this definition and
therefore, not subject to the requirements of § 63.645. This
regulation does not include monitoring, testing, recordkeeping
of reporting requirements for vents that are not, by
definition, miscellaneous process vents. The owner/operator
will need to determine which vents at a facility must comply
with this regulation.?-; -,The method used for this determination
may be chosen based on the owner/operators discretion.
Owner/operators are encouraged to .retain -.records of the
methods used in this determination in order to be able to show
compliance with this regulation.
In addition, the EPA has allowed the use of Method 25A to
measure TOC concentration. If the Method 25A results show
that vent emissions are less than 3a*kg VOC/day (72 Ib/day)
for existing sources and 6.8 kg/day (15 Ib/day) for new
sources, then the vent is a Group 2 vent and is exempt from
control. If the TOC emissions are greater than the VOC cut-
off, the owner or operato.r can use Method 18 to speciate the
tHon-VOG compounds-inBorder 4:o determine if the VOC emissions
are below the VOC cut-off.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-59) recommended performance
tests for all types of control devices used on vents,
including boilers and process heaters larger than 44 MW, in
order to make sure that the device remains in good repair and
is being operated properly. Conversely, one commenter
(IV-D-09) supported lowering the threshold for exemption from
boiler/heater firebox temperature monitoring and performance
tests from 44 MW to 2.9 MW. The commenter (IV-D-09) contended
that there was no reason to believe that the combustion
characteristics of smallerCheaters/boilers are much different
than larger ones. The commenter (IV-D-09) stated that
5-31
-------
lowering the threshold to 2.9 MW makes the provisions of this
rule consistent with precedent set by the EPA~in the NSPS for
small industrial-commercial steam generating units.
Response; The EPA has re-examined the process vent
requirements for boilers and process heaters, and revised the
initial performance test requirements and monitoring
requirements to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden,
while maintaining appropriate control levels. The MACT floor-
analysis for process vents shows that 98 percent reduction of
HAP's is the MACT floor level of control for the miscellaneous
process vent component of the source-wide floor. This control
level can be achieved* nosing several types of combustion
devices, such as flares and incinerators. The EPA's
information shows that boilers or process heaters larger than
44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) typically operate at temperatures
and residence times necessary to achieve 98 percent reduction
or greater, while boilers or process heaters smaller than
44 MW are frequently not operated to achieve the 98 percent
requirement. Analysis also shows that when vent streams are
introduced into the flame zone, over a 98 percent reduction is
achieved. The EPA references "Reactor Processes in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Background
Information for Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-90-016b,
, March 199-3 to. support this .conclusion. ' Therefore, the final
rule does not require an initial performance test or
monitoring of boilers or process heaters with a minimum heat
input of 44 MW, or of boilers or process heaters smaller than
44 MW if the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone.
The flame zone is defined in the final rule as the portion of
a combustion chamber of a boiler or process heater occupied by
the flame envelope created by the primary fuel. If the vent
stream is not introduced into the flame zone for boilers or
process heaters less than 44 MW an initial performance test
and continuous monitoring of temperature are required in order
to ensure that the boiler or process heater is operating
properly and at temperatures and residence times that would
5-32
-------
control HAP emissions by 98 percent. The EPA considers these
requirements to-effectively ensure the MACT floor level of
control for all boilers is being met, while also reducing the
burden on the industry.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) generally supported the
EPA's proposed test methods for process vents, and
additionally added that the rule should: (1) include EPA
Methods 3, 3A, and 4 for measuring vent stream flow rate to
account for the moisture in the flow; (2) change the total
organic compounds limits to reference the calibration gas
(e.g., ppmv ethane or propane) used if Method 25A is allowed
as an- alternativevto Method 18 for demonstrating compliance of
control devices; and (3) provide the State or local agencies
the flexibility to use alternative approv.ed_.methods (e.g.,
Method 25) instead of prescribed methods without requiring a
section 112(1) equivalency submittal.
Another commenter (IV-D-22) opposed EPA not allowing
Method 25A for demonstrating compliance. The commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that the EPA's rationale for not allowing it
fails to recognize that all of the other pre-approved
continuous compliance methods are concerned only with overall
efficiency, and not with HAP specific controls.
Response: Methods 2, 2A, 2C or 2D were chosen as the
= preferred test^medbhod for determining vent ..Jlow rates in part
because the regulation specifies that flows and concentrations
be calculated on a dry basis. Other alternatives for
demonstrating compliance with the process vents provision
which do not include the use of Method 2 are available.
Engineering assessment may be used to determine the TOC
emission rate. Engineering assessment includes estimation of
maximum flow based on physical equipment design such as pump
or blower capacities. Additionally, alternate methods for
measuring may be used if validated according to Method 301 of
40 CFR part 63, Appendix A.
The EPA has also decided to allow the use of Method 25A
to determine TOC concentration of the vent stream. The EPA
5-33
-------
recognizes that Method 18 is useful if speciation of emissions
is required, but that it- is also a costly procedure. Because
the refinery emission cut-off is on a VOC basis (33 kg VOC/day
for existing sources and 6.8 kg/day for new sources), it is
not necessary to determine speciated VOC emissions or to
separate total HAP emissions. However, Method 25A only
measures TOG concentration, including non-VOC compounds such
as ethane. The EPA cannot increase the cut-off to a TOG cut-
off in terms of parts per million ethane to incorporate non-
VOC compounds because this adjustment would be less stringe.nt
than the floor. In addition, the EPA does not have data to
make this adjustment intreifetssion cut-off. Therefore, i*f
Method 25A shows that emissions from a process vent are
determined to T&e' *>elow the VOC cut-off (33 kg VOC/day for
existing sources and 6.8 kg/day for new sources) the vent is a
Group 2 vent and is exempt from control. However, if
Method 25A shows that the vent VOC emissions are greater than
33 kg/day or 6.8 kg/day (as applicable), the owner or operator
will be required to control the vent unless they can prove the
VOC emissions are below the applicability criteria by
speciating out the non-VOC compounds. The owner or operator
may use Method 18 (or an alternative method if validated by
Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A) to determine vent
speciation.
5.5.2 Monitoring
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-30) requested that the
threshold for boilers or process heaters required to install a
temperature monitoring device with a continuous recorder be
reduced from 150 MMBtu/hr to 40 MM Btu/hr or less. One
commenter (IV-D-29) provided that oil field steam generators
equal to or under 65 MMBtu/hr have been used in California to
burn vapors without problems. Another commenter (IV-D-44)
disagreed with the selection of 150 MMBtu/hr as heater size
not to require monitoring. The commenter (IV-D-44) claimed
that the size was selected from the HON, and that refinery
HAP's are not as difficult to destruct as chlorinated solvents
5-34
-------
found in SOCMI units, nor are the flow rates as high. The
commenter (IV-D-44) suggested that the ^minimum size be lowered
to 50 MMBtu/hr.
Response; As discussed in responses to comments on test
methods, the EPA has re-examined the process vent requirements
for boilers and process heaters, and revised the initial
performance test requirements and monitoring requirements to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden:. The MACT floor
analysis for process vents shows that 98 percent reduction of
HAP's is the MACT floor level of control for the process vent
component of the source-wide floor. This control level can be
achieved using?several types of combustion devices, such as
flares and incinerators. For the reasons presented in the
testing section (5.5.1), the final rule does not require an
initial performance test or monitoring of boilers or process
heaters with a minimum heat input of 44 MW, or for boilers or
process heaters smaller than 44 MW if the vent stream is
introduced into the flame zone. If the vent stream is not
introduced into the flame zone for boilers or process heaters
less than 44 MW an initial performance test and continuous
monitoring of temperature are required in order to ensure that
the boiler or process heater is operating properly and at
temperatures and residence times that would reduce HAP
emissions by 98. percent. •
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) stated that any vent
routed to a burner in a process heater or boiler should be
exempt from monitoring. The commenter (IV-D-44) asserted that
the requirement to mix waste gas with primary fuel gas prior
to destruction is unnecessary. The commenter (IV-D-44)
provided that boilers are designed for waste gas destruction
without mixing.
Response; The final rule has been revised to require
monitoring of temperature in boilers or process heaters less
than 44 MW if the vent stream is not introduced into the flame
envelope created by the primary fuel. The flame envelope
5-35
-------
generated by the primary fuel is at-required temperatures to
ensure 98 percent destruction of HAP's.
The EPA is concerned about situations in which vent
streams represent a small percentage of the total fuel input
to a boiler or process heater and are not mixed with the
primary fuel or introduced into the flame envelope generated
by the primary fuel to ensure destruction at sufficient
temperatures. When vent gases are fed to the combustion
system through a separate burner, the potential exists for a
"flame-out." There is greater potential for this in smaller
combustion systems. Large combustion systems use burner
•management -systems cthat reduce the potential for aa undetected
flame out. Smaller combustion systems are less likely to have
equipment, -srrch -as flame scanners, that automatically stops
the flow of vent gases that are used as secondary fuel in the
event of a burner flame out. Therefore, the EPA requires
monitoring of vent streams being used as a secondary fuel if
the vent stream is not introduced into the flame envelope
created by the primary fuel in boilers and process heaters
with heat inputs less than 44 MW.
5.6 RECORDKEEPING AND RECORDING FOR PROCESS VENTS
5.7 WORDING OF PROCESS VENT PROVISIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) requested that
acquirements for -combust ion --devices be stated, in BTU's since
equipment in the United States is rated in BTU's or horsepower
as opposed to megawatts. The commenter (IV-D-29) stated that
using megawatts confuses combustion with electrical
generation.
Response; Megawatts are used in the regulation because
it is a Federal government policy to use metric rather than
english units in regulations. Megawatts have been used in
several previous standards without causing confusion.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
§ 63.643(a)(2) be revised from "If a boiler or process heater
is used..." to "If a combustion device ..." or "If a boiler,
process heater, or gas turbine is used..." to be consistent
5-36
-------
with the commenter's proposed change to the definition of
process controls. The commenter" (TV-D-21)'' suggested that a
similar revision be made -to § 63.644 (a) (4) .
Response; The original wording of the proposed rule has
been retained in the final rule. This section of the rule was
intended to apply specifically to boilers and process heaters,
not other combustion devices.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) supported the
parenthetical inclusion in § 63.644(a)(2) of typical devices
for detecting the presence of a flare tip flame.
Response; The proposed wording has been retained.
Comment; • . One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that
§ 63.644(a)(3) and (4), describing different monitoring
options for control devices for process vents, as they are
written, appear to conflict. The commenter (IV-D-21)
suggested that "and all vents that are not introduced with
primary fuel" be added after "is used" in paragraph (4) to
distinguish this option from the one in paragraph (3).
Response; The wording of § 63 .,,644 (a) (3) has been changed
to exclude "any boiler or process heater with a design heat
input capacity greater than or equal to 44 megawatts" and "any
boiler or process heater in which all vent streams are
introduced into the flame zone" from monitoring. The wording
of § 63.644(a)(4) has been changed to require temperature
monitoring for "any boiler or process heater less than
44 megawatts design heat input capacity where the vent stream
is not introduced into the flame zone". "Flame zone" is
defined in § 63.641 as "the portion of the combustion chamber
of a boiler or process heater occupied by the flame envelope
created by the primary fuel".
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
"open-ended valves or lines and pressure relief valves needed
for safety reasons" be added to the list of equipment exempted
from § 63.644(c)(l) and (2) to provide clarity and consistency
with the HON.
5-37
-------
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made
the suggested change to provide claerity and consistency.
Open-ended lines and pressure relief valves are covered under
the equipment leak-provisions in § 63.648.
> Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) found the first
sentence of § 63.444(e) which requires an owner/operator to
operate a control device in a manner consistent with the
minimum or maximum operation parameter is unnecessary and
troublesome. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the
compliance range for an operation could have both a minimum
and maximum, the sentence should say "minimum and/or maximum"
or."minimum CTJ maximum-(as appropriate)." •*
Response; Depending on the type of device, the
acceptable'operating parameter range could have a maximum
value, minimum value, or both. Therefore, the change
suggested by the commenter.has been made.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that "an
excess emission" in the last sentence of § 63.644(e) should be
replaced with "a period of excess emissions" to avoid
misinterpretation.
Response; This sentence has been revised according to
the commenter's suggestion.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that in
table 5, >in the requirement for incinerators,, catalytic
incinerators and boilers or process heater to "report all
daily average temperatures that are outside the range
established in the NCS," "outside the range" be changed to
"below the minimum."
Response; The table uses "range" as a generic term. For
combustors where temperature is monitored, the acceptable
range will typically mean operating above a specified minimum
temperature. For other devices and parameters, a maximum
value or a range with both minimum and maximum values may be
appropriate. The range must be established on a site-specific
basis.
5-38
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-:21) suggested that
recordkeeping for flare pilot flames in table 5 should be
simplified. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that it is not
necessary to record when one pilot flame is absent and when
all pilot flames are absent since it should not be necessary
to keep records as long as one pilot is working. The
commenter (IV-D-21) suggested specific wording changes to
table 5.
Response: The table (which is table 10 of the final
rule) has been modified to require that the times and
durations when all pilot flames are absent be recorded. This
revision simplifies the recordkeeping requirement without
changing its original intent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested minor
editorial changes to the flare monitoring requirement in
§ 63.644(a)(2).
Response; The original wording of the proposed
regulation has been retained. The commenter did not provide a
reason for making the changes. The EPA contends that the
original wording is sufficiently clear and the suggested
changes would not provide any additional clarity.
5.8 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that the EPA
^modify—the definition of fuel *.gas. system to address shared.
systems between chemical and refinery processes that are not
necessarily physically located in refineries. The commenter .
(IV-D-05) expressed concern that the proposed definition would
set a precedent by not recognizing chemical plant fuel gas
systems as equivalent to identical systems which happen to be
physically located in refineries.
Response; The definition of fuel gas system includes
"offsite and onsite piping" which implies that systems that
are not physically located in .the refinery can be considered
part of the fuel gas system. It is the EPA's intention to
account for refineries and petrochemical plants with shared
5-39
-------
systems in the definition. The "EPA contends that the existing
definition-does this and therefore*tras not> been changed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that gas
turbines be added to the list of possible combustion devices
and control devices in the definitions section. The commenter
(IV-D-21) pointed out that combustion conditions can exceed
3000 °F and exit temperatures are equal to or higher than for
flares or incinerators. The commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that
studies and experts have confirmed that gas turbines meet or
exceed 98 percent organic HAP destruction.
Response: The specific devices listed in the definition
of combustdron. device are provided as examples. The definition
does not exclude gas turbines as combustion devices.
According tb~1;Ke" definition, a combustion device "means an
individual unit of equipment...used for the combustion of
organic hazardous air pollutant vapers." This definition has
been retained.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the
definition of "flame zone" not be limited to boilers, but it
be defined as "the portion of the combustion chamber of a
combustion device occupied by the flame envelope."
Response; The definition applies to both boilers and
process heaters. The EPA has decided not to expand the
_ definition *to .other, combustion devices.- .This section of the
rule was intended to apply specifically to boilers and process
heaters.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
underlined be deleted from the definition of fuel gas: "may
blend them with external sources of natural gas or liquified
petroleum gas." The commenter (IV-D-21) pointed out that
other sources of gas are burned in a fuel gas system and gave
examples. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that petrochemical
plants associated with and adjacent to refineries should not
be considered external sources. The commenter (IV-D-21)
predicted that if the word "external" is left in the
definition, there could be confusion over whether an adjacent
5-40
-------
petrochemical plant is "external" or "internal." The
commenter (IV-D-21) proposed that *if "external" is left in the
definition, the underlined be added "gaseous streams generated
by refinery and associated petrochemical plant operations."
Response; The EPA agrees that refineries and
petrochemical plants with a common fuel gas system should be
accounted for in the definition of fuel gas system. The EPA
contends that this is accomplished with the wording "offsite
and onsite piping and control system". The reference to
"external sources of natural gas or liquified petroleum gas"
was meant to include in the definition other sources of gas,
sueh.as natural gas or liquified petroleum gas, supplied by a
vendor. It is not intended as a reference to adjacent
petrochemical plants. However, the words underlined by the
commenter have been deleted to avoid confusion. The EPA
contends that the definition does not exclude fuel gas systems
associated with petrochemical plants.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the
following sentence be added to the fuel gas system definition:
"There can be more than one fuel gas system" because, for a
variety of reasons, it is not uncommon for a refinery to have
more than one.
Response; The EPA does not agree that the definition
requires revision to account,for,refineries with.more than one
fuel gas system. The word "system" in the definition refers
to all piping that performs the functions described in the
definition.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
following be added to the definition of fuel gas system: "The
gaseous streams can contain a mixture of methane, light
hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and other miscellaneous species
(nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, etc.)."
Response; The wording "the gaseous streams can contain a
mixture of methane, light hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and other
miscellaneous species" has been added to improve the clarity
of the definition.
5-41
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21),suggested that "other
than water" be deleted from the'-definition of a "process
heater." The commenter (IV-D-21) explained a section of a
process heater is often used to heat water or generate steam.
This is done to make use of what otherwise would have been
waste heat.
Response: The definition of process heater has been
revised to read "an enclosed combustion device that primarily
transfers heat liberated by burning fuel directly to process
streams or to heat transfer liquids other than water." The
EPA contends that the revised definition does not exclude
process? iheaters that use excess heat to heat water or generate
steam, as their primary function is to heat process streams.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) foresaw a potential
conflict between the definitions of fuel gas system and
"refinery fuel gas." The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
"refinery fuel gas" be replaced by "gas supplied by a fuel gas
system" or, less preferably, by "fuel gas." The commenter
(IV-D-21) stated that refineries often share fuel gas systems
with associated petrochemical and RON process units.
Response: The EPA agrees that it should be recognized
that refineries may share a fuel gas system with an adjacent
non-refinery plant. This is accomplished in the definition of
fuel gas-system., which includes the. "off site and onsite piping.
control system." The EPA contends that it is not necessary to
revise the definition of refinery fuel gas. The definition of
miscellaneous process vents excludes "gaseous streams to a
fuel gas system." It is in the definition of fuel gas system
that the inclusion of petrochemical and other facilities must
be made.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-38) suggested minor wording
changes to the definition to more accurately characterize
"refinery fuel gas." The commenter (IV-D-38) suggested that
the word "species" used to describe components of refinery
fuel gas, such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide, be replaced
5-42
-------
with "compounds" and the phrase "process heaters throughout
the refinery" be changed to "process heaters in the refinery."
Response; The EPA contends that the original definition
sufficiently and correctly describes refinery fuel gas and
would not be enhanced by the suggestions made by the
commehter. Therefore, the original wording has been retained.
5-43
-------
-------
6.0 STORAGE VESSEL PROVISIONS
6.1 DEFINITION OF STORAGE VESSELS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the
definition of Group 1 storage vessels should be based on
maximum true vapor pressure as opposed to average true ;i\zapor *
pressure. The commenter (IV-D-21) asserted that the MACT
floor analysis .was based on civerage true,vvapor pressure. The
commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that average true vapor pressure
could be corrected to maximum true vapor pressure by adding
2.07 kPa (0.3 psi). The commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that
the Group 1 definition be based on a maximum true vapor
pressure of 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia), as ..opposed to an average true
vapor pressure of 8.27 kPa (1.2 psia).
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter that because
the section 114 and ICR questionnaires did not specify the
type of vapor pressure requested, the respondents may have
provided annual average tr.ue. vaprrr p-rpHaur^&s instead of
maximum true vapor pressures. In order to reflect the
uncertainty of the type of vapor pressure provided in the
questionnaire responses, the EPA has decided to change the
storage vessel applicability cut-off in the final rule from a
maximum true vapor pressure of 8.27 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia). This change does not effect the impacts analysis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the
definition of maximum true vapor pressure should be clarified
by explicitly stating that a liquid is.stored at ambient
temperature when it is not stored in an insulated tank or
heated or cooled while in the tank. The commenter (IV-D-09)
explained that because of thermal inertia, the temperature of
6-1
-------
a liquid stored in a tank changes slowly and can be many
degrees hotter or cooler than the temperature of the ambient
air. Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-09) concluded that a
tank's contents are very seldom at ambient temperatures. The
commenter (IV-D-09) concluded that the EPA's criterion for
determining the maximum true vapor pressure of the stored
liquid is inappropriate since at any given period of time, a
liquid may be at, above, or below ambient temperature.
Response: The EPA does not consider it necessary to
change the rule in the manner suggested by the commenter. The
definition of "maximum true vapor pressure" allows the
equilibrium partial pr essuirer exerted by the stored liquid? to
be determined at the temperature equal to the highest
calendar-month average or the liquid storage temperature for
liquids stored above or below the ambient temperature or at
the local maximum monthly average temperature for liquids
stored at the ambient temperature determined with API .
publication 2517, standard reference texts, American Society
for Testing and Materials Method D2879-83, or any other method
approved by the Administrator. The EPA considers the rule to
allow maximum true vapor pressure to be determined above or
below ambient temperature for liquids stored in such
conditions.
_ ._ Comment: _One_commente:Ei_4rVrrD:=i5A) requested that the EPA
require a more strict definition of a wastewater tank than
offered in the proposed rule because some of the wastewater
tanks exempted by the pro'posed rule should be covered.
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that the storage
vessel provisions apply to raw materials, intermediates, and
final products used and produced by a refinery. Wastewater
tanks are subject to the BWON, which is referenced in the
rule. The EPA does not consider it necessary to change the
rule in the manner suggested by the commenter.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that all heavy
oil tanks as well as tanks having a low concentration of HAP
vapors should be exempt because emissions from them are low.
6-2
-------
'{&'.
Response; The EPA considers that a vapor, pressure cut-
off of 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) will exclude most materials with
low HAP concentrations. However, the EPA agrees that some
materials may have low HAP concentrations but also have high
vapor pressures due to the volatility of non-HAP compounds in
the material. Several products, such as asphalt, have minimal
HAP's that may have vapor pressures above 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia)
if stored at elevated temperatures. The EPA has evaluated the
data supplied in the questionnaire responses (see the
memoranda "Petroleum Refinery Liquid HAP and Properties Data"
(August 10, 1993) and "Revised MACT. Floor Analysis"
(July. 26, 1995) and letter from P.C. Bailey dated
December 23, 1993) and has concluded that a HAP content
criterion should be added to the definition, of Group 1 storage
vessel. The Group 1 storage vessel definition includes a HAP
content cutoff of 4 weight percent in the liquid for existing
sources and 2 weight percent in the liquid for new sources.
The EPA considers these cut-offs adequately exclude heavy oil
tanks with low HAP concentrations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-40) stated that the
95 percent efficiency reduction as defined in the definition
of RCT for storage tanks is inadequate and recommended adding
"or 20 ppmv" to make the requirements consistent with the
: .miscellaneous-praxiess srents and wastewater RCT. ..
Response: The EPA has determined that a minimum emission
concentration cutoff of 20 ppmv is warranted in cases where
the emission concentration is already low such that it cannot
be reduced by 95 percent. Therefore, the definition of RCT
for storage vessels has been modified to include "A closed-
vent system to a control device achieving 95 percent reduction
in organic HAP emissions or to an outlet concentration of
20 parts per million by volume.
6.2 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
6.2.1 Database
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that if the
EPA's database for storage vessels was based on old emission
6-3
-------
inventories it must be updated. The commenter (IV-D-29)
indicated that the new AP-42 calculation factor drastically
reduced estimates of tank emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
in California. The commenter (IV-D-29) predicted that tank
emissions are much lower than indicated in previous
inventories.
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that the storage
vessel component of the source-wide MACT floor and the
national impacts from storage vessels were developed using
information supplied by the refining industry in section 114
and ICR questionnaire responses and were not based on old
emission inventories. The EPA asserts that the questionnaire
responses provide the most current data available in the
refining Industry.' Emissions from storage vessels were
estimated using equations provided in chapter 12 of the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), revised
in July 1993.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) questioned the data for
heavy oil'vapor pressure used to develop emission factors.
The commenter (IV-D-29) claimed that water and
non-condensables in heavy oil make it appear to have higher
emissions. The commenter (IV-D-29) suggested that another
factor for heavy oil be developed instead of using one based
"on "Reid vapor pressure.' "The commenter (IV-D-Ł29"j claimed that
many heavy oil tanks do not produce a reading using Method 21.
Response: The data on heavy oils supplied in the
section 114 and ICR questionnaires was scrutinized by
representatives from the refining industry, State agencies,
and the other EPA regions. Based on comments supplied by the
industry, reasonable vapor pressures were developed. The EPA
is not aware of how to develop emissions and emission factors
that are not based on the vapor pressure of the liquid stored.
The commenter did not supply information on alternative
methods for developing emission factors.
6-4
-------
6.2.2 Cost Impacts
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-11,
IV-D-19, IV-D-25 and IV-F-1, IV-D-51) contended that the EPA's
cost calculations and cost-effectiveness were incorrect for
Option 1 requirements. The commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10,
IV-D-11, IV-D-25, IV-D-51) claimed that the cost impacts were
too low for the following reasons:
• Operating costs were not included; as a result, one
commenter (IV-D-19) estimated that the costs are at
least an order of magnitude lower than they should
.be. The commenter (IV-D-19) did not provide
additional estimates of operating costs.
' , , - * .
• Lost capacity from installing controls was not
considered; and
• Incremental-costs-were-not presented separately for
each type of tank. Three commenters (IV-D-09,
IV-D-10, IV-D-25) contended that this resulted in
weighting the cost effectiveness toward fixedr-roof
tanks and obscuring the poor cost effectiveness for
tanks already controlled with floating roofs.
One commenter (IV-D-25 and IV-F-l) estimated incremental
cost effectiveness for Option 1 for tanks already equipped
with floating roofs to be $17,000 to $300,000/Mg ($15,400 to
$272,200/ton) HAP reduction, depending on the type of floating
roof, the type of fittings and seals added, and the HAP
content of the stored liquid.
One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that including the factors
listed above would make the cost-effectiveness $9,900/Mg
($8,980/ton) of HAP inste'ad of $4,400/Mg ($3,990/ton) of HAP
as stated in the proposal.
Response: The EPA contends that all applicable operating
costs for controls were considered in the cost impacts. The
EPA estimated the annual costs from inspecting storage
vessels, recordkeeping and reporting, and annualized capital
cpsts. As noted above, the commenter did not provide details
on other costs that should be included as part of the annual
costs and did not supply cost data necessary to revise impacts
from storage vessels.
6-5
-------
The EPA agrees the cost estimates at proposal
underestimated degassing and cleaning storage vessels costs
and do not include the cost of lost capacity because the EPA
did not have cost algorithms or information to estimate this
cost. Based on information supplied by the industry, the EPA
considers the cost of lost capacity and the cost of degassing
and cleaning storage vessels to potentially be very high and
could substantially increase the incremental cost-
effectiveness and average cost-effectiveness of Option 1.
Therefore, the final rule only requires that existing storage
vessels comply with the MACT floor level of control,
subpar.t-^Kb without fittings.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) stated that
in instances where a storage tank has a floating roof and a
single seal, adding a second seal and other control measures
will yield very little HAP reduction at a very high cost. The
commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) estimated that storage controls
will achieve the poorest emissions reductions at a
cost-effectiveness estimate of $4,600/Mg (4,170/ton) and are
based on large tanks at large refineries where the best
coefficients apply. The commenter (IV-D-50) stated that their
analysis indicates that adding a second seal to a floating
roof tank would only reduce HAP emissions by a de minimis
^680 grams/day. (1.5 .Ibs/^day). for an average--size gasoline tank,
at a small refinery.
Response: The requirement for a secondary seal was not
based on cost-effectiveness. The MACT floor analysis for
storage vessels indicated that the best-controlled 12 percent
of sources controlled storage vessels with liquids greater
than 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) to the requirements in subpart Kb
(without fittings). Subpart 'Kb requires that floating roof
tanks install a secondary seal. Therefore, the Act requires
that EPA must, at a minimum, require the controls in the MACT
floor, (i.e., secondary seals on floating roof tanks).
6-6
-------
Comment; One•commenter (IV-D-29) questioned whether the
cost estimate for storage vessels-included tank replacement
for all bolted and riveted tanks.
Response; The commenter did not explain the reasons
bolted and riveted tanks would need to be replaced due to the
>
rule. In estimating the -costs of the rule, EPA did not assume
that bolted and riveted tanks would have to be replaced and
the storage vessel costs were estimated for a typical storage
tank. The EPA recognizes that tank specific costs may be
greater or less than the costs estimated from the cost
equations. However, the EPA considers the cost algorithms to
adequately1 characterize controlling a typical storage vessel
in the refining industry.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) compared the
costs of proposed tank controls for a small refinery to the
costs for a large refinery and found them to be twice that
estimated by the EPA for the industry. The commenter
(IV-D-50) included data on how this comparison was made and
concluded that it was reasonable to assume a cost-
effectiveness estimate ranging between $8,000 and $10,000/Mg
($7,260 and $9,070/ton) of HAP for tanks at a small refinery.
One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) stated that not only
will small refineries incur compliance costs twice as high as
what large refineries will incur dues to economy of scale
factors, they will also have twice as many tanks to retrofit
compared to the industry as a whole.
Response; The EPA examined the possibility of
subcategorizing small refineries to determine if a different
level of control could be developed. The EPA analyzed the
MACT floor for various crude charge capacity cutoffs (10,000;
20,000; 30,000; 40,000; 50,000; and 60,000 bbl/sd), refinery
ozone attainment status, and the types of products at each
refinery. The results of the EPA analysis showed that no
significant changes from the 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) cutoff would
occur for small refineries. The EPA agrees that controlling
storage vessels at small "refineries may be less cost-effective
6-7
-------
than at large refineries. However, the EPA would like to
clarify that the MACT floor analysis requires that storage
vessels storing materials with vapor pressures greater than or
equal to 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) must be controlled to subpart Kb
without fittings regardless of size.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that for
equipment vendors to meet the demand for retrofits in the
3-year time period required by the proposed standards, there
would be an additional cost for expedited services. The
commenter (IV-D-06) concluded that this cost should be
included in the EPA's cost estimates.
r Response; The EPA has changed the compliaa-rae times in
the final rule to allow 10 years or at the next inspection and
maintenance activity, whichever comes first, for all floating
roof vessels. Fixed-roof vessels must still comply with the
rule within 3 years of promulgation unless a compliance
extension is received under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.
If the tank must be replaced to comply with the requirements
of the rule, EPA believes that it would be appropriate to
grant the compliance extension request and that compliance
deadlines would be 4 years in most cases.
The commenter did not explain the basis for their
conclusion that expedited services would be necessary. The
EPA does not have^anje.datauons increased costs due- .teuexpedited
service and no information was supplied by the commenters.
Therefore, this cost was 'not included in the impacts analysis.
6.2.3 Emissions Impacts
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) contended
that there are increased air emissions associated with
cleaning and degassing tanks for required retrofits.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter's statement.
An analysis of the emissions from degassing and cleaning
storage vessels was performed using theoretical models
developed by the EPA. For floating roof vessels, the analysis
showed that significant emissions of HAP's occur from
degassing and cleaning activities such that the emissions
6-8
-------
cannot be balanced in a reasonable amount of time with the
emission reductions from complying with subpart Kb without
fittings. The analysis also showed that emissions from
degassing and cleaning fixed roof vessels could be balanced
ui^der one year by the emission reductions from complying with
subpart Kb without fittings. Based on the results of this
analysis, the compliance time requirements have been modified
for floating roof vessels to be within 10 years or at the next
inspection and maintenance activity, whichever comes first.
_ Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that the EPA
did not consider the impact of the reformulated gasoline rule
on emissions of HAP's from storage w.essels,i The commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that the (reformulated gasoline) RFC rule
will result in a reduction in gasoline^vapoas pressure and
benzene concentration in storage tanks.
Response; The impacts analysis and data collection for
the refinery standard was done prior to implementation of the
RFC rule. In addition, the Act limits the EPA to exclude from
the MACT floor those sources, that have achieved emission
reductions or controls within 18 months before the rule was
proposed or within 30 months before the rule was promulgated.
The EPA concluded that the change in gasoline vapor
pressure and benzene concentration would not significantly
effect the impacts,.analy=sis...^,JDatas-gathere.dfein questionnaire
responses indicated that benzene is only one of 11 HAP's that
are present in gasoline, and benzene is not present in the
highest quantities, nor is it the most volatile.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that use of
maximum monthly average temperature to calculate vapor
pressure would greatly overestimate the actual annual average
vapor pressure and related emissions from storage vessels
located in areas of fluctuating temperatures. The commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that this would cause disparities in regions
because the amount of HAP emissions controlled would be
substantially less in areas of seasonally fluctuating
temperatures. Additionally, the commenter (IV-D-22) stated
6-9
-------
that refineries in colder midcontinent States could claim
credit only for those actual annual average emissions
controlled even though they were required to incur the costs
necessary to control the maximum monthly emissions. The
commenter (IV-D-22) recommended basing the control requirement
on the vapor pressure of the HAP's contained in the liquid as
required by the RON, or to base the vapor control threshold on
the annual average HAP vapor pressure calculated from annual
average ambient temperatures as available from the National
Weather Service.
Response: The EPA agrees that affected liquids may have
vapor pressures'that- are below the vapor pressure cutoff for a
. portion .of the year, but also notes that nonaffected liquids
may have true vapor pressures above the cutoffs for portions
of the year such as daylight hours during summer months. In a
prior rulemaking, EPA realized that basing applicability on
maximum instantaneous vapor pressure would result in the
broadest applicability and, therefore, the. largest emission
reduction. This approach could cause planning problems for
the industry because they might not be able to adequately
predict which vessels would be affected. Because industry may
not be able to account for particularly hot days adequately,
the instantaneous vapor pressure was rejected as the basis of
tf , '..!"•
applicability. , . .
The EPA then examined an annual average vapor pressure
format. Vapor pressures of volatile organic liquids are
higher in the warmer, summer months, when ambient ozone levels
are highest. If applicability were based on the annual
average vapor pressure, vessels would not come under the
standards even though they were storing liquids with true
vapor pressures greater than the applicability cutoff. These
vessels would then emit significant quantities of VOC's and
HAP's during the summer when ambient ozone levels are highest.
Therefore, EPA decided to examine a shorter time frame that
would broaden the applicability of the standards, particularly
during the summer.
6-10
-------
An applicability based on-, maximum monthly average vapor
pressure was selected because this would have a broader
applicability than annual averages without the planning
problems associated with an applicability based on
instantaneous vapor pressures and would base applicability on
the contribution to VOC and HAP emissions when ozone levels
are highest. The EPA maintains this argument for the refinery
MACT standard.
Other regulations, already promulgated, use the maximum
monthly temperatures to affect the determination of vapor
pressure and applicability. The EPA desires to maintain
-consistency between these other regulations, the storage
requirements in the HON (40 CFR 63, subpart G) and the new
source performance standards for volatile...organic liquid
storage vessels (40 CFR 60, subpart Kb), because all three
regulations could affect similar storage vessels in similar
processing plants, and because the final refinery rule
significantly cross-references these other rules.
The EPA also contends that the ..commenters suggestion of
using HAP vapor pressures alone is impractical and costly.
Existing vapor pressure tests only measure the vapor pressure
of the bulk liquid. For liquids that are comprised mostly of
one HAP, as stored in the SOCMI, this approach would be
satisfactory. „ The. organic^ liquids storedat. petroleum
refineries contain mixtures of compounds, some of which might
be HAP's. Therefore, if HAP partial pressures were required
instead of total vapor pressure, speciation of the stored
liquid would be necessary. The EPA considers this a costly
and unnecessary exercise that would add complexity to the
rule. Therefore, the EPA has not revised the final rule in
the manner the commenter suggested.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) asserted that proposed
exemptions for new sources would encourage facilities to use
small, exempt storage vessels rather than collect all of their
stored evaporated HAP's in controlled storage vessels.
6-11
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The
o .
capacity cut-off for new storage tanks is 151 mj
(40,000 gallons). The industry practice is to store material
in larger tanks, generally in excess of 380 m3
(loo,000 gallons). Additionally, storing material in a number
of smaller storage vessels would be cost and space prohibitive
for refineries. Therefore, it is implausible that anyone
would use this as a means of avoiding control.
6.3 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR AND MACT FOR STORAGE VESSELS
6.3.1 Selection of the Storage Vessels Component of the
Source-Wide MACT Floor
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-11,
IV-D-25, IV-D-30, IV-D-51) concurred with the EPA that the
'MACT--floor for'storage tanks should be NSPS subpart Kb without
roof fitting controls. One commenter (IV-D-25) pointed out
that roof fitting controls are not required by subparts K, Ka,
or RACT rules, and that the degree of fitting control required
by subpart Kb has been interpreted differently over time. The
commenter (IV-D-25) concluded that only a very small
percentage of tanks at refineries meet the roof fitting
requirements of subpart Kb, so they do not constitute the
refinery MACT floor for existing tanks.
Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-51) stated that the fitting
r.-r-equirements are not, found in other rules;-therefore, tanks
currently controlled to NSPS subpart K or Ka or to EPA RACT
controls do not contribute to a MACT floor for roof fitting
controls. One commenter (IV-D-19) submitted that fittings
requirements were not included in the floor analysis and
therefore, should not be included in the final floor
determination. One comme.nter (IV-D-09) added that most tanks
are in ozone non-attainment areas regulated under RACT
guidelines, which specify Kb-style rim seals but not Kb-style
controls on other roof deck fittings.
Response; The EPA thanks 'the commenters for their views.
The final rule requires that storage vessels comply with the
6-12
-------
MACT floor level of control (subpart Kb without fittings) for
the storage vessels component of *the source-wide MACT floor.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the EPA
should explicitly state that compliance with the NSPS
subpart Kb can be substituted for the requirements proposed in
§ 63.646.
Response; The final rule explicitly directs refineries
which regulations to comply with when there exists overlapping
rules. The final rule allows existing sources complying with
subpart Kb to continue compliance with subpart Kb instead of
the requirements in § 63.646. A Group 1 storage vessel that
is part of a new source and is also 'subject to subpart Kb is
required to comply only with the storage vessel requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. A Group 2 storage vessel that
is part of a new source and is subject to subpart Kb is
required to comply only with subpart Kb. A Group 2 storage
vessel that is part of a new source and is subject to
subpart Kb, but is not required to apply controls by § 63.llOd
or 63.112d of subpart Kb is required to only comply with
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) requested the
development of a separate MACT floor for storage tanks for
small refineries. The commenter (IV-D-42) contended that the
MACT floor for refinery storage vessels would be . . .. .
disproportionately burdensome for small refineries because
many of these refineries are in attainment areas and these
tanks would not have been subject to any RACT or other VOC
control requirements.
Response; The EPA examined the possibility of
subcategorizing small refineries to determine if a different
MACT floor level of control could be developed. The EPA
analyzed the MACT floor for various crude charge capacity
cutoffs (10,000; 20,000; 30,000; 40,000; 50,000; and
60,000 bbl/sd), refinery ozone attainment status, and based on
the types of products at each refinery. The results of the
analysis showed that no significant changes from the 10.4 3cPa
6-13
-------
(1.5 psia) cutoff would occur for small refineries. The EPA
agrees that controlling storage vessels at small refineries ;
may be less cost-effective than at large refineries. However,
the EPA would like to clarify that the MACT floor analysis
requires that storage vessels storing materials with vapor
pressures greater than or equal to 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) must be
controlled to subpart Kb without fittings.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-30) supported
selection of the 88th percentile vapor pressure (17.9 kPa
[2.6 psia]) instead of the 94th percentile (8.27 kPa
[1.2 psia]) that was chosen as the applicability criterion for
the storage vessels component of the source-wide MACT f loory: 1=.
One commenter (IV-D-25) contended that the EPA has discretion
to select"the~~8-8"th percentile, and that the" incremental cost
effectiveness of the 94th percentile (8.27 kPa [1.2 psia])
applicability criteria is $17,000 to $22,000/Mg ($15,420 to
$19/960/ton) of HAP.
Response; The Act requires that the MACT floor be
determined from "the average -emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources..." As
discussed in section 4.1 of this document, the EPA interprets
the word "average" to authorize the Agency to use any
reasonable method, in a particular factual context, of
'determining the central -tendency.of .a .data-set. . The EPA's
interpretation of "average" for the storage vessels component
of the source-wide MACT floor is the arithmetic mean level of
control. Therefore, the floor level of control for storage
vessels is control to subpart Kb (without fittings) for tanks
storing liquids with vapor pressures greater or equal to
10.4 kPa (1.5 psia).
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21, IV-D-25)
recommended raising the MACT floor control applicability
criterion from 8.27 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia).
One commenter (IV-D-09) contended that although the EPA
had determined the floor method of control correctly, it had
underestimated the vapor pressure threshold at which the floor
6-14
-------
control was applied by 2.07 to 4.82 kPa (0.3-0.7 psia). The
commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21, IV-D-25) explained that the
Group 1 storage vessel threshold was based on maximum monthly
average vapor pressure; however, the section 114 questionnaire
responses provided data on yearly average storage temperatures
1 >
and this information was used to make the MACT floor decision.
The commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21, IV-D-25) explained that the
two measurements are not interchangeable because the
temperature of a stored liquid will trace the average ambient
temperature. One commenter (IV-D-09) added that 'in most U.S.
locations the highest monthly average ambient temperature is
approximately 5.6-11.1 °C (10-20 °F) higher than -the yearly
average temperature. The commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21,
IV-D-25) stated that the highest monthly average true vapor
pressure, assuming a typical 2.3 RVP naphtha, would be
2.07-4.82 kPa (0.3-0.7 psia) higher than the annual average.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that
because the section 114 and ICR questionnaires did not specify
the type of vapor pressure requested, the respondents may have
provided annual average true vapor pressures instead of
maximum true vapor pressures. In order to reflect the
uncertainty of the type of vapor pressure provided in the
questionnaire responses, the EPA has decided to change the
storage vessel applicability cufe-off in the final rule from a
maximum true vapor pressure of 8.27 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia). An analysis of the storage vessel database
indicated that a change from 8.27 kPa (1.2 psia) to 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia) will not effect the impacts analysis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) disagreed with the
EPA's floor analysis for storage tanks. The commenter
(IV-D-48) asserted that all new and existing vessels should be
controlled. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the EPA has
stated that 86 percent of storage vessels are controlled and
cited a reference to support this figure.
Response; The EPA holds the view that its analysis of
the floor is consistent with the statute. The Act requires
6-15
-------
that the MACT floor for existing sources be determined as the
average of the best-performing 12 percent of sources, and the
MACT floor for new sources be equal to the control used in the
best-controlled source. The MACT floor analysis shows that
control to subpart Kb (without fittings) is the MACT floor
level of control for the storage vessels component of the
source-wide MACT floor. The analysis also shows that the
average vapor pressure of these tanks is 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia)
and the average HAP weight percent in the liquid is 4.
Therefore, only existing tanks storing liquids with vapor
pressures greater than or equal to 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) and HAP
weight p-er.cents in the liquid greater than or equal to 4 are
required to be controlled at the floor level of control. The
best-controlled tanks store liquids with vapor pressures
greater than 0.69 kPa (0.1 psia) and HAP weight percents in
the liquid greater than 2. Therefore, new stora'ge tanks with
vapor pressures greater than or equal to 0.69 kPa (0.1 psia).
and HAP weight percents in the liquid greater than or equal to
2 are required to controlled.
6.3.2 Selection of MACT for Storage Vessels
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-53, IV-D-57)
supported Option 1 requirements (NSPS subpart Kb requirements
for tanks with vapor pressures of 5.17 kPa (0.75 psia) or
greater) for storage tanks-as 'MACT. One commenter (IV-D-53)- .«
pointed out that Option 1 was less than the floor cost on a
dollar per megagram of HAP controlled basis and the
incremental cost per megagram of HAP controlled was less than
the control cost for the floor or Option 1. The commenter
(IV-D-53) concluded that because the provision was not cost
prohibitive and Option 1 .was the most cost-effective, it
should be selected as MACT for existing sources. The
commenter (IV-D-46) provided that the incremental value of
Option 1 was below many used by the New Source Review
Permitting Program to justify past additional best available
control technology (BACT).
6-16
-------
Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-22, IV-D-25 and IV-F-1,
IV-D-44, IV-D-51) objected-to the-Option 1 requirements for
storage tanks. Three of the commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-22,
IV-D-51) supported the MACT floor level of control. Several
commenters (IV-D-25 and IV-F-1, IV-D-36, IV-D-38, IV-D-44)
> . ,
stated that Option 1 would not be cost effective. One
commenter (IV-D-25) contended that the cost effectiveness for
Option 1 was underestimated, and that Option 1 could only be
justified for existing fixed roof tanks. The commenter
(IV-D-25) claimed that control beyond the floor for tanks
already equipped with floating roofs could not be justified by
reasonable cost effectiveness criteria. Three commenters
(IV-D-36, IV-D-38, and API hearing/transcript) alleged the
$4,400/Mg ($3,990/ton) incremental cost estimate was low by an
order of magnitude, and that it should be closer to $54,000/Mg
($48,990/ton) VOC. One commenter (IV-D-38) argued that the
estimate was low because operating costs and the cost of lost
capacity were not included. One commenter (IV-D-44) agreed
with the API's finding that baseline emissions were only
59,000 Mg (65,000 ton) as opposed to the 111,000 Mg
(122,400 ton) indicated by the EPA. Another commenter
(IV-D-36) suggested that further study on this issue must be
done. One commenter (IV-D-20) opposed the proposed
requirements for storage vessels based on the cost impacts of
$4,400/Mg ($3,990/ton) of HAP, and suggested that anything
over $3,000/Mg ($2,720/ton) was unreasonable.
Response; The EPA agrees with some of the commenters
that the cost estimates at proposal may have underestimated
the cost of degassing and cleaning storage vessels, and do not
include the cost of lost capacity because the EPA did not have
cost algorithms or information to estimate this cost. Based
on information supplied by the industry, the EPA considers the
cost of lost capacity and the cost of degassing and cleaning
storage vessels to potentially be very high and could
substantially increase the incremental cost-effectiveness and
average cost-effectiveness of Option 1. Therefore, the final
6-17
-------
rule only requires that existing storage vessels comply with
the MACT floor level of control for the storage vessels
component of the source-wide MACT floor, subpart Kb without
fittings.
" Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that there
should be a de minimis HAP concentration exclusion for
fixed-roof tanks that would exclude tanks that contain heavy,
viscous hydrocarbon intermediates and products such as
asphalt, which are stored at elevated temperatures to enable
handling. The coramenter -(IV-D-09) stated that virtually all
of these liquids have an initial boiling point above 600 °F,
and therefore contain no volatile HAP's:. In addition, the
commenter (IV-D-09) stated that these liquids could not be
stored in an internal floating roof tank because of operation
and maintenance problems if the heavy liquid product cooled
and solidified.
Another commenter (IV-D-20) requested•that the proposed
rule contain provisions excluding tanks that have a HAP
content of 5 percent or less by weight.
Response: The EPA considers that a vapor pressure cut-
off of 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) will exclude most materials with
low HAP concentrations. However, the EPA agrees that some
materials may have low HAP concentrations but also have high
vapor pressures due to the volatility': of ,non-HAP compounds in
the material. Several products, such as asphalt, have minimal
or no HAP's that may have vapor pressures above 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia) if stored at elevated temperatures. The EPA has
evaluated the data supplied in the questionnaire responses and
has concluded that a minimum HAP content requirement for the
Group 1 storage vessel provisions is warranted. The final
rule includes a 4 weight percent HAP requirement for existing
Group 1 storage vessels and a 2 weight percent HAP requirement
for new Group 1 storage vessels.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-15)
urged the EPA to increase the applicability criterion for
crude oil storage tanks from 34.4 kPa (5 psia) to 55 kPa
6-18
-------
(8 psia). The commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-15)
contended that many of the hydrocarbons that add volatility to
crude oil such as methane, ethane, and propane have little or
no adverse health affects. The commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-12,
IV-D-15) asserted because of the presence of these
hydrocarbons, crude oil storage tanks could become subject to
complex recordkeeping and compliance burdens. The commenters
(IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-15) concluded that increasing the true
vapor pressure applicability criterion for crude oil storage
tanks to 55 kPa (8 psia) would significantly reduce the cost
burdens of the proposed rule without significantly decreasing
the associated HAP emission reductions.
• One commenter (IV-D-10) contended that the EPA should not
base a set of regulations that would affect a large set of
stored products with different characteristics on one product.
The commenter (IV-D-10) stated that the EPA's selection of
34.4 kPa (5 psia) in the regulation would affect crude oil
tanks and tanks storing intermediate blend stocks. The
commenter (IV-D-10) objected to basing the crude oil storage
requirements on an analysis of gasoline storage tanks with
vapor pressures of 38.6 kPa (5.6 psia).
Response; The EPA believes the commenters are referring
to a compliance schedule longer than 3 years for storage tanks
storing crude oi-1. --The final rule all ow=sj exist ing floating
roof storage vessels storing materials with vapor pressures
greater than or equal to 10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) and a HAP
concentration greater than or equal to 4 percent to comply
with the rule within 10 years after promulgation or at the
next inspection period. Existing fixed roof vessels storing
materials with vapor pressures greater than or equal to
10.4 kPa (1.5 psia) and a HAP concentration greater than or
equal to 4 percent are still required to comply within 3 years
after promulgation of the rule, unless a compliance extension
.is obtained under sec. 112 (i)(3)(B) of the Act. These
changes were made to reflect the effect of emissions from
premature degassing and cleaning of storage vessels. An
6-19
-------
analysis conducted by EPA shows that emissions from degassing
and cleaning fixed roof tanks storing crude oil could be
balanced under 3 years with the emissions reduction from
implementing subpart Kb controls.
> Comment; One commeriter (IV-D-57) stated that new storage
vessels should at a minimum meet all of the requirements for
existing storage vessels from the San Francisco Bay area
because the Bay Area has the most stringent storage vessel
regulations, including being subject to fitting requirements
as well as standards for seals. Additionally, the commenter
(IV-D-57) stated that seals and fittings should be part of the
inspection and maintenance program, and leak detection and ••
repair programs, and the tanks should be subject to a pressure
decay test for leaks prior to filling, similar to the testing
proposed in the Gasoline Distribution rule. The commenter
(IV-D-57) also stated that all pressure-relief valves on new
storage vessels should be pilot-operated. The commenter
(IV-D-57) also provided a list of storage controls that they
contended should be required for existing sources.
One commenter (IV-D-54) stated that Group 1 storage tank
requirements should include more actual monitoring with an OVA
rather than visual inspection which can be easily falsified.
Response: EPA's MACT floor analysis for new sources
shows that "the. best-controlled source has a level of. control^
equal to subpart Kb for storage vessels. The EPA recognizes
that State or local air pollution control agencies may have
different requirements for controlling emissions from storage
vessels than the requirements in subpart Kb because subpart Kb
was promulgated for new sources. However, the EPA does not
have information that equipment and controls mentioned by the
commenters, such as OVA's and pressure decay tests, would
achieve greater or equivalent control to what is required in
subpart Kb. Without data to support the commenters1
assertion, such as VOC or HAP control efficiency of these
equipment and controls, the EPA cannot make a determination
that the commenters1 control requirements are equal to or more
6-20
-------
stringent than the control required in subpart Kb and
therefore would be hew' source MACT.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-54) requested a higher
level of options be required for Group 2 storage tanks and
strongly opposed the lack of proposed controls or inspections.
One commenter (IV-D-54) recommended requiring controls on
Group 1 storage tanks with a capacity of 500 gallons or more.
Response; The MACT floor analysis for storage vessels
shows that (for existing sources) the best-controlled
12 percent of sources have an average level of control equal
to subpart Kb (without fittings) for tanks storing liquids
•with vapor pressures greater than or equal to 10.4 kPa
(1,5 psia) and capacities greater than or equal to 177 m3
(46,760 gallons). The average level of control for tanks
storing liquids with vapor pressures less than 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia) and capacities less than 177 m3 (46,760 gallons) is'
no control. The MACT floor analysis also shows that (for new
sources) the best-controlled storage vessels have control
equal to subpart Kb for tanks storing liquids with vapor
pressures greater or equal to 3.4 kPa (0.5 psia) and
capacities greater than or equal to 151 m3 (40,OOO gallons).
The EPA analyzed options above the floor level of control
based on the statutory criteria in the Act. The results of
the analysis showed that options above the floor'level lof
control (i.e., control of Group 2 tanks) were not cost-
effective. The lack of cost effective options beyond the
floor prevented the EPA from requiring more stringent control
than the existing source and new source MACT floor levels of
control. Therefore, control of Group 2 storage tanks was not
required in the rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that the
proposed standards for existing storage vessels were too
strict. The commenter (IV-D-29) claimed that it would be too
difficult to make old tanks vapor tight.
Response; The requirements of the storage vessel
provisions were set at the MACT floor. A lower stringency
6-21
-------
that would still 'meet the requirements prescribed in the Clean
Air Act is not possible. For existing storage vessels the »
rule requires that liquids with a vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa
(1.5 psia) or greater be stored in internal or external
floating roof vessels meeting the specifications of §§ 63.646
or the vapors from fixed roof tanks be collected and routed to
a control device achieving 95 percent reduction of HAP's. The
collection system must be monitored for leaks according to
§ 63.648. There are no specific requirements for monitoring
emissions from vessels. If existing internal or external
floating roof tanks do not meet the specifications in § 63.646
or the vapor collection system Ttrsed with the control device a
leaks as defined in § 63.648, repairs must be made. The EPA
would also "like to clarify that the rule does not require that
tanks be tested for vapor tightness.
6.4 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR EXISTING STORAGE VESSELS
Comment; Many commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09, IV-D-10,
IV-D-11, IV-D-12, IV-D-19, IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-25 and
IV-F-1, IV-D-38, IV-D-42, IV-D-44, IV-D-50, IV-D-51) opposed
the EPA's decision to require floating roof tanks storing
liquids with vapor pressures above 5.0 psia to achieve
compliance in three years. The commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09,
IV-D-10, IV-D-11, IV-D-12, IV-D-19, IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-25
and IV-F-1 ",* "IV-D-38, IV-D-"42/TV-D-44, IV-D-50, IV-D-51)
objected to the 3-year compliance schedule for various
reasons, including consistency with other regulations, alleged
emissions increases, and cost and supply considerations.
Recommendations for compliance times ranged from at the next
scheduled tank maintenance to 10 years from promulgation.
Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-10, IV-D-11, IV-D-19,
IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-38, IV-D-51) argued that a 10-year
compliance period for floating roof tanks, would be consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Clean Air Act, the HON
storage tank requirements, and the Benzene Storage NESHAP to
reduce HAP emissions. Two commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-25)'added
that a 10-year compliance period should be an integral part of
6-22
-------
the MACT floor requirements for storage vessels because it has
been included in all previous federal regulations affecting
storage tanks at refineries.
Several commenters (.IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-42,
IV-D-50) recommended that affected facilities should be
allowed to retrofit tanks with the required controls at their
next scheduled maintenance.
One commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that the proposed
control requirements for storage vessels are in conflict with
the applicable compliance dates in subpart CC. The commenter
(IV-D-22) provided language to resolve this conflict.
Several commenlCeirs (IV-D-09, IV-D-11, IV-D-10; IV-D-19,
IV-D-25, IV-D-51) asserted that a 3-year compliance schedule
would result in increased HAP and VOC emissions. One
commenter (IV-D-11) explained that under normal circumstances,
tanks are inspected infrequently for corrosion because
corrosion rates are low and because tank cleaning and
degassing results in emissions of VOC's. The commenter
(IV-D-11) referenced a study done by API (commenter IV-D-25)
to explain that higher emissions would occur because storage
tanks would be degassed and inspected earlier than scheduled
resulting in emissions from an additional degassing and
cleaning cycle. One commenter (IV-D-10) contended that the
3-year compliance period was based on an incomplete analysis
done for the gasoline distribution MACT rule; The commenter
(IV-D-10) stated that because the 3-year compliance period
would come sooner than the typical 10-year cleaning cycle, the
EPA attempted to calculate the number of years it would take
to balance the emissions that would be emitted as a result of
tank cleaning and degassing with the emission reductions that
would be achieved because of the earlier retrofit; The
commenter (IV-D-10) asserted that for this analysis, the EPA
did not include emissions that may come from the handling of
sludge removed from the tank bottom. The commenter (IV-D-10)
concluded that the incompleteness of the analysis invalidates
the EPA's conclusions because the tank cleaning process could
6-23
-------
generate sludge that is 90 percent liquid. The commenter
(IV-D-10) recommended re-doing the analysis with an estimate
of the emissions from sludge handling. One commenter
(IV-D-25) performed an analysis of emissions from degassing of
tajiks in order to apply controls within 3 years versus
allowing vessels to wait 10 years or until a scheduled
degassing. The commenter (IV-D-25) concluded that it would
take several years of control to offset the emissions caused
by an earlier degassing. - The same commenter (API
hearing/transcript) said that their analysis showed that for
IFR vessels storing gasoline, the proposed 3-year MACT
requirements would not result-in a net emission reduction.-.
benefit. One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that internal
floating roof tanks controlled with subpaft'"Kb rim seals and
storing gasoline would require more than 5 years of added
emission control to offset degassing and cleaning emissions
from these tanks, and the years required for liquids other
than gasoline would be longer. One commenter (IV-D-19)
estimated a compliance -schedule of more than five years would
be required to balance tank cleaning emissions for a typical
floating roof gasoline storage tank.
One commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that emissions
reductions from tanks not currently meeting the NSPS would
more than offset the HAP "emissions from degassing and.cleaning
during installation of new controls, if the requirement is
imposed within three years rather than at the scheduled
maintenance. However, the commenter (IV-D-57) stated that
tanks that currently meet control standards may not have
substantial emissions reductions; therefore their reductions
may not offset the emissions from degassing and cleaning. The
commenter (IV-D-57) recommended allowing tanks that meet a
certain level of control to delay compliance with the NESHAP
until the scheduled maintenance date.
Several coramenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-25, IV-D-44)
stated that the 3-year compliance schedule would be cost
prohibitive. One commenter (IV-D-25) estimated that it would
6-24
-------
cost from $167,000 to $323,000/Mg ($151,500 to $293,OOO/ton)
of HAP to meet the subpart Kb rim seal requirements, including
the degassing, cleaning, and inspection costs associated with
a 3-year compliance time. Two commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25)
contended that, as an option above the floor, this would not
be cost effective. One commenter (IV-D-44) asserted that the
3-year compliance schedule was a needless burden which would
control small risks.
One commenter (IV-D-11) referenced cost estimates made by
API showing that upgrading internal floating roof tanks
storing gasoline to NSPS subpart Kb rim seal requirements
would result in a cost-effectiveness ranging .from. $170,000 to
$320,000/Mg ($151,500 to $293,OOO/ton) of HAP reduced. The
commenter (IV-D-11) state'd that the costs did not include
disruptions to operations that could occur from forcing tanks
to adhere to a 3-year complicince schedule. Based on these
estimates, the commenter (IV-D-11) concluded that there was no
justification for requiring a 3-year compliance on internal
floating roof tanks storing gasoline.
Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-11, IV-D-19, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25, IV-D-51) argued that a 3-year compliance schedule
would disrupt gasoline and fuel supplies to the public because
the refinery MACT compliance period overlaps with RFC
implementation. The commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-11, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25 and IV-F-1, IV-D-51) explained that refiners subject
to RFC requirements will have additional oxygenated and
reformulated gasoline grades that will add to the number of
products handled at many refineries, thereby compounding the
storage tank availability problem. One commenter (IV-D-25 and
API hearing/transcript) stated that having different
compliance times based on vapor pressure would cause
complications for refineries that frequently change crude oil
sources and change the feedstock they store in their tanks.
Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-11, IV-D-25, IV-D-51)
noted that the 3-year compliance schedule in the proposed
refinery MACT overlaps with the .HON, the gasoline distribution
6-25
-------
NESHAP, and many new State rules. These commenters (IV-D-06,
IV-D-11, IV-D-25, IV-D-51) asserted that the result of having
so many overlapping compliance schedules will be that there
will not be enough trained and capable fabricators and
cbntractors to support tank modification work.
Several commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-42, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1)
urged the rule to be revised to allow small refineries to make
required tank modifications and upgrades during scheduled
maintenance. Two commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-50 and
Hearing/Ensign) stated that the proposed 3-year storage tank
compliance schedule is beyond the reach of small refineries to
comply wi±h without?Eadv:ersely~ affecting fuel supplies to the
general public. The commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1)
said this would be consistent with the HON"rule.
Additionally, one commenter (IV-D-50) provided the
following reasons for not supporting the proposed 3-year
storage tank compliance schedule: 1) small refineries have
twice as many tanks to retrofit as the industry at large,
2) heavy summer/winter demand because of vacationers,
3) temporary product shortages and subsequent price increases
sometimes occur, and 4) for refineries located in colder
climates, tank modifications can only be done during warmer
months. One commenter (IV-D-46) did not support an extension
oŁ the compliance period for storage vessels, beyond the three
years required in the proposed rule. The commenter (IV-D-46)
provided that the New Source Permitting Review in Texas rarely
allows more than three years to commence installation of
pollution controls equipment. ;
Response; The EPA recognizes the concerns of the
commenters and has revised the final rule to allow some
storage vessels to comply with the rule 10 years after
promulgation or at the next inspection period. A study of the
emissions from degassing ,and cleaning storage vessels was
analyzed using theoretical models developed by the EPA. The
analysis showed that significant emissions of HAP's occur from
degassing and cleaning activities such that the emissions
6-26
-------
cannot be balanced in a reasonable amount of time for floating
roof vessels by the emission reductions from complying with
subpart Kb without fittings. The analysis also showed that
emissions from degassing and cleaning fixed roof vessels could
be balanced under one year by the emission reductions from
>
complying with subpart Kb without fittings. Based on the
results of this analysis, the compliance time requirements
have been modified for floating roof vessels to be within
10 years or at the next inspection and maintenance activity,
whichever comes first. The compliance for fixed roof vessels
is still 3 years unless a compliance extension is obtained
under sec..112 (i)(3)(B) of the Act.
6.5 WORDING OF STORAGE VESSEL PROVISIONS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25),suggested clarification
of the provisions for guide poles for new storage tanks. The
commenter (IV-D-25) suggested requiring a pole wiper, which
they characterized as a new control technique that goes beyond
the requirements of HON and subpart Kb, and is cost effective.
The commenter (IV-D-25) also recommended that pole sleeves be
allowed as an option to provide flexibility.
Response; The EPA is evaluating the use of polewipers
and pole sleeves. After review, if the EPA has determined
that these controls are Appropriate, revisions to the NSPS to
allow them will be proposed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) pointed out that
§ 63.646 as written required covers, lids, rim vent spaces and
automatic bleeder vents closed at all times. The commenter
(IV-D-21) assumed that the EPA meant these requirements to
only apply to Group 1 storage vessels and suggested that this
be clarified.
Response: The commenter is correct. The final rule has
been clarified to only require covers, lids, rim vent spaces
and automatic bleeder vents closed at all times for Group 1
storage vessels.
6-27
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the
approach of cross-referencing the HON storage provisions and
then listing modifications and exceptions was confusing.
Response; The EPA recognizes the HON is a large and
cdmplex rule. The EPA decided to cross reference the refinery
rule requirements to the HON as well as the Benzene Waste
NESHAP to reduce repetition in the rule and the size of the
rule. The EPA contends that cross-referencing allows the rule
to be more easily read and is not a burden on sources.
However, the EPA has further clarified and simplified the
requirements in the final rule by providing clarifying
language where necessary, and by providing tables summarizing
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
6-28
-------
7.0 WASTEWATER PROVISIONS
7.1 DEFINITION OF WASTEWATER
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that "feed"
be deleted from "feed tank drawdown" in the definition of
iwastewater. ...
Response: The term "feed tank drawdown" used in the
definition for wastewater is used as an,,example of a
wastewater stream. This does not mean that any other type of
tank drawdown is not a wastewater. Because the commenter
feels that this would add some clarity to the rule, this
change has been made.
Comment; One commenter,(IV-D-29) suggested that all
wastewater systems in refineries handling only heavy crude oil
be exempt because they do not have significant VOC emissions,
especially small refineries.
Response; The EPA contends that the exemption provided
for refineries- with .a .TAB: less-than 10 Mg~, (il ^tons). allows
refineries without significant wastewater HAP or VOC emissions
to be exempt from this regulation. Because composition and
emissions from heavy crude oil vary from refinery to refinery,
the EPA is continuing to base exemptions on quantifiable
parameters (i.e., flow rate and concentration) as used in the
BWON.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-51) stated that Group 1 and
Group 2 wastewater emission points are referenced in
§ 63.640(1)(2)(ii) but are not included in the definitions
in § 63.641. The commenter (IV-D-51) recommended correcting
this problem.
7-1
-------
Response; The final rule clearly distinguishes
requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 wastewater streams, and
also provides separate definitions for them. The term
"emission point" is also defined to mean an individual process
Vent, storage vessel, wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Thus, a Group 1 emission point includes a Group 1 wastewater
stream.
7.2 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
7.2.1 Database
Comment : One commenter (IV-D-29) suggested that the EPA
review its database for heavy oil refineries regarding
wastewater streams and the controls already.' imposed on them.
Response; The database did consider controls in place at
heavy oil refineries. Many heavy oil refineries, which tend
to be small refineries and which would be expected to have
lower emissions of benzene and other HAP relative to full-
range crude oil refineries, may be exempt from this -regulation
due the 10 Mg (11 tons) TAB criterion. Additionally, this
regulation does not impose any further control than already
required by the BWON; neither does this regulation exempt a
refinery from current applicable requirements of other rules,
including the BWON.
7.2.2 Cost Impacts
Commertt ; One commejiter (R?-Ete-49) urg,ed .tfee -EPA ,to use
the actual compliance costs associated with the Benzene Waste
NESHAP. The commenter (IV-D-49) stated that the EPA estimated
capital costs to be $250 million, but that actual costs were
approximately $2 billion, almost 10 times the EPA estimate.
Another commenter (IV-D-25, IV-F-1) stated that control
experience shows that cost-effectiveness of wastewater control
options above the floor are higher than EPA estimated. The
commenter (IV-D-25) used data from 9 companies on the costs of
complying with the benzene NESHAP. The commenter (IV-D-25)
found control cost effectiveness in the range of $2,000/Mg
($l,800/ton) to $l,200,000/Mg ($1, 088, 500/ton) of BTEX for
individual control options within each refinery, and costs
7-2
-------
from $2,500 to $1,500,000/Mg ($2,270 to $1,361,000/ton) of
BTEX for the 9 refineries as a whole. The commenter (IV-D-25)
also noted that costs are likely to be higher for facilities
with low initial TAB ($100,000 to $1,000,000/Mg ($90,700 to
907,100/ton) of HAP). Two commenters (IV-D-25 and IV-D-49)
cited the following as reasons their cost analysis results in
higher numbers than the EPA's analysis:
• it is based on real-life costs incurred by existing
facilities,
• the amount of benzene and HAP emissions that would
be controlled at the nine refineries is lower than
EPA might estimate, because, some control and
recycling is already in place, and the uncontrolled
streams have lower emissions,
• control options other thanrsteam'^trippers were
examined by the commenter.
One commenter (IV-D-06) added that the total cost of
compliance, including drain and sewer sealing, waste treatment
units, vapor control devices, monitoring, reporting and
administrative costs is double that of the EPA's estimate.
Response; The MACT floor level of control for the
refinery wastewater stream component of the source-wide floor
was determined to be control equivalent to the BWON. The EPA
cannot legally require control that is less stringent than the
MACT floor. Based on the EPA,'ss current dost estimating.
approach, the EPA determined that controls more stringent than
the BWON would not be cost effective.
7.2.3 Emissions Impacts
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-49) stated that it appears
that the EPA is over-estimating HAP emissions from petroleum
refinery wastewater,operations in a manner similar to the
over-estimate made for the Benzene Waste NESHAP.
Response; Emission estimates were developed based on
section 114 questionnaire responses, 90-day BWON reports and
equilibrium calculations. The EPA has endeavored to use
actual operating data,whenever, possible. When estimates.and
assumptions were required, sound engineering judgement and
7-3
-------
accepted practices were employed. The EPA contends that the
emissions estimates developed are quite representative of
typical conditions and should more closely approximate actual
conditions due to the data from industry surveys.
753 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR AND MACT FOR WASTEWATER
7.3.1 Use of Benzene as a Surrogate
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-19) agreed with the
1/4 ratio for the relationship of benzene to other HAP's that
the EPA determined. One commenter (IV-D-52) disagreed with
the ratio, stating that the concentration ratio of benzene to
other HAP's may differ greatly in various wastewater streams.
The commenter (IV-D-52) wasnconcerned that for streams with
low benzene loading but high loading of other HAP's, those
UAP^s will'-be'unregulated.
Response; For emissions and cost estimating, ratios of
benzene concentration to HAP concentration were developed for
wastewater streams from various process units. The ratios
were developed from section 114 questionnaire responses and
90-day BWON reports and are reflective of actual reported
wastewater stream concentrations. Based on these data,
wastewater from petroleum refinery process units, except for
product blending and MEK dewaxing units, have a HAP-to-benzene
ratio about 4 to 1. Product blending and MEK dewaxing units
Tiave higher^HAP-to^foenzene ratios. Por proSuct blending,
however, the levels of HAP and benzene are relatively low with
this unit contributing less than one percent of the total HAP
emissions (including benzene). For MEK dewaxing units, MEK is
added; therefore, the 4-to-l HAP-to-benzene ratio does not
appropriately represent this unit. However, the benzene
concentration from these units is greater than 10. ppmw;
therefore, the streams would be controlled, making the HAP-to-
benzene ratio irrelevant.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-15, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25 and IV-F-1, IV-D-30, IV-D-36, IV-D-38, IV-D-44,
IV-D-51) supported the EPA's conclusion that benzene is a good
surrogate for other volatile HAP's in refinery process unit
7-4
-------
wastewater. One commenter (IV-D-25) referred to EPA analyses
in the docket to support this position. The commenter
(IV-D-25) stated that uncontrolled HAP in refineries
controlled by the benzene waste NESHAP, and HAP in refineries
exempt from the benzene waste NESHAP, are "insignificant."
One commenter (IV-D-46) disagreed with using benzene as a
surrogate for other HAP's in wastewater. The commenter
(IV-D-46) contended that using benzene only does not define
the components of a wastewater stream. Additionally, the
commenter (IV-D-46) claimed that benzene has a short residence
time and may give a lower than actual organics concentration.
The commenter ,-.(IV-D--4 6) stated that if benzene is used as a
surrogate for other HAP's" in wastewater, no definition of a
wastewater stream's components will be available to determine
the hazard of the mixture so that it could be included in
emissions averaging. Additionally, the commenter (IV-D-46)
pointed out that no information would be available on the
stream's non-organic HAP content. The commenter (IV-D-46)
provided that the State of Texas requires an accurate
inventory of emissions for public disclosure and assessing
fees.
Response; The EPA believes that benzene is an acceptable
surrogate for predicting the presence of other HAP's in
petroleum refinery wastewater streams... The^EPA used the
available technical information, within time and resource
constraints, to develop an organic HAP-to-benzene ratio for a
certain limited number of model streams where data on the
presence of all organic HAP's were not available. For the
purpose of assessing nationwide emissions and control options-
-including the floor—this approach adequately characterizes
the wastewater stream. The EPA would like to emphasize that
the HAP-to-benzene ratio does account for the presence and
emissions of other organic HAP's and that this relationship
was developed at the point of generation of the wastewater
streams before losses could occur. Docket item II-B-10
contains additional information on benzene as a surrogate.
7-5
-------
Additionally, this regulation does not mandate that emissions
averaging be used. If an owner "or operator elects to use
emissions averaging, further testing on wastewater streams
will be required. The EPA also has no data to indicate that
inorganic HAP's are emitted to the atmosphere from petroleum
refinery wastewater streams.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-52) suggested that the EPA
select 5 to 10 compounds to represent groups of HAP's with
similar characteristics because they felt that benzene loading
is not a comprehensive indicator of all HAP emissions from
wastewater treatment at a refinery. The commenter (IV-D-52)
continued:: that, chemically and structurally benzene is quite
different from HAP's which are aliphatics and those which have
•' chl"oritte~and nitro groups.
Response; The EPA contends that benzene is an acceptable
surrogate for HAP's in petroleum refinery wastewater streams.
As stated in the preamble, data shows that the HAP compounds
found in petroleum refinery wastewater are very similar in
structure and volatility to benzene. The EPA points out that
the predominant HAP's found in petroleum refinery wastewater
are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, none of which
have chloride or nitro groups. The data contained in the
section 114 questionnaire responses confirms the EPA's
conclusion" "that "there is a strong correlation between benzene ..
and the other organic HAP's.
7.3.2 Selection of the Wastewater Component of the
Source-Wide MACT Floor
Comment; Five commenters (IV-D-30, IV-D-33, IV-D-36)
(IV-D-38, IV-D-44) supported the use of the benzene waste
NESHAP's control strategy as an appropriate floor for
wastewater HAP's. One commenter (IV-D-49) recommended that
the MACT floor for wastewater operations not be more stringent
than the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
One commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that the Benzene Waste
Operations NESHAP is .more stringent than the refinery MACT
floor needs to be. However, the commenter (IV-D-44) still
7-6
-------
endorsed the selection as MACT floor because it is in place
and risk analysis does not justify any new controls.
Response; The wastewater component of the source-wide
MACT floor was developed using data in 90-day BWON reports.
The approach followed the requirements established by the
>
Clean Air Act. The EPA contends that the BWON is the
wastewater component of the source-wide floor and represents
the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources. In fact, more than
12 percent of existing sources are complying with the BWON.
7.3.3 Selection of MACT for Wastewater Streams Requiring
Control
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-10, IV-D-11,
IV-D-22, IV-D-42, IV-D-50, IV-D-51, IV-F-1) supported the
Benzene Waste NESHAP as the MACT standard"for wastewater HAP
emissions. The commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-11, IV-D-10,
IV-D-22, IV-D-51) asserted that control beyond the BWON is not
cost-effective. Four commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-33, IV-D-36,
IV-D-38) expressed support for API's study concluding that
controls above the BWON floor are cost ineffective and are
actually higher than the EPA estimated.
One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the drain controls
specified in the BWON are appropriate and no additional
benefit would be gained by imposing stricter-drain control
standards. One commenter (TV-D-20) agreed with the EPA that
the controls required by Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP also
control other HAP in wastewater streams present at petroleum
refineries.
Two commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-19) concluded that the
uncontrolled emissions remaining after applicable refineries
achieve the BWON level of control would be insignificant and
therefore it would not be cost effective to control beyond the
BWON level of control.
One commenter (IV-D-48) demanded wastewater controls at
all facilities. The commenter (IV-D-48) cited the EPA as
stating that 43 percent of "refineries are controlled to the
7-7
-------
level required by the BWON. The commenter (IV-D-48) concluded
that more than 12 percent of the sources are controlled. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated"that the EPA must also require
emission reductions from wastewater streams in facilities not
required to be controlled to the level required under the
BWON. Another commenter (IV-D-53) disagreed with the EPA's
determination that the BWON, which includes the 10 Mg
(11 tons) TAB applicability cutoff, should be existing source
MACT. The commenter (IV-D-53) asserted that the control
requirements of the BWON without the 10 Mg (11 tons) TAB
cutoff (control Option 1 above the floor) should be existing
source MACT. The -commenter (IV-D-53) contended that the BWON; •
with the 10 Mg TAB cutoff, is less stringent than the average
emissions "limitations achieved by the best"'perf orming
12 percent of existing sources because, based on the EPA's
analysis, more than 12 percent of existing sources achieve the
emissions limitation required by the BWON. One commenter
(IV-D-36) supported the application of the proposed regulation
to only refineries with a TAB of 10 Mg (11 tons) or greater.
One commenter (IV-D-52) recommended that the benzene loading
limit be lowered from the proposed 10 Mg/year (11 tpy) to
1 Mg/year (1.1 tpy) to reduce other HAP's along with benzene.
Response: The exemption from the wastewater provisions
for refineries with a TAB less-than 10-Mgf(l~2; tons) was
determined to be the wastewater component of the source-wide
MACT floor. The 43 percent of refineries that are controlled
have TAB greater than 10 Mg (11 tons). No information is
available that indicates that refineries with TAB less than
10 Mg (11 tons) are controlled to the same level; thus control
of such refineries is not part of the floor. Also, there is
no information that the top 12 percent of the refineries
control benzene wastes to less than 10 Mg (11 tons). The
analyses concluded that the cost of control of going beyond
the floor (e.g., controlling refineries with less than 10 Mg
(11 tons) TAB) is unreasonable. The commenters did not
7-8
-------
provide additional data to support their positions, therefore,
the EPA has no basis for lowering or removing this criterion.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-53) disagreed with the
.EPA's determination that the BWON with the 10 Mg (11 tons)
benzene applicability cutoff is new source MACT. The
commenter (IV-D-53) asserted that the control requirements of
the BWON without the 10 Mg (11 tons) benzene cutoff (Option 1)
is new source MACT. The commenter (IV-D-53) argued that the
only refinery in Wisconsin will be required (by 1995) to
control HAP emissions from wetstewater units in a manner
essentially equivalent to the BWON. The commenter (IV-D-53)
stated that before the proposed regulation is j-prpmulgated, an
existing facility will be achieving an emissions limitation
that is lower than the current definition of new source MACT.
The commenter (IV-D-53) cited the 1990 Amendments as requiring
a new source standard to be at least as stringent as the best
performing source. The commenter (IV-D-53) provided a copy of
Wisconsin's wastewater control requirements.
Response; The EPA has reviewed the emission limitations
to be imposed on the facility and has found them to be no more
stringent than those required by the BWON. As argued by the
commenter, the specific emission suppression and control
techniques for waste management units are the same as under
the BWON. Although the commenter did not supply sufficient
data to support the claim that the 10 Mg (11 tons) TAB cut-off
should not apply to new source MACT, the EPA was still able to
examine the applicability requirements of the controls to be
put in place. Based on the available data, the applicability
of such requirements is not more strict than the BWON.
Exemption levels from streams at the refinery in question are,
in fact, more lenient than exemption criteria in the BWON;
therefore, the requirements in question do not form the basis
of new source MACT.
7-9
-------
7.3.3.1 Selection of Wastewater Streams Requiring
' Control.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57) recommended
that a more stringent limit of 5 ppmw of VOC in wastewater be
required for existing and new sources. One commenter
(IV-D-13) contended that under the AQMD rule 1176 if the VOC
content of the inlet liquid to a sump or wastewater separator
is 5 ppmw or more, the equipment should be subject to control
requirements.
Response; The EPA holds firm in its position that
applicability determinations for wastewater emission controls
under the NESHAP program must be made at the point of
generation before concentrations possibly become reduced from
dilution or volatilization. Concentration measurements made
at the sump, may be subject to these limitations, especially
given the variability of collection sewer configurations from
refinery to refinery. Ev.en the use of a lower threshold
concentration (e.g., 5 ppmw) would not necessarily achieve a
more stringent -or even a consistent MACT control level across
all subject refineries because of the inherent wastewater
system differences.
7.3.3.2 Selection of MACT Technology.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-36) requested that air
.stripping be* allowed as an alternative -to- steam stripping.
The commenter (IV-D-36) contended that air stripping can be an
effective means of HAP reduction as well as provide
significant cost and energy savings.
Response; This regulation does not restrict petroleum
refineries to steam stripping as the only acceptable control
technology for wastewater emissions. Any technology that
meets the reduction requirements of the regulation is
acceptable.
7.4 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION FOR WASTEWATER
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-36) requested clarification
that reduction of TAB to below 10 Mg (11 tons) is an
acceptable level of control for MACT compliance. The
7-10
-------
commenter (IV-D-36) requested clarification regarding the
timing of TAB reduction required for MACT compliance.
Response: if a source has already reduced its TAB to
less than 10 Mg (11 tons) for compliance with the BWON, then
that source is, in fact, achieving the MACT requirements of
this regulation.
7-11
-------
-------
8.0 EQUIPMENT LEAKS PROVISION
8.1 DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT LEAKS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-40) requested clarification
of the term "tubing" used in the refinery regulation. The
commenter (IV-D-40) stated that it should be stated in the
rule "that "tubing" means pipe, and that construction of piping
standards normally specify "seamless" or "welded" tubing with
certain wall thicknesses, welding techniques, etc.
Response; The term "tubing is not used in the refinery
rule. However, it is part of the definition of hard-piping in
the HON, which is referenced throughout the refinery rule.
The EPA would like to clarify that the term hard-piping in the
HON has been corrected to mean piping or tubing that is
manufactured and properly installed using good engineering
standards, such as ANSI B31-3. The EPA considers this
correction to specify requirements for piping and tubing.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10) supported
changing the definition of light liquid. One ~cdmmeriter~~"~ '
(IV-D-10) asserted that the definition of light liquid service
should be consistent with NSPS subpart GGG, that is "equipment
in light liquid service if the percent evaporated is greater
than 10 percent at 150 °C (302 °F) as determined by ASTM
Method D-86." The commenter (IV-D-10) stated that this
definition would facilitate the use of the ASTM test data when
the vapor pressure data are not available, and be consistent
with other rules. Another commenter (IV-D-09) supported
changing the definition because refineries have distillation
information but rarely have detailed speciation data to
satisfy the current definition. The commenter (IV-D-09) also
stated that the cost of running ASTM methods for distillation
8-1
-------
is usually much less than running a complete GC/MS analysis to
speciate the stream.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenters and has
decided to revise the definition of light liquid to cross-
reference the NSPS subpart GGG definition.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) recommended clarifying
whether measurements at the interface of equipment refers to
touching the component or as close as possible to the
component. The commenter (IV-D-57) expressed concern that
industry sources believe interface to mean 1 cm (0.39 in) away
from the component. The commenter (IV-D-57) also stated that
usage' of the 1993 correlation equatioris- -emissions with the
1 cm (0.39 in) interface measurements may understate emissions
by a factor between 2 and" 7. The commenter" (IV-D-57)
recommended defining the term interface and include a maximum
allowable stand-off from the component. The commenter
(IV-D-57) recommended 1 cm (0.39 in) as the limiting distance,
and also recommended that any correlation equations published
by the EPA be based on the 1 cm stand-off.
Response; The EPA does not consider it necessary to
specify the leak measurement distance. The rule references
Method 21 as the basis for measuring emissions. Method 21
specifies that measurements with a hydrocarbon analyzer be
made at .the~"'inter.faee,, i.e-;-, iO cm from-the "leak/ unless the
monitored equipment has moving parts. If the equipment has
moving parts, such as a pump or compressor, a farther distance
is allowed for safety reasons.
The EPA would also like to clarify that all correlation
equations and emission factors developed by the EPA were based
on measurements at a 0 cm distance from the leak.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) requested that the EPA
define "in organic service" to be consistent with the HON.
Response; The EPA has revised the final rule to include
"in organic HAP service" in order to reduce confusion in the
rule.
8-2
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-30) requested an
explanation of what an "agitator" in a petroleum refinery is.
Response; The proposed rule required affected sources to
comply with the requirements of § 63.169 of subpart H. The
requirements in this section apply to equipment in heavy
liquid service, and agitators. Agitators are primarily used
for mixing in batch operations. These type of operations are
not typical in petroleum refineries. The final rule clarifies
that affected sources must comply with § 63.169 of subpart H,
except for the agitator provisions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested the
definition of ''process unit i. shutdown" be changed so that
unscheduled events that stop production for less than 72 hours
are not considered shutdowns. The commenter. (IV-D-25) stated
that a longer time than 72 hours would be required to safely
make repairs when working with high temperature and high
pressure refinery equipment. Another commenter (IV-D-21)
agreed with the definition of "process vent shutdown".
Response; The definition of "process unit shutdown" is
taken from subpart H of this part, and includes the following
language: " Process unit shutdown is a work practice or
operational procedure that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit during which it is technically
:feasible to -clear process -material from a process -unit or part
of a process unit consistent with safety constraints and
during which repairs can be affected." This language allows
sources to not make a repair even if more than 24 hours have
elapsed if they can show that it is not technically feasible
or safe to make the repair. Until more detailed information
is received that shows why a change is needed, EPA does not
believe that it would be appropriate to revise the definition
as suggested.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) pointed out that the
phrase "organic monitoring device" was not used in the
proposal and suggested that it be deleted from the
definitions. The commenter (IV-D-21) requested that if the
8-3
-------
phrase is not deleted, gas chromatographs should also be
listed, as they work under the same principles.
Response; The commenter is correct. "Organic monitoring
device" was defined in the proposed rule, but never used in
the provisions. The EPA deleted the phrase from the final
rule.
8.2 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (GENERAL)
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-47) requested that EPA
consider revising Method 21 specifications to allow trial of
newer and better adapted leak detection technologies. The
commenter (IV-D-47) contended that OVA's do not perform well
at concentrations levels of 1,000 and 500 ppitf.- - The commenter
(IV-D-47) specifically stated that at these concentrations,
the OVA readings tecome unstable and are not reproducible
because variations in sample intake may occur and because
leaks are not well-mixed systems. The commenter (IV-D-47)
stated that the solution to this problem is to allow the use
of leak sensing equipment whereby the leak sensing element is
brought into close proximity to the leak rather than conveying
escaped gas from the leak to the leak sensor by means of a
sample pump. The commenter (IV-D-47) stated that this would
result in a zero sample intake rate, which results in
accurate, reproducible, and reliable test results, and will
also reduce the Variations in -test results caused by wind and
operator technique. The commenter (IV-D-47) supplied results
of an experiment demonstrating variability in sample intake.
The commenter (IV-D-47) provided an example of a zero intake
leak sensing device.
Response; The EPA recognizes that there are a variety of
combinations of sampling and analytical methods that can be
used to detect leaks, some of which will be more sensitive to
small leaks than others. Method 21 is not limited to one
detection principle, but to change Method 21 in the manner
suggested by the commenter could affect the stringency of the
standard, and thus would not be acceptable. The commenter is
referred to the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
8-4
-------
subpart A), which provides a mechanism for requesting an
alternative monitoring method, and to Method 301, which
discusses requirements for veilidating alternative testing -or
monitoring techniques.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) suggested that a
s
provision similar to the one set forth in § 63.177 be included
to allow alternative means of leak detection approved by the
EPA to be utilized. Two commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-25)
requested that the refinery NESHAP be changed to incorporate
the "alternative means of emission limitation" provisions in
§§ 63.177, 63.178, and 63.179 of HON in order to allow
flexibility. <, .. r--,-, i
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that §§ 63.177
through 63.179 of subpart H do not involve the monitoring
instrument alternative standards. Sections 63.177 through
63.179.provide alternative standards for batch operations,
building controls, and provide a mechanism for either a
manufacturer of equipment or sources to petition for
alternative standards. The General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) already provides opportunity for alternate
means of emission limitation; therefore, referencing these
sections from subpart H is not necessary. However, in order
to clarify any confusion that may arise, the EPA has decided
,.to reference §§.63.177 and 63^. 179 of subpart H. Section
63.178 was not included because it applies to batch processes.
The EPA does not consider batch processes to be applicable to
the refining industry.
8.3 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
8.3.1 Cost Impacts
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the cost
estimate for equipment leaks was flawed. The commenter
(IV-D-22) objected that an option above the floor, requiring
more stringent control wa's determined to be less costly than
the floor. The commenter (IV-D-22) stated that in developing
costs, the EPA substituted a fivefold increase in repairs and
the potential for a threefold decrease in monitoring for the
8-5
-------
provisions of the petroleum refinery NSPS floor. The
commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that•because the negotiated rule
has a leak definition that is 5 times stricter than the NSPS
the chance for reduced monitoring will be eliminated.
Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-22) argued that such provisions
must necessarily require more frequent repairs than the
petroleum refinery NSPS and cannot be less expensive than the
NSPS. The commenter (IV-D-22) concluded that because costs
have been erroneously estimated, the EPA has not met the
statutory requirement of considering cost for above the floor
options.
Response.: .The EPA used the best information available to
estimate costs. Cost information was obtained from surveys
sent to equipment leak control vendors and "refineries, and
previously developed costs presented in the Equipment Leaks
Enabling document. If cost information were supplied by
commenters, the EPA would consider this new information to
reassess its costs. No information was provided by the
commenter.
However, the EPA agrees that enough question in the
emissions estimate exists, and therefore the credit from
controlling emissions, due to possible overestimates from the
equipment leak emission factors that Option 1 may not be a
better opti'oh. Therefore, "the final rule allows sources to
comply with the requirements in subpart W (equivalent to the
petroleum refinery NSPS [40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG]) or
Option 1, the negotiated rule without connector monitoring.
The selection of the alternative is left to the owner or
operator and can be revised in each permit renewal.
Comment: One commenter•(IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) stated that
many small refineries have not been required to implement LDAR
programs and they do not have expertise in setting up and
operating such programs. The commenter (IV-D-50) explained
that small refineries will experience high LDAR compliance
costs compared to the industry at large because of high start-
up costs, less computer applications, and poorer economies of
8-6
-------
scale. The commenter (IVrD-50 and IV-F-1) estimated that the
first year costs associated with implementing and operating a
LDAR program for a small refinery would be approximately one-
half million dollars. The commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1)
added that small refineries will incur additional costs to
install required computer applications associated with LDAR
programs. The commenter (IV-D-50) went on to say that a small
refinery will incur higher LDAR costs than a large facility on
a per barrel basis, because both facilities will have a
similar number of points to monitor and maintain, but the
small refinery will have fewer barrels in which to allocate
LDAR costs.
Response; The EPA agrees that controlling equipment
leaks at small refineries may be less cost-.effective than at
large refineries. The EPA examined the possibility of
subcategorizing small refineries to determine if a different
MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks could be
developed. MACT floors were analyzed for various crude charge
capacity cutoffs (10,000; 20,000; 30,000; 40,000; 50,000; and
60,000 bbl/sd), refinery ozone attainment status, and based on
the types of products at each refinery. The results of the
analysis showed that no significant changes from the equipment
leaks component of the source-wide MACT floor, the petroleum
refinery NSPS equipment Leaks,,program (40,,CFR part 60,
subpart GGG), would occur for small refineries. Therefore,
all refineries are subject to the control equivalent to the
petroleum refinery NSPS level of control. The EPA did revise
the final rule to address concerns of small refineries
regarding the cost of establishing the program by removing the
criteria to have 1/3 of the refinery comply within 6 months
after promulgation, 2/3 of the refinery comply within
12 months after promulgation, and the entire refinery comply
within 18 months after promulgation. The final rule requires
the entire refinery to comply with the standard within 3 years
after promulgation. The EPA believes this extra time will
benefit small refineries and refineries that have never
8-7
-------
implemented an equipment leaks program by allowing sufficient
time to establish and properly operate a leak detection -
t» j
program.
8.3.2 Emission Impacts
s Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-11,
IV-D-12, IV-D-22, IV-D-25 and IV-F-1, IV-D-51) contended that
the equipment leak provisions were not cost-effective because
the EPA's emission factors significantly overestimate
emissions, and therefore, emission reductions. Three
commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-22, IV-D-25) explained that a
recently published API study undermines the theoretical basis
of the negotiated rule, resulting in equipment leak fugitive
emissions being overestimated by as much as a factor of 10.
Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-51) noted that the EPA adopted a
new set of equipment leak emission factors and correlation
equations for petroleum refineries, but did not use these new
correlation equations and emission factors to determine cost-
effectiveness of the equipment leak provisions. Two
commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-25) concluded that the result is
that the cost-effectiveness is in actuality $15,000/Mg
($13,600/ton) of HAP vs the EPA's estimate of $l,500/Mg
($l,360/ton) of HAP. Therefore, one commenter (IV-D-09)
stated that it is obsolete to control equipment leak fugitives
by means of r.traditionaKLeak?detection and repair programs.
One commenter (IV-D-51) contended that using the updated
equations and factors would show that controls more stringent
than the proposed rule cannot be justified. One commenter
(IV-D-30) stated that the new fugitive emission factors for
equipment leaks developed by API are more reflective of
current technology and operating practices.
Several commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-16, IV-D-34, IV-D-57)
did not support the use of new AP-42 correlation equations for
equipment leaks. Three commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-34, IV-D-57)
raised a number of concerns with the new equations, including:
sample population being too small, not a representative
sampling of component sizes, pressures, and temperatures. One
8-8
-------
commenter (IV-D-34) stated that they provided comments to the
EPA on June 21, 1994, on a 1993 study that the equations are
based on. Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57) added that
adoption of these revisions in conjunction with the NESHAP may
pressure air agencies in California to abandon a stringent,
cost-effective method of controlling emissions.
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that the
equipment leak data that are being used to estimate the costs
and emission reductions of the equipment leak rules were
developed in 1980. The data provided in 1993 by API cannot be
used to revise the factors because two sets of information are
needed. These include the amount of emissions generated per
piece of equipment leaking at a given concentration and the
percent of equipment that .are actually :leaking at these
concentrations. The 1980 study that was used to estimate the
impacts of the refinery MACT rule used a consistent sampling
methodology to address both of these factors based on sampling
at uncontrolled refineries. The 1993 American Petroleum
Institute (API) study developed new;information only on
emissions per piece of leaking equipment using a different
methodology. As stated in API's report, this information was
developed from refineries in California for use with other
information to estimate facility-specific equipment leak
emissions. The EPA used the,API .data to-revise the equipment
leak correlation equations and default zero emission rates.
EPA could not revise the average equipment leak factors for
refineries because percent leaking data were not provided.
The EPA also believes it would be inappropriate to combine the
1993 information with the 1980 data to develop new emission
estimates because the sampling methodologies were different
and it is not clear that it is appropriate to use information
from well controlled refineries to estimate emissions from
facilities that have never been subject to a leak detection
and repair program. Therefore, the 1993 study data was not
used to revise the emission estimates.
8-9
-------
The EPA recognizes that new correlation equations
developed "for the refining industry indicate that the refinery
factors may overestimate emissions, which may make the
negotiated rule (without connector monitoring) cost-
ineffective. This cannot be accurately determined because the
appropriate information to update average emission factors is
not available. The EPA recognizes that enough uncertainty
exists in the emission and cost estimates to question the
results of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In recognition of
this uncertainty and to provide compliance flexibility, the
EPA has changed the final rule to provide each existing
refinery with a choice of- complying with either: = (i) 40 CFR- ?•• <
part 60 subpart W, or (2) the negotiatedjrule without
connector monitoring. Although not required in the final
rule, the EPA promotes use of the negotiated rule without
connector monitoring because it is believed to provide
considerable product, emissions, and cost savings to a
refinery.
8.4 SELECTION OF MACT FLOOR AND MACT (GENERAL EQUIPMENT
LEAKS)
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) suggested that the EPA
exempt equipment already controlled by VOC regulations.
Response: The EPA agrees in general that it may be very
'burdensome ,>f or^-sources to -be- subject to several .equipment leak
regulations with similar, but not -identical, requirements. In
an effort to reduce the burden, the EPA has provided in
subpart H that compliance, with that rule will constitute
compliance with any overlapping NSPS or NESHAP. In addition,
on April 10, 1995 EPA proposed amendments to subpart H to
allow an owner or operator to elect to comply with subpart H
for all VOC containing equipment in lieu of compliance with
subpart W, GGG, or KKK of part 60. For owners or operators
who elect to comply with subpart W instead of subpart H of
part 63, there will be only one Federal program and
overlappin'g requirements should not be an issue.
8-10
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-29) asserted that all
equipment in contact with heavy oil should be exempt from the
equipment leaks provisions, including recordkeeping
requirements, because the VOG emissions are insignificant.
Response; The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Heavy
oil that leaks and mixes with water may be a source of
significant emissions. The EPA considers the requirements for
components in heavy liquid service to be minimal.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-36, IV-D-38) supported the
exclusion of equipment in contact with material containing
less than 5 percent HAP's. One commenter (IV-D-36) requested
tiiat it be clarified that this is-an optioniiartd- equipment in
contact with less than 5 percent HAP's may be included if it
is more convenient. The commenter (IV-D_-^3J5) explained that
many existing leak monitoring programs include all components
containing material lighter than kerosene and requiring a
different accounting would be extremely burdensome.
Response; The EPA thanks the commenters for their
support. The five percent value is the minimum concentration
of HAP's that the EPA considers to indicate a stream in HAP
service. A source may chose to include streams that are less
than 5 percent HAP in the monitoring program.
8.4.1 Selection of MACT Floor
Comment; Two commenters .(IV-D-36, -IV-D-4,4) supported the
use of petroleum refinery NSPS levels as the MACT floor. One
commenter (IV-D-44) argued that petroleum refinery NSPS should
be adopted as MACT floor for administrative simplicity. The
commenter (IV-D-44) also alleged that the risk analysis does
not support a more stringent level of control than the
petroleum refinery NSPS standards. The commenter (IV-D-44)
stated that compliance with the NSPS standards and HON should
be considered compliance with the leak detection provisions of
the proposed regulation and wording should be added to the
regulation to make this clear.
Response: The refinery MACT standard is not based on
risk, but the statutory criteria required in the Act. The Act
8-11
-------
requires that the floor be determined based on the average
emissions limitation achieved at the best-controlled
12 percent of sources. The EPA's MACT floor analysis
indicated that the equipment leak component of the source-wide
MACT floor is control equal to the petroleum refinery NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). As stated earlier, due to the
uncertainty in the impacts analysis and to provide compliance
flexibility, the EPA has changed the final rule to provide
each existing refinery with a choice of complying with 40 CFR
part 60 subpart W (which is equivalent to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGG) or the negotiated rule without connector
monitoring provisions.t * --' .• • •
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-42) requested the
tint •
development™-of-a"*•separate MACT floor for equipment leaks at
small refineries, in which the floor should not exceed the
petroleum refinery NSPS requirements. Several commenters
(IV-D-12, IV-D-22, IV-D-42) stated that compliance with the
NSPS would be less burdensome than compliance with the
proposed refineries NESHAP. Two commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-42)
supported longer initial compliance periods for the proposed
rule (18 months) and supported requiring the NSPS control with
a 3 year compliance time for small refineries since short-term
initial compliance for small refineries, which do not have an
"LDAR system"'would be infeasible. " • : - ' - *
Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-44) explained that the best
equipment leak controls, which will set the MACT standard,
will be found at large refineries located in the worst ozone
attainment areas. However, the commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-44)
stated that these refineries do not accurately reflect the
best controls found in small refining companies or refineries
located in ozone attainment areas. One commenter (IV-D-22)
added that LDAR programs are non-existent at small refineries
and at many refineries located in ozone attainment areas. The
commenter (IV-D-22) claimed that small refineries in
nonattainraent areas produce heavier petroleum products such as
fuel oils, lubes, or asphalt, which are generally not included
8-12
-------
in LDAR that focus on light liquid streams. Therefore, the
cdmmenter (IV-D-22) supported extended compliance times to
help many small refineries and refineries located in
attainment areas digest significant start-up costs associated
wj-th LDAR.
Another commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that there should be
no difference in equipment leak requirements for small and
large refineries.
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that the
equipment leaks component of MACT floor analysis predicates
that refineries control equipment leaks at least to the
petroleum refinery NSPS (40 CFR part 60,^-subpart GGG3)- -level of
control. As discussed in section 4.0 of this document, EPA
examined the question of whether subcategordzation would
result in significantly different requirements for small
refineries. In this analysis, the EPA analyzed the equipment
leak component of the source-wide MACT floor for various crude
charge capacity cut-offs and determined that no significant
changes from the NSPS equipment leaks program would occur for
small refineries (refineries under 10,000 bbl/sd to
50,000 bbl/sd of crude). Therefore, all refineries are
subject to control equivalent to the NSPS level of control.
The EPA agrees that small refineries may not have the
experience to implement an .LDAR-program for.,.equipment leaks in
a short time-frame without significant expense. The EPA also
contends that other refineries that do not currently have LDAR
programs may also have trouble implementing the rule in 6 to
18 months. In response to these comments, the EPA has changed
the final rule to require that all refineries, regardless of
size, comply with a LDAR program with the same leak definition
and monitoring frequency as 40 CFR part 60 subpart W (which
is equivalent to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG) within 3 years
after promulgation of the rule; there will not be interim
deadlines during the 3-year period by which portions of the
refinery are required to comply during this time. A refinery
that chooses to comply with the modified negotiated rule must
8-13
-------
then implement Phase II within 4 years and Phase III
51/2 years after promulgation of the rule. A refinery that
chooses to comply with subpart W would continue to implement
that program.
s Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57) contended
that the since more than 12 percent of refineries are located
in the Bay Area and South Coast Area in California, and these
regions have the most stringent equipment leaks regulations in
the nation, the EPA should adopt the requirements from these
regions as MACT floor for existing and for new equipment. One
commenter (IV-D-13) asserted these leak standards include not
allowing leaks to' exceed, If/CEOO ppm measured-at a source, *i.e.,
0 cm from the source or up to 1 cm (0.29 in) away from the
source' if "0~cm'Treading is impractical. The commenter
(IV-D-13) asserted that the AQMD's best available control
technology both for VOC a.nd toxics require all new valves and
flanges less than 5.08 cm (2 in) in diameter to be leakless.
One commenter (IV-D-57) stated that use of special seals
should not release the source from performing at least annual
inspection of pumps. The commenter (IV-D-57) added that
equipment leaks from new process units should be subject to
more stringent I&M and LDAR than existing sources. The
commenter (IV-D-57) stated that valves and connectors should
meet monthly I&M with LDAR at 100 ppm with one cm stand-off,
because there are refinery processes in the Bay Area that
currently meet this level. Additionally, the commenter
(IV-D-57) asserted that new pumps and compressors should meet
quarterly I&M with LDAR at 500 ppm measured at 1 cm (0.39 in).
Response: The equipment leak component of the source-
wide MACT floor for existing sources was developed based on
the best available data, -which was the data provided in the
section 114 and ICR questionnaire responses. The MACT floor
analysis at proposal was based on equating control information
reported on the questionnaires to the control effectiveness of
Federal programs on a model refinery. This method may have
underestimated the control efficiency at some sources that had
8-14
-------
lower leak definitions and heid higher equipment counts than
those in the model refinery. In order to correct these
oversights, the equipment leeiks component of the source-wide
floor was revised to include the effect of actual equipment
counts and leak definitions. The results of the revised
• >
analyses showed that the existing source floor is still
control equal to the control required by the NSPS. ,
Both the proposal and revised floor analysis were
determined using a broad definition of source (i.e., the
collection of all leaking equipment at a refinery). The EPA
believes that the commenters view is based on a narrow
definition-of af-fected. source. The EPA contends that when the
total effect of the South Coast and Bay Area rules are
analyzed on a refinery, including all the,exemptions, these
rules are not more stringent than the MACT floor level of
control.
The EPA's position was arrived at from a study that
compared the overall control efficiency of the Bay Area and
South Coast equipment leaks rules, and subpart W. Average
leak rate equations, leak frequencies, and equipment leak
control efficiencies presented in the Equipment Leaks Protocol
Document were used to estimate overall efficiency of
controlling equipment leaks from a refinery. The results of
the comparison showed that the control efficiency for
refineries complying with the South Coast or Bay Area
regulations was similar to the control efficiency for
refineries complying with the. requirements in 40 CFR part 60
subpart W. Within, the -accuracy of this analysis, the EPA
considered the control effectiveness of the South Coast, Bay
Area, and subpart W to be equivalent in most cases.
Regarding one commenter's (IV-D-57) concern for the need
for annual inspection of sealless pumps, the EPA believes that
the rule does require this. The EPA did not adopt the
suggestions of other commenters that the rule require new
sources to install "leakless" valves and connectors. As
discussed in previous rulemakings, information available to
8-15
-------
EPA shows that "leakless" equipment can have significant
emissions when failures occur and this equipment is not "
available for all situations in refinery operations. The
commenters did not provide any information that indicated that
this equipment is available and suitable for installation in
new refinery operations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that equipment
leaks must be subject to I&M no less frequently than
quarterly. The commenter (IV-D-57) stated that a study showed
that quarterly I&M decreases emissions by 50 to 60 percent
from I&M performed annually. The commenter (IV-D-57) added
that by allowing I&M frequency to decrease biannually, the EPA *
provides for a substantial number of components to remain
lealcing Tor up 'to 2 years, which is 8 times longer than what
is allowed in the Bay Area or South Coast. The commenter
(IV-D-57) recommended the EPA only allow less frequent I&M
only when the previous 3 inspections found components in
compliance with a more stringent leak definition (1,000 ppm)
or when a greater percentage are in compliance, (e.g., fewer
than 0.25 percent leaking instead of 0.5). The commenter
(IV-D-57) stressed that under no circumstances should I&M be
performed less frequently than annually.
Response; The EPA disagrees with the commenters
conclusion. "-The1 *EPA'bel-ieves that there is" a trade-off
between emissions reductions and inspection frequency. In
examining the appropriateness of the HON valve standards to
refinery operations, the EPA considered whether to extend some
of the concepts of the negotiated valve standard to the valve
and pump standards for refineries. The negotiated valve
standard included incentive provisions to encourage better
performance and two forms of penalty options to consider
differences among the facilities ability to undertake a
quality improvement program. The EPA determined that the
continuous use of better performing equipment, i.e., equipment
that does not leak at the low leak definitions of Phase III,
would result in lower emissions than more frequent monitoring
8-16
-------
of the equipment. After considering the predicted differences
in effectiveness of different monitoring intervals for pumps,
the EPA also concluded that an incentive for better
performance could be included in the pump standard and still
assure better emission performance. Therefore, the proposed
rule and the final refinery standard allow a QIP for both
valves and pumps in Phase III.
8.4.2 Selection of MACT '
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) commended
the EPA for proposing to .extend the equipment leak compliance
time by 18 months to help small refineries implement programs,
but encouraged the EPA to. further extend the compliance time
to the 3 year period allowed under section 112.
Two. commenters (IV-D-45, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) supported
the maximum 3 year LDAR implementation time to achieve
compliance with the petroleum refinery NSPS level of control.
One commenter (IV-D-10) added that the EPA should provide the
full 3 year compliance period for the equipment leaks
provisions to all refineries. The commenter (IV-D-10)
contended that the cost of implementing and complying with the
rule will be as much for large refineries as small ones. Two
commenters (IV-D-45, IV-D-50, and IV-F-1) believed that the
small refinery LDAR requirements should be based on the
petroleum r.efinery NSPS requirements instead of the • negotiated
rule. One commenter (IV-D-45) stated that they use in-place
state-of-the-art hydrocarbon gas detection systems and high
quality standard procedures for maintenance and repair and
included (in Appendix C of their comment) the results of
fugitive testing at their units.
Response: The EPA would like to clarify that the
equipment leak component of the source-wide MACT floor
analysis predicates that refineries control equipment leaks to
a level of control equal to the petroleum refinery NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). The EPA analyzed the
equipment leak component of the source-wide MACT floor for
various crude charge capacity cut-offs and determined that no
8-17
-------
significant changes, from the petroleum refinery NSPS equipment
leaks program would occur for small refineries (refineries
under 10,000 bbl/sd to 50,000 bbl/sd of crude). Therefore,
all refineries are subject to control equivalent to the
petroleum refinery NSPS level of control.
The EPA agrees that small refineries may not have the
experience to implement an LDAR program for equipment leaks in
a short time-frame without significant expense. The EPA also
contends that other refineries that do not currently have LDAR
programs may also have trouble implementing the rule in 6 to
18 months. Furthermore, special consideration could provide
small refineries with unfair competitive advantage over larger
refineries. In response to these comments, the EPA has
changed the "f ih'aT rule to require that alT'ref ineries,
regardless of size, comply with a LDAR program with the same
leak definition and monitoring frequency as 40 CFR part 60
subpart W (which is equivalent to subpart GGG) within 3 years
after promulgation of the rule. At the end of the third year
the entire "refinery must be in compliance with the level of
control specified in subpart W; there will not be interim
deadlines during the 3-year period by which portions of the
refinery are required to comply during this time. A refinery
that chooses to comply with the modified negotiated rule must
then implement Phase II within 4 years -and 'Phase III
51/2 years after promulgation of the rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) recommended that the
EPA adopt the numerical standards negotiated for the HON for
the equipment leaks provisions. The commenter (IV-D-48)
alleged that these standards are achievable and that adopting
identical provisions will make compliance and enforcement
simpler. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated the proposed
equipment leaks provisions are weaker than the HON provisions.
The commenter (IV-D-48) asserted that the equipment leaks
standard involves' enforceable maximum achievable emission
limitations. The commenter (IV-D-48) listed several specific
recommendations to strengthen the equipment leaks provisions.
8-18
-------
One Gommenter (IV-D-57) contended that the standards for
leaking valves and connectors should be set at 500 ppm. The
commenter (IV-D-57) disagreed with the EPA's conclusion that
technology is not available for refineries to meet the same
stringent standards required under the HON. The commenter
>
(IV-D-57) stated that in the Bay area all refineries meet a
500 ppm leak definition and by 1997 some refineries will be
required to meet 100 ppm definition. The commenter (IV-D-57)
stated that in the South Coast a leak definition of 1000 ppm
measured at 0 cm is equivalent to 500 ppm measured at 1 cm.
The commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that the EPA should
explicitly chose one standard and specify a screening
distance.
One commenter (IV-D-54) expressed disappointment at the
equipment leaks provisions because the leak definition is too
high. The commenter (IV-D-54) contended that the EPA should
require a leak definition of 500 ppm, as Texas has done in its
MID program, rather than the 2,000 ppm that is currently in
the rule. The commenter (IV^-D-54) contended that a leak
definition of 2,000 does not provide adequate protection for a
community and also does not consider the clusters of petroleum
refineries around a community.
Another commenter (IV-D-19) expressed appreciation for
the consistency demonstrated" Jby using subpart H of the HON as
a framework for the equipment leaks section and the effort
made to differentiate refineries from chemical plants.
Another commenter (IV-D-11) agreed that the EPA has made
reasonable adjustments to the negotiated rule to be applicable
to refineries which affords refineries some flexibility.
One commenter (IV-D-29) contended that a 10,000 ppm TOG
emissions standard leak definition is sufficient for existing
refineries. The commente.r (IV-D-29) claimed that a stricter
standard will force equipment replacements or facility
shutdowns.
Response; The final rule allows refineries to comply
with either subpart W -- (which is equivalent to the petroleum
8-19
-------
refinery NSPS [40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG]) or the modified
negotiated regulation. The leak definition for subpart W
equipment leaks is 10,000 ppmv. The leak definition levels
prescribed in the proposed rule, and in the modified
negotiated regulation option, were developed based on the
standards in the HON. Process streams in the SOCMI industry
have a higher concentration of HAP's than streams in
refineries. In order to provide a comparable control level
for the refinery industry, the HON leak definitions were
adjusted based on the stream composition information available
to the EPA.
- Comment; One commenter (IV-D^22) objected to a 1000 ppm
valve standard because the EPA's own analysis shows that no
. -»!_'
refinery out of ~a list of 134 achieves an equipment leak
control efficiency greater than that of the petroleum refinery
NSPS. The commenter (IV-D-22) admits that one State has a
leak definition at that level. However, the commenter
(IV-D-22) asserted that the existence of a standard in a
single State proves neither its technical feasibility, its
cost-effectiveness, nor its equivalency to the statutory
definition of a MACT floor.
One commenter (IV-D-.09) contended that the EPA should
focus on restructuring the equipment leak provisions to
.concentrate_rm the rapid repair of .gross emittexs*. i.e«.,.i. those
equipment components that leak relatively large amounts. The
commenter (IV-D-09) stated that refineries agreed that it was
appropriate to adopt the structure of the negotiated rule, but
not necessarily the numerical standards.
Response; The EPA considers the proposed rule to focus
on the largest emitting equipment: pumps in light liquid
service, compressors, and valves in light liquid and gas
service. The baseline emissions analysis indicates that over
80 percent of the emissions are from these pieces of
equipment. The promulgated rule limits emissions from these
components by over 70 percent.
8-20
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) opposed using.the
negotiated rule in the refinery MACT because it was based on
another proceeding to which the commenter was not included.
Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-22) claimed that the EPA's use
of the negotiated rule ignores both applicable administrative
and due process requirements. Two commenters (IV-D-45,
IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) stated that even though the EPA has
indicated that the petroleum refinery NSPS represents the MACT
floor for equipment leaks, a more stringent approach was
negotiated with API, who represents large refineries.
Response: The EPA views the negotiated regulation as
.another existing equipment -leak control program, and, as such,
it can be included in the impacts analysis. The fact that no
refinery is currently complying with it, is not relevant
because it is an option above the floor level of control.
Proposal of this option was based on the finding that it will
achieve additional emissions reductions,in a cost effective
manner. The proposal of the refineries MACT allowed ample
opportunity for comments to be submitted and considered in
promulgating the final standards. No administrative or due
process requirements have been violated.
The HON was not developed exclusively from negotiations
with API. The refining industry, represented by API,
^participated with representatives from,; the., chemical, ^industry *,.._«
in developing the negotiated regulation for equipment leaks,
which was used in the HON. The HON equipment leak provisions
were developed with the understanding that the refining
industry is not included in the HON equipment leaks standard.
Additionally, the equipment leak provisions in the refinery
MACT standard are not the same as the HON provisions; they
have been modified to apply to the refining industry. The
commenter's non-participation in the regulatory negotiation
for equipment leaks is not relevant to this rulemaking.
8-21
-------
8.5 EQUIPMENT - SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
8.5.1 Pumps in Light Liquid Service
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) supported the Phase III
leak definition for pumps (2,000 ppm) in the proposed refinery
NESHAP, which is higher than in the HON rule. The commenter
(IV-D-25) claimed the HON approach of using one level for the
leak definition and another to trigger repair requirements for
pumps is complicated, would achieve little HAP emission
reduction, and would not be cost effective.
Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-44) suggested that the
definition for pump leaks should be 10,000 ppm, the petroleum
refinery NSPS standard leak definitian.> instead of 2,000 ppm.
One commenter (IV-D-22) objected to the 2,000 ppm leak
definition for pumps because the technology may not perform in
the same manner in all situations. The commenter (IV-D-22)
asserted that there is no justification for extending an
isolated performance leve'l to all process services as an
enforceable standard. The commenter (IV-D-22) argued that EPA
admits that the risk from HAP emissions is very low in the
base case before implementing controls. Given this fact, the
commenter (IV-D-22) stated that it does not make any real or
measurable difference to the risk by imposing a standard of
10,000 ppm instead of 2,000 ppm. The commenter (IV-D-22)
added -that -givers the. law risk, ^industry should be given the •
choice as to whether to install single or dual seal pumps and
whether or not to monitor.
Response; The final rule allows owners or operators the
option of complying with subpart W (which is equivalent to
the petroleum refinery NSPS) or modified subpart H equipment
leak standards. Subpart W has a leak definition of
10,000 ppmv.
The EPA disagrees that the 2,000 ppmv leak definition in
the modified subpart H cannot be met. Based on information
used to develop previous regulations, the EPA believes that a
2,000 ppmv leak definition can be met with existing control
technologies for pumps, such as dual or mechanical seals. The
8-22
-------
EPA would like to clarify that the equipment leak provisions
are work practices. The standard requires repair of leaking
pumps exceeding the leak definition, and exceedences are not a
violation by themselves.
„ The EPA would also like to clarify that the MACT
standards were based on the statutory criteria. The Act
specifically requires EPA to set technology-based rather than
risk-based standards when developing the MACT standards. The
residual risk of the rule will be analyzed 8 years after the
MACT standards have been promulgated.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) supported the inclusion
of pumps in light-Mquid service and heavy liquid service.
The commenter (IV-D-48) demanded that if the EPA concludes
that reductions in emissions from this-equipment is not
achievable, it must provide an explanation based on evidence
in the record.
Response: Equipment in light liquid service and heavy
liquid service are both regulated in the equipment leak
provisions.
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-25,
IV-D-42) stated that reciprocating pumps in light liquid
service should be excluded from the equipment leaks provisions
because these pumps are designed to leak small amounts for
Rubricating purposes,_amd.\ no available packing technology can
effectively reduce levels to 2000 ppm. One commenter
(IV-D-25) added that retrofitting reciprocating pumps with
secondary seals can be very costly or infeasible depending on
the design and dimensions. The commenter (IV-D-25) added that
they did not know of any data for setting a reasonable
standard. Two commenter (IV-D-21, IV-D-22) added that
reciprocating pumps are used infrequently and usually only for
maintenance activities. Three commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25,
IV-D-42) also contended that for the same reasons,
reciprocating compressors should be excluded from the rule.
Another commenter (IV-D-57) asserted that reciprocating
pumps and compressors should be regulated because they are
8-23
-------
sources of substantial emissions. One commenter (IV-D-46)
noted that the State of Texas makes no distinction between
reciprocating pumps and others in light liquid service subject
to LDAR requirements. The commenter (IV-D-46) acknowledged
tfiat reciprocating pumps are more difficult to make leak free,
but argued that this is made up for by the fact that there
tend to be far fewer in a refinery. The commenter (IV-D-46)
recommended that reciprocating pumps not be exempted.
Response; The EPA contends that reciprocating pumps are
sources of emissions that cannot categorically be exempted
from the rule. However, the EPA agrees that replacing
reciprocating * pumps may be costly. Therefore,--the final- ra\be
exempts reciprocating pumps in heavy liquid service, and in
light liquid service if recasting the distance piece or
reciprocating pump replacement is required. This exemption is
consistent with the MACT floor.
Comment: 'One commenter (IV-D-10) contended that the
provision in § 63.648 allowing quarterly monitoring for pumps
if the percent leak rate is less than 3 percent of pumps or
one pump is not clear as to when such monitoring may start.
The commenter (IV-D-10) recommended that quarterly monitoring
of pumps may begin in Phase I if leak rate frequency is met.
Response: The EPA has clarified that the QIP for pumps
begins in Phase Til of the rule. This is consistentiwith -the i
valve monitoring QIP requirements. The rule does not preclude
an owner or operator from complying with the Phase III leak
provisions earlier. If the owner or operator wishes to
monitor pumps and valves less frequently earlier than 2000,
the owner or operator will need to have the monitoring data to
show that they are meeting the percent leaking pumps criteria.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-10) stated that leak rate
triggers for pumps should be clarified by allowing a choice
between the percentage of pumps or the specified number of
pumps.
Response; The purpose of allowing a specified number of
pumps leaking rather than a percentage of pumps is for cases
8-24
-------
when a limited number of pumps exist such that the percentage
of pumps specified would allow less than one pump leaking.
For example, if there are fewer than 33 pumps at a facility,
the percent leaking pumps allowed to conduct quarterly
monitoring would be less than one. The EPA rounded this
number to the next highest integer, i.e., one. The EPA does
not consider it appropriate to allow owners or operators to
choose between a specified number of pumps and the percent
leaking pumps. In situations other than the one described,
the specified number will always be less than the number of
pumps calculated from the percent leaking pumps. The EPA does
'•not consider it appropriate to ailow a less-stringent
requirement. Therefore, the pump provisions qualify the
choice between the percent leaking criteria and the specified
number by requiring the owner or operator to choose whichever
is the greater number.
8.5.2 Compressors
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-46) contended that
compressors in light liquid service are easily maintained by
leak prevention repairs and are controlled by venting to
control devices and should not be exempt from the equipment
leaks provision. .
Response; The EPA would like to clarify that:
(1) compressors are not used for light liquids,- but only to
provide motive force for gaseous fluids, and (2) the proposed
rule does not exempt compressors. Compressors are required to
be controlled with a closed-vent system or be equipped with
mechanical seals that meet the criteria of the rule. The EPA
also disagrees with the commenters opinion that compressors
should be part of a LDAR program. It is not feasible to
require an LDAR program Łor compressors because compressor
leaks cannot be repaired easily and may require removing the
component from service. Additionally, monitoring compressors
may pose a safety risk because the area of the leak contains
moving parts.
8-25
-------
8.5.3 Sampling Connection Systems
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-10) reco'mmended that
sampling valves and sampling connectors be excluded from
applicability because they already have self-closing plugs
that contribute only de minimis emissions.
Response; The sampling connection provisions apply to
the sample purge which occurs when sampling is done. The
presence or absence of plugs is not relevant. The EPA
requires that the purge be captured and returned to the
process, or destroyed.
8.5.4 Valves in Gas/Vapor and Lines in Light Liquid Service
Comment; -Several commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-11, IV-D-25,
IV-D-38) noted that the preamble indicates that in calculating
percent leading"valves, up to 1 percent of "valves per year to
a maximum of 3 percent of valves may be excluded if they are
non-repairable. Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-25, IV-D-38)
believed this provision had been inadvertently omitted from
the proposed regulation and suggested regulatory wording to
include it. Another commenter (IV-D-11) contended that the
provision for nonrepairable valves and connectors in the HON
should also be included i-n the refinery MACT standard because
refinery turnaround schedules typically are longer than those
of chemical plants. Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-11) stated
• that "it malces, sense-to: include the HON provisions in the
manner discussed in the preamble. One commenter (IV-D-38)
provided specific language for this provision to be added to
§ 63.648.
Response; The final rule has been corrected to include
language that allows exclusion of up to a maximum of 3% of the
valves from the percent leaking valve calculation. The EPA
would also like to clarify that the non-repairable valve
provisions are only applicable to refineries complying with
the modified subpart H requirements, and do not apply to the
subpart W equipment leak requirements.
Comment; The commenter (IV-D-25) supported the Phase II
and III leak definitions -(1,000 ppm) and benchmark performance
8-26
-------
levels (percent leaking equipment) selected for valves in the
proposed refinery NESHAP. "The commenter (IV-D-25) reasoned
that the selection of different levels than the HON is
justified because refinery processes have larger equipment,
have longer run times between turn-arounds, and cannot achieve
the same average leak rates as chemical plants. They
(IV-D-25) stated that a leak definition of 500 ppm would
result in minimal HAP reductions and would not be cost
effectiveness. One commenter (IV-D-44) suggested that the
definition for valve leaks should be 10,000 ppm, the petroleum
refinery NSPS standard leak definition, instead of 2,000 ppm.
One eommenter (IV-D-22) opposed therl,000 ppm leak definition
for valves because the EPA does not demonstrate that this
requirement meets the statutory criteria in 112(d)(3)(A). The
commenter (IV-D-22) stated that Texas and Louisiana's recent
requirements for LDAR programs cannot be used in the analysis
because they were promulgated within the last 18 months. The
commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that choosing the 1,000 ppm
standard because it can be reliably implemented and is
achievable is not the statutory requirement which the EPA must
apply.
The commenter (IV-D-22) added that the proposed standard
imposes a penalty QIP for poor performance and makes good
performance harder to achieve.and higher repair costs
inevitable by reducing the leak definition by a factor of 10.
Response; The EPA w'ould like to clarify that in the
final rule, owners or operators are only required to comply
with the equipment leak standards of subpart W (which is
equivalent to the petroleum refinery NSPS [40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGG)]; however, the EPA allows owners or operators the
option to comply with a modified version of subpart H instead
of subpart W. Subpart W hcis a leak definition of
10,000 ppmv. Refineries that choose to comply with the
modified subpart H must meet the leak definitions specified in
the rule. The EPA disagrees with the commenters who contended
that lower leak definitions should not used because they were
8-27
-------
taken from standards that were promulgated within the last
18 months. The leak definitions at proposal have been used at
several facilities in Texas since the late 1980's, and thus
before the 18 month limitation. In addition, the leak
definitions were part of an option above the floor level of
control. The EPA selected this option at proposal after
considering the statutory criteria (emission reduction, cost,
or other impacts).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that it is
unclear when an owner/operator must elect to comply with the
percent leaking calculation basis in the valve standard. The
commenter (IV-D-21) supported the interpretation that the
decision can be made at any time. Additionally, the commenter
(IV-D-21) stated that facilities will not nave enough
information initially to determine which valve monitoring
program to select. The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
EPA, rather than making this a one-time decision, allow
facilities to change the basis infrequently, perhaps once per
year with a notification of the change three months prior.
Two commenters (IV-D-20, and IV-D-25) requested that the
requirement in § 63.648(d) to choose whether to calculate
percent leakers on a facility or process unit basis be
required before entering the first monitoring period of
Phase III because fugitive sources are required to be
monitored on a quarterly basis up until Phase III requirements
become applicable.
Response; The final rule clarifies when owners or
operators are required to comply with Phase III of the valve
requirements. The final rule specifies that facilities
complying with the optional connector monitoring requirements
and the reduced valve monitoring frequency comply in
Phase III. The rule does not preclude an owner or operator
from complying with the Phase III leak definitions earlier.
If the owner or operator wishes to monitor pumps and valves
less frequently or use the connector monitoring option earlier
than in Phase III, the owner or operator will need to show
8-28
-------
that they have monitoring data that qualifies them .for less
frequent monitoring. The rule also-:requires that owners or
operators shall decide no later than the first monitoring
period after Phase I whether to calculate the percentage of
peaking valves on a process unit or source-wide basis.
Because Phase I begins 3 years after promulgation of the
rule, the EPA believes that sufficient time has been allowed
for owners or operators to comply fully with the rule. The
EPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion of allowing
facilities to change the percent leaking basis with a
notification of change, because there would be no guarantee
that a consistent program would be maintained or would not be
manipulated. The EPA has clarified in the final rule that
once owners or operators have decided to ^choose to calculate
percent leaking valves either source-wide or on a process unit
basis, all subsequent calculations shall be made on the same
basis unless a permit change is made.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-25) asserted that
the provisions for leaking valves .in table 4 of subpart CC,
entitled "Valve Monitoring Frequency Alternatives" should be
corrected ,to show that .for percent leaking valves greater than
5 percent, monthly monitoring or a QIP is allowed as an
option.
•" Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter. .. The final
rule has been revised to reflect these changes.
8.5.5 Connectors in Gas/Vapor and Light Liquid Service
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-22, IV-D-25,
IV-D-31, IV-D-36, IV-D-38) supported the optional connector
monitoring program in the proposed rule. One commenter
(IV-D-25) saw the proposed approach as being consistent with
common sense, E.Q. 12866, and statements by Carol Browner to
the effect of affording compliance flexibility. Two
commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-25) added that a mandatory connector
LDAR program is likely to be costly and produce few HAP
emission reductions.
8-29
-------
One commenter (iv-D-49) claimed that scheduled testing of
connectors should not b*e required as part of a LDAR program
for fugitive emissions and that the requirement for connectors
should be no more burdensome than that contained in the NSPS.
One commenter (IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) recommended limiting the
inclusion of connectors in LDAR programs. The commenter
(IV-D-50) stated that because connectors rarely leak, the
identification and monitoring of connectors represents an
inefficient and wasteful regulatory cost. The commenter
(IV-D-50) stated that LDAR programs for small refineries can
be made much more cost-effective if the EPA extends the
'following proposed connector options to small facilities: 1) a
random 200 connector survey, 2) a connector inspection
program, and "3) the negotiated rule's connector program. One
commenter (IV-D-31) disagreed with the position of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality who is currently
attempting to impose a connector fugitive program in
Louisiana. The commenter (IV-D-31) stated that Louisiana has
not performed a cost benefit analysis to justify such a
program.
One commenter (IV-D-19) stated that while they
appreciated the attempt at providing flexibility, they
questioned the wisdom of including a provision requiring the
monitoring of connectors* ? Bven though the commenter, (IV-D-19)
understands that the provisions are optional, they claimed
that connectors do not leak if installed properly. The
commenter (IV-D-19) contended that the program will not reduce
HAP emissions and was only included to pacify State agencies.
The commenter (IV-D-19) concluded that there is no valid basis
for including or excluding connectors in a leak detection
program and therefore the percent leaking valve targets in
table 5 should remain as the required measures of success.
The commenter (IV-D-19) suggested that § 63.649(b) and (c) be
stricken and the requirements of table 5 be incorporated as
the standard for compliance. One commenter (IV-D-57)
contended that connectors are a source of substantial
8-30
-------
emissions at refineries and should not be excluded from a
stringent I&M and LDAR requirements.
Response; The final rule requires that refineries meet
the equipment leak requirements in subpart W; subpart W does
not require connector monitoring. Connector monitoring is
only an option that may be chosen if the owner or operator
elects to comply with subpart H provisions and elects to use
the provisions of §63.648 (c)(2)(ii) for valve monitoring
rather than subpart W. Because connector monitoring is only
an option, the EPA does not consider that any additional
burden is placed on the industry. The connector monitoring
alternatives were included in the rule to allow owners or
operators the flexibility to combine State and Federal
regulations and avoid complying with multipJLe equipment leak
programs. The EPA also contends that the emission reduction
with the connector alternatives is essentially the same as
without the alternatives. Thus, the alternatives do not
decrease the emission reductions or stringency.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that
connectors not be included with components subject to the
one-third or two-thirds compliance deadline. The commenter
(IV-D-21) claimed that if a source elects not to monitor
connectors or to monitor 200 random connectors, they would not
have a basis for estimating the total number of connectors.
Response: The final rule does not require that
compliance be phased-in. Instead, the entire refinery must be
in compliance with equipment leak provisions in subpart W
(which is equivalent to the petroleum refinery NSPS [40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG)] or a modified version of subpart H
within 3 years after promulgation of the rule. The connector
monitoring option of the modified subpart H is only applicable
if the owner or operator meets the performance levels
specified for Phase III. Phase III starts 51/2 years after
promulgation of the rule. The owner or operator may elect to
do connector monitoring options earlier if they can prove they
are meeting the Phase III performance requirements. The EPA
8-31
-------
believes that these modifications will allow sufficient time
for refineries to establish and effectively operate leak
detection and repair programs.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the
option to monitor leaking equipment on a process unit or
source wide basis be extended to connectors whenever there are
percent leaking criteria.
Response; The final rule allows source-wide or process
unit wide calculation of percent leaking connectors. This is
only applicable for the connector inspection alternative or
the subpart H connector alternative. Once the owner or
operator has -decided whether to calculate percent leaking
connectors on a process unit or source-wide basis, all
subsequent calculations shall be made on the source basis
unless a permit change is made.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that it is
unclear when an owner/operator must elect to comply with the
connector program. The (IV-D-21) supported the interpretation
of making this decision at any time. Two commenters (IV-D-10,
IV-D-25) suggested that the alternative connector monitoring
provisions begin in Phase III. One commenter (IV-D-25) added
that visual inspection could be done in Phases I and II, and
LDAR monitoring could be introduced in Phase III when a
control strategy is. selected. '. :• . -':
One commenter (IV-D-21) also suggested that the
requirement to elect a random 200 connector program 12 months
after promulgation be changed to 24 months. Additionally, the
commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the EPA, rather than making
this a one-time decision, allow facilities to change the basis
infrequently, perhaps once per year with a notification of the
change three months prior.
Response; The final rule clarifies that the owner or
operator shall decide no later than the first monitoring
period after the Phase III compliance date which connector
monitoring alternative th'ey will comply with. The owner or
operator may select the connector monitoring options earlier
8-32
-------
than Phase III.if they can prove they are meeting the
Phase III performance criteria. The EPA has also specified in
the final rule that the Random 200 connector program be on a
source-wide basis in order to alleviate confusion.
^ The EPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion of
allowing facilities to change the type of connector option
with a notification of change. The EPA contends that there
would be no guarantee that a consistent program would be
maintained or that the equipment leak provisions would not be
manipulated. The EPA has clarified in the final rule that
once the owners or operators have chosen a connector
monitoring option any election to change after the initial
election shall be treated as a permit modification according
to the terms of 40 CFR part 70. . . „ ,^»
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended the
1 percent per year maximum for nonrepairable leaking
connectors be phased in to allow for problems implementing
monitoring programs in the first year. The commenter
(IV-D-21) suggested that the number of nonrepairable
connectors allowed during the first year be 2 percent and
1 percent the year after.
Response: The EPA contends that the commenter's
suggestion would add complexity and confusion to the rule
without providing much, benefit. r The EPA. .contends ?that., i ~
sufficient time has been "allowed in the final rule for owners
or operators to establish a working leak detection and repair
program. The EPA would also like to clarify that the
connector monitoring alternatives are only an option, and are
not required by the rule. Therefore, the EPA chose not to
incorporate the commenter's suggestion in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that the
random 200 connector program be based on the source-wide
population of connectors as opposed to 200 random connectors
per refinery or 200 random connectors per process unit. One
commenter (IV-D-22) agreed that testing of connectors should
not be required, but that it should be allowed as an option.
+i
8-33
-------
The commenter (IV-D-22) supported either testing 200 randomly
selected connectors initially, with subsequent testing of
200 connectors on a frequency determined by the percent
leaking, or monitoring all connectors initially and again on a
frequency determined by the percent leaking. The commenter
(IV-D-22) supported testing of connectors on lines of 2" in
diameter or larger for the case when a facility chooses to
test connectors.
Another commenter (IV-D-10) recommended that the random
200 connector alternative be used with the owner or operators
discretion in the choice of the 200 connectors to be chosen
jfor each monitoring episode. The commented" (IV-b^lO)
supported not tagging 200 connectors. The commenter (IV-D-10)
asserted that~if~the sample of 200 connectors can be selected
either the same or differently at the discretion of the owner
or operator for one monitoring episode to the next, then the
burden of tracking the connectors would be reduced without
sacrificing statistical validity.
Response; The final rule specifies that the Random 200
alternative be done on a source-wide -basis. The EPA maintains
that a random sample is necessary in order to prevent
manipulation of the results. Therefore, the EPA has not
'changed the random sampling requirements in the final rule in
the manner the:, commenter< suggested. •
8.5.6 Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) contended that sample
valves and tank mixers on storage tanks are part of the tank
and should be exempt from equipment leak provisions. Two
commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-25) asserted that converting sample
valves on tanks to closed vent systems would be costly and
have a minimal impact on emissions. The commenters (IV-D-06,
IV-D-25) provided estimates of $5,000/tank or a total cost of
$500,000 for 100 tanks, at a cost-effectiveness of $15,000/Mg
($13,600/ton) HAP.
8-34
-------
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters. Tank
mixers and sample valves on storage-tanks are not subject to
the equipment leak provisions in the refinery MACT rule.
8.5.7 Delay of Repair
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-48) recommended that to
determine if emissions from purged material resulting from an
immediate repair are greater than fugitive emissions from
delaying a repair one should compare the controlled purge
material to cumulative emissions from the leak assumed at the
intensity measured throughout the delay period. The commenter
(IV-D-48) also requested that the decision to delay repair be
documented.
Response; The final rule references both subpart W and
subpart H. Subpart W and subpart H both^describe procedures
for delay of repair and the required documentation. The EPA
does not consider it necessary to specify additional
requirements.
8.5.8 Quality Improvement Programs
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) noted that they
negotiated a QIP as an alternative to providing- for a
violation every time a leak definition was exceeded as quid
pro quo for tougher leak definitions and frequent monitoring.
The commenter (IV-D-48) reserved the right to raise legal
questions if the.'final rule, does not match the HON rule.
Response: The refining industry, represented by API,
participated with representatives from the chemical industry
in developing the negotiated regulation for equipment leaks,
which was used in the HON. The HON equipment leak provisions
were developed with the understanding that the refining
industry is not included in the HON equipment leaks standard.
There is no obligation in this rulemaking to require the same
provisions as in the HON equipment leaks standard. Thus, the
proposed and final refinery NESHAP differs from the HON where
appropriate due to differences between refinery and chemical
plants.
8-35
-------
8.5.9 Other
Comment; • One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that because
maintenance on tank mixers is linked with taking tanks out of
service, tank mixers should not be treated as equipment leak
emissions. The commenter (IV-D-06) added that repair or
maintenance of tank mixers often requires dropping the tank
liquid level or taking the tank out of service, resulting in
an increase in cleaning and degassing emissions if the tank is
taken out of service before normally scheduled. The commenter
(IV-D-06) explained that the tank mixer needs to continue
operating until the tank is taken out of service to prevent
increased-buildup of sludge in the tank, resulting in-higher
emissions when the tank is cleaned. The commenter (IV-D-06)
recbmmended'Trequiring maintenance on tank mixers during the
next scheduled time for taking the tank out of service. One
commenter (IV-D-25) argued that tank mixers, which are
installed in the side of the tank wall to maintain a
consistent liquid mixture throughout the tank, should not be
regulated under'equipment leaks. The commenter (IV-D-25) said
that maintenance or repair of tank mixers often requires
taking the tank out of service, and should not be required any
sooner than the next scheduled time for taking the tank out of
service.
• ' "Response: T"The"'EPA "agrees with the commenter* and- the ,rule
has been revised to clarify this point.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the
calibration levels from the HON be modified for leak
definitions in the proposed regulation. The commenter
(IV-D-21) stated that, preferably, all of the calibration
levels for the different leak definitions would be the same to
avoid recalibrating instruments. The commenter (IV-D-21)
suggested that the EPA allow calibration of instruments at
10,000 ppm or else 10,000 ppm as long as there are valves or
pumps in Phase I, 2,000 ppm when there are pumps in Phase II
and 1,000 ppm thereafter.
8-36
-------
Response: The EPA has been working to clarify the
provisions in subpart H. The EPA proposed revisions to
§ 63.180 of subpart H on April 10, 1995, to address this
point. These modifications will be finalized well before
compliance date for the Refinery rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that it be
clarified that the one-third (or two-thirds) criteria apply to
the source-wide population, whether the owner/operator elects
to comply on a source-wide or process unit basis. The
commenter (IV-D-21) pointed out that this would allow
flexibility for difficult to control process units.
Additionally, The commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that assigningr; ?-••-
components to units to determine if one-third or two-thirds of
the components are in compliance does not .make sense if the
owner/operator elects to comply on a source-wide basis. The
commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that § 63.640(h)(3)(i) should
begin "At least one-third" and § 63.640(h)(3)(i) should begin
"At least two-thirds." Another commenter (IV-D-20) suggested
the addition of the word "approximately" in front of the 1/3
and 2/3 refinery components that must be in compliance with
the rule, stating that the exact counts of fugitive sources
are not necessarily available and can easily change in a
6 month time period and that requiring exactly 1/3 or 2/3 will
result in increased recordkeeping that is" not .justified. : v. ^ ,<
One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that facilities will not
have enough information six months after promulgation to elect
for either source-wide or process unit monitoring. The
commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the EPA, rather than making
this a one-time decision, allow facilities to change the basis
infrequently, perhaps once per year with a notification of the
change three months prior. The commenter (IV-D-21) also
recommended that the instructions for calculating the
source-wide population of components be clarified to indicate
that estimates of counts are acceptable for components not in
the monitoring program until 18 months after promulgation.
8-37
-------
Response; The final rule no longer requires phased-in
compliance. Instead, the entire refinery must be in :
compliance with the control requirements of subpart W within
3 years after promulgation of the rule. The final rule also
specifies that facilities complying with the optional
connector monitoring requirements, and the reduced valve and
pump monitoring frequency of the modified negotiated
regulation comply in Phase III. The rule also requires that
owners or operators shall decide no later than the first
monitoring period after Phase I whether to calculate the
percentage of leaking valves on a process unit or source-wide
basis. Because Phase.I begins :?Ł •3f
-------
Response; The EPA contends that minimal upgrades are
required for the equipment listed by the commenter.
Agitators, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers are
not included in the equipment leak provisions of the Refinery
MACT rule. Instrumentation systems have minimal monitoring
>
requirements, and sampling connectors and open-ended lines
have minimal control requirements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-25) asserted that the
requirement in § 63.652(b) to comply with the HON subpart H
recordkeeping and reporting sections is too general, because
some portions of subpart H are not incorporated into the
petroleum refineries-NESHAR.. The commenter (IV-D-25) s
suggested more detailed language or a table similar to table 5
of the proposed rule to specify which HON recordkeeping and
reporting requirements apply to refineries.
Response; The final rule clarifies the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of subpart H applicable to the refinery
rule. A table has also been provided in the final rule that
summarizes the applicable subpart H recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that the EPA
should exempt components -covered by more stringent equipment
leak programs because recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are ^different or repetitive and.^mistakes in paperwork may
cause heavy liabilities. Another commenter (IV-D-22) stated
that the EPA should eliminate overlapping and duplicate
monitoring, testing recordkeeping and reporting requirements
by adding the same language to the applicability section last
that found in HON- (40 CFR 63.160(b) and (c)).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that
elimination of overlapping and duplicate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements is necessary to provide a clear and
understandable rule for owners and operators who must comply
with it. The final rule cleirifies which recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are to be met- when different equipment
leak regulations are applicable.
8-39
-------
Comment;• One, commenter (IV-D-11) requested that the EPA
not require detailed documentation on connector location
because the work associated with the optional program is to be
random. The commenter (IV-D-11) stated that it was consistent
with common sense and Executive Order 12866.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that
requiring detailed connector locations would be overly
burdensome and would not be very useful. The final rule
allows connectors to be identified by the area or length of
pipe and need not be individually identified. The EPA
believes that this modification will reduce the burden on the
industry while maintaining necessary documentation-to verify^ , s •
compliance.
8.7 WORDING 'OF EQUIPMENT LEAKS PROVISION
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that
"indications of liquids dripping" in § 63.649(c)(4)
concerning connector inspections be replaced with "leaks" to
avoid the citation of oil stains as indications of liquids
dripping.
Response; The EPA has revised § 63.649(c)(4) in the
final rule to state that "a leak is detected if liquids are
observed to be dripping at a rate greater than three drops per
minute." This language is consistent with other sections of
the equipment* leak provisions,, and with ^oilier .equipment .ieaj§^ ju
standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that "as
defined in § 63.174" be a'dded to the last sentences of
§ 63.649(b) and (c) to provide clarification that the words
"inaccessible" and "unsafe-to-monitor" have been previously
defined.
Response; The EPA agrees with the commenter, and has
edited the rule as suggested.'
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) found the phrase
"technically feasible" too broad. The commenter (IV-D-21)
stated that some repairs may be technically feasible, but not
cost effective. The commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the
8-40
-------
phrase be modified to " technically feasible by normal repair
techniques" in the propos'ed regulation. Alternatively, the
commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that the correction could be
made in the HON and § 63.649(e) in the proposed regulation
could be deleted.
Response; Connectors are not sources of high emissions
and some connector repairs may be very costly. The EPA agrees
with the commenter that the phrase "by normal repair
provisions" be added to the connector repair provisions. This
change was made in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-19) stated that table 3 has
been incorrectly printed to indicate that "the QIP program for
valves is mandatory. The commenter (IV-D-19) stated that this
is not consistent with agreements reached-by API and EPA nor
with the HON. The commenter (IV-D-19) contended that the QIP
program for valves should be a voluntary program.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has
revised table 3 to indicate that the QIP is a voluntary
program.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the
equipment leaks provision exempts those who monitor connectors
from any inspection of valves, though no mention of this is
made in the preamble. The commenter (IV-D-48) concluded that
this is a drafting errors and ^recommended -that, it ;be^fisced in, --
the final rule.
Response; The commenter is correct that the proposed
rule contained a drafting error. The final rule corrects this
mistake; those who monitor connectors may monitor valves less
frequently.
Comment; One commenter .(IV-D-21) suggested changes that
will clarify that § 63.648(b), which defines leaks for pumps
and valves, and § 63.168(a)(1)(ii) apply to pumps in light
liquid service and valves in gas/vapor and light liquid
service. The commenter (IV-D-21) claimed § 63.648, the
monthly light liquid pump monitoring provision, should include
the underlined: "Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this
8-41
-------
section, owners or operators that achieve less than
fl) 10 percent if light liquid pumps leaking or (2) three
light liguid pumps leaking, whichever is greater, shall
monitor light liquid pumps monthly."
" Response: The EPA has made this change in order to
clarify the requirements and reduce confusion.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25) stated that
§ 63.148(a) and (f) of the proposed refinery rule cross-
reference § 63.169 of the HON. Section 63.169(b) of HON
defines a leak as 500 ppm for valves, connectors, and
instrumentation systems; however, § 63.648(b) and § 63.649
define leaks as 1,OOO ppm. » Theseommenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25>
suggested language to establish a consistent definition of
1,000 ppm for valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems.
One commenter (IV-D-38) requested that the underlined be added
to the end of § 63.649(f) to make the definition consistent
with other leak definitions in the refinery rule:
(f) Connectors in gas/vapor service or light liquid service
are subject to the requirements for connectors in heavy liquid
service in § 63.169 of subpart H of this .part except the leak
definition for connectors is the same as the definition for
valves in table 2 of this subpart.
Response; The EPA has clarified the final rule by adding
-the following'language: 'IThe-leask'definition for valves,
connectors, and instrumentation systems subject to § 63.169 is
1,000 parts per million volume." The leak definition was
developed from the HON definition of 500 ppmv factored taking
into consideration the lower HAP concentrations in process
streams for refineries than in SOCMI facilities.
8.8 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment; In response to EPA's request for comment on
whether the HAP contents of the petroleum liquids in the
processing lines are below the 5 percent (by weight)
applicability level in the equipment leak provisions, one
commenter (IV-D-23) stated that they are confident that all of
their process lines have .greater than 5 percent HAP in them,
8-42
-------
since they all have greater than 3.7 percent benzene. Another
commenter (IV-D-45) stated that HAP content in the crude oil
delivered to the COTU's has less than 5 percent benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and n-hexane as
measured in lab speciation of their crudes. The commenter
(IV-D-45) included speciated lab results from testing of the
HAP content in the crude from their facilities.
Response; The EPA thanks the commenters for their
information.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the EPA
allow facilities to establish there own boundaries for process
units, so long as they are*disclosed to the regulatingsagency
upon request and are not drawn to avoid regulation.
Response; The final rule does not pre.clude owners or
operators from establishing boundaries for process units. The
final rule only requires that petroleum refining process units
classified under SIC code 2911 comply with the rule. The
final rule also affords the owners or operators the choice of
drawing boundaries on a process unit or on a source-wide
basis.
8-43
-------
-------
9.0 GENERAL MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING,
AND REPORTING COMMENTS
9.1 USE OF MONITORING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-42, IV-D-44)
suggested that the EPA allow for alternative forms of
=compliance monitoring besides CEM's. Two commenters (IV-D-22,
IV-D-42) requested that the EPA allow the Use of other
monitoring technologies, such as predictiye^emission and
parametric monitors. One commenter (IV-D-44) recommended that
the EPA allow requests for alternative monitoring methods
subject to review and approval by the Administrator.
Response: Neither the proposed rule required nor the
final rule requires the use of CEM's to demonstrate or assure
compliance. Instead, it requires a combination of performance
testing and continuous control device operating monitoring.
The final rule also allows sources to request approval to use
alternative monitoring systems. This will reduce the burden
by allowing greater usei of existing* systems.- _ Alternative .
monitoring systems specifically discussed in the rule include
nonautomated systems and data compression systems. These
systems will be allowed on a site-specific basis, dependent
upon approval of the implementing agency. Other alternative
monitoring methods may also be allowed if they are approved by
the implementing agency as provided in part 63, subpart A
(General Provisions).
Comment; Five commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-29,
IV-D-44, IV-D-59) provided suggested changes to the frequency
of data collected or the wording on the method of calculating
daily averages. One commenter, (IV-D-44) suggested that the
15 minute monitoring, period be extended to hourly. The
9-1
-------
commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that 15 minute monitoring would be
ludicrous for data that do not vary significantly from day to
day, such as data regarding storage tanks. Three commenters
(IV-D-22, IV-D-29, IV-D-44) asserted that monitoring periods
sh*ould be no less frequent than daily.
One commenter (IV-D-59) suggested that the monitoring
frequency be deleted from the rule altogether and left to
40 CFR part 63, subpart A (General Provisions)'. The commenter
(IV-D-59) suggested that States be free to require more
frequent monitoring than required by the General Provisions
whenever they think necessary or appropriate.
One -.commenter^ (IV-D-21) requested that the calculation of
daily averages be clarified. The commenter (IV-D-21)
suggested that""" .".calculated as the average of all values for
a monitored parameter" in § 63.652(h)(3)(v)(A) be revised to
"...calculated as the average of all data recorded pursuant to
§ 63.652(h) (3) (ii) for a -monitored parameter..." because daily
averages should not be based on all values for a parameter.
Response; The final rule has been changed to require
retention of hourly average values of continuously monitored
values. The proposal required calculation of 15-minute
averages. Under the proposal, if the daily average value was
outside the established ranges (i.e., excess emissions
occurred), .the 15^-minute values had to be retained; if the
daily average value was within the established range, the
15-minute values could be converted to hourly averages and the
hourly averages could be retained instead of the 15-minute
averages. Upon reconsideration, the EPA finds the proposed
2-step process (of first computing and recording 15-minute
averages, and then being allowed to convert them to hourly
averages for record retention) to be burdensome and
unnecessary. Hourly average values provide a sufficient
record to support the calculation of the daily average value
of a parameter. Therefore, to reduce the recordkeeping
burden, the rule has been changed to specify that hourly
averages must be retained for all days, regardless of whether
9-2
-------
or not excess emissions occurred. The rule no longer requires
recording of 15-minute average values.
As at proposal, the daily averages values of a parameter
are used to determine whether excess emissions have occurred.
This allows for minor fluctuations in hourly data as long as
the daily average is within the established range. The EPA
has revised the wording of the rule to incorporate the changes
discussed above and clarify the calculation of daily averages
as suggested by the commenter (IV-D-21). These changes do not
change the rule, but rather clarify what was originally
intended.
"•'' - For process vents where continuous parameter monitoring
is required, the value of the parameter must still be measured
at least once every 15 minutes, although. ;onj.y the hourly
average must be recorded and retained. Many facilities.
already have computerized systems and monitor parameters more
frequently than once every 15 minutes for process control
purposes. The 15-minute monitoring frequency is also
consistent with the General Provisions and previous NSPS and
NESHAP for process vents from similar industries.
The EPA believes that some commenters may be under a
misimpression that the rule requires continuous monitoring for
storage vessels. Under both the proposed and final rules,
continuous (e.g, every 15 minutes) monitoring:is not required
for storage vessels. If the vessels are controlled by
floating roofs, periodic inspections are required. If the
vessels are routed to control devices, the owner/operator must
submit for approval a control device design and operating plan
that specifies the parameters to be monitored and the
frequency. Storage vessel emissions are not continuous;
therefore, continuous emissions monitoring is not warranted.
Sources subject to this NESHAP must comply with all
applicable monitoring requirements contained in the rule. In
response to the commenters (IV-D-59) suggestion that
monitoring requirements be left to the General Provisions, the
EPA notes that the General Provisions provide a broad general
9-3
-------
regulatory framework for all part 63 NESHAP's; however, the
Specific provisions of each NESHAP override the General
Provisions in those instances where requirements differ. At
proposal and promulgation of the refineries NESHAP, the EPA
determined that it is appropriate to override some of the
General Provisions to reduce the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting burden for refineries, or to clarify how the
requirements apply to refineries.
The Act allows State and local agencies to enforce
regulations that are more stringent than Federal rules. A
more stringent rule may or may not have more stringent
monitouing, recordkeeping", and reporting-provisions. All
sources subject to the final petroleum refinery NESHAP must
comply wi±h-the -monitoring, recordkeeping, "and reporting
provisions contained in the rule. A source with a more
stringent State or local standard would be required,to comply
with the provisions of that standard.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-39, IV-D-46) supported the
use of parameter monitoring as an alternative to GEM. One of
the commenters (IV-D-46) also supported the formation of
parameter ranges and their approval process.
One commenter (IV-D-44) recommended that a daily average
be used to determine if an excursion or noncompliance has
occurred, not an exceedence'6n the CEM.
Response: Under the NSPS and NESHAP programs, parameter
monitoring has generally been used in place of CEM's,
especially for VOC control devices. The final rule, as at
proposal, requires monitoring of control device operating
parameters and reporting of periods when daily average
parameter values are outside site-specific ranges. The source
is provided the flexibility to establish appropriate site-
specific parameter ranges with their permitting authority.
These operating parameter ranges are then written into their
operating permit and are enforceable.. If the daily average
value is outside the established range then it is a violation
9-4
-------
of the emission standards. Neither the proposed nor the final
rule require the use of CEMs to assure compliance.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) pointed out that the
rule is unclear on how long a flare pilot light must be absent
to be considered excess emissions, and suggested wording
>
changes.
Response; The proposal and promulgation provisions for
process vents and wastewater sections require reporting only
if all pilot flames to a flare are out. Records must be kept
of periods when each individual monitoring device or pilot
light is not working, but if the flare has multiple pilot
lights, reporting is not required unless.all,pilot flames are
out.
If all pilot flames are out, it .indicates that the flare
is not functioning, and emissions being routed to the flare
are not being controlled. Failure to operate a required
control device for any length of time is a violation of the
NESHAP, unless it is during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. The refineries NESHAP and the General Provisions
include startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that, for
purposes of determining periods of excess emissions, the rule
should exclude periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, or
monitoring system calibration.,_. The- commenter (IV-D-25)
contended that the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is
not necessary because the refinery NESHAP already specifies
many work practices, and the OSHA Process Safety Management
Regulation already includes start-up and shutdown plan
requirements for petroleum refinery process units. The
commenter (IV-D-25) also suggested limitations to the scope of
the plan if the EPA still decides to require a plan.
One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the administrative
requirements be reduced by eliminating or reducing the
requirements for startup, slmtdown, and malfunction plans
because most of the requirements are included in the
regulation as work practices. The commenter (IV-D-06)
9-5
-------
expressed confusion as to what level of detail is needed for
startup-, shutdown, and malfunction plans. The commenter
(IV-D-06) stated that if a startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is required, the following limitations should be
irtcluded: (1) for equipment leaks, the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan should only include the dates of process unit
shutdowns and startups. This commenter (IV-D-06) stated that
this information is pertinent to the repair work required to
take place during process unit turnarounds and there is no
relevance to maintaining procedures checklists to the proper
operation and maintenance of fugitive sources; (2) for storage
tanks, _±he, startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan should only
include the date when a tank is taken out of service and
returned to -service; (3) for miscellaneous process vents, the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is applicable in its
present requirements; and (4) for wastewater, the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan should not be applicable since
the information is already covered in the BWON.
One commenter '(TV-D-20) requested that reporting required
by § 63.652(g)(1), such as reports of start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction be removed and changed to a recordkeeping
requirement since other reports already require the same data
to be reported. The commenter (IV-D-20) stated that
substitution of other reports "which require"similar data
should be allowed.
Response; The NESHAP General Provisions [§ 63.6(f)(l)]
state that "emission standards... apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction...".
During such periods, a source must follow their site-specific
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans are described
in the General Provisions. Therefore, they are not described
in the refineries NESHAP. The General Provisions
[§ 63.6(e)(3)(vi)] clearly state that a source's SOP manual or
an OSHA plan may be used to satisfy the requirements for a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan if they contain all
9-6
-------
the required information -and are available for inspection by
the regulatory authority. This provision will avoid
duplicative efforts.
One purpose of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is to ensure that sources and pollution control equipment
N
are operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions during these
events. Another purpose is to minimize the reporting burden
associated with startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.
The plan allows the source to describe the procedures they
will follow during these events. If the plan is followed,
then a simple letter report can be submitted semiannually to
state that the plan was followed during start-ups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions during that 6-month period [§ 63.10(d)(5)(i)
of subpart A]. If the plan is not followed, an immediate
report describing the malfunctions and the actions that are
inconsistent with the plan is required. If a plan were not
required, then detailed reports would be needed for all
malfunctions to demonstrate that the event was a malfunction
and that emissions were minimized during the event. Thus, the
plan greatly reduces the ongoing reporting burden. The plan
also avoids questions over whether an event envisioned in the
plan is a malfunction or a violation of the emission standard.
If a malfunction occurs and it is covered by "the source-' s
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and the procedures
in the plan are followed, the occurrence is not counted as an
emissions exceedence.
The commenter is correct in stating that equipment leaks
from pumps, valves, and other components are not considered
malfunctions. For equipment leaks, only startup, shutdown,
and malfunction of any control device would need to be
considered. The detection and repair of such leaks is
addressed in the NESHAP, and! therefore does not need to be
included in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-40) contended that the
non-automated monitoring requiring operator manual records
9-7
-------
once per hour contained in the rule is unreasonable for some
operations. The commenter (IV-D-40) explained" that some
States such as New Jersey allow different monitoring
frequencies based on the type of operation (e.g. batch plants
of/ten are only required to manually record the flow of water
to a scrubber once per ba'tch cycle. The commenter (IV-D-40)
also said that batch times may range from 1 hour to 2 days.
The commenter (IV-D-40) said the plant maintains low-flow
interlocks or alarms to insure adequate water flow to the
control device. For these reasons, the commenter (IV-D-40)
stated that the one-hour requirement is not cost-effective or
appropriate in many cases.' The commenter (IVHD.-3iO) suggested
allowing up to 4-hour intervals for manual monitoring after
review a"rifl "approval with the permit authority.
Response: The EPA estimates that there are relatively
few facilities that do not already have automated computer
monitoring systems in place. The EPA agrees that there is
often only a need for a minimum amount of data to obtain a
valid average. The EPA addressed this issue on the HON in
order to reduce the burden on those sources that did not have
automated computer monitoring systems in place. The
refineries NESHAP refers to provisions contained in
§ 63.151(g) of the HON subpart G, which allow non-automated
sources to "request- approval-ifxr>m the permitting^authority to
manually read and record the value of the relevant operating
parameter less frequently. In approving the request, the
implementing agency may consider the variability of the
parameter, and whether a longer monitoring frequency is
sufficient to characterize control device operation.
There are very few batch process vents within petroleum
refineries. Cokers are batch operations, however, provisions
have been added to exclude "coking unit vents associated with
coke drum depressuring at or below a coke drum outlet pressure
of 15 psig, deheading, draining, or decoking (coke cutting)."
The implementing agency may consider and approve less frequent
9-8
-------
monitoring and recordkeeping for batch process vents as long
as the minimum data for a valid'average is obtained.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) noted that the proposed
rule appeared to use the term "period of excess emissions" and
"excess emissions" interchangeably, and recommended some
s
editorial clarifications.
One commenter (IV-D-52) was confused with the provisions
describing excess emissions as an operating day when
monitoring data are insufficient to constitute a valid hour of
data for at least 75 percent of the operating hours. The
commenter (IV-D-52) considers excess emissions to be those
which are higher than allowable-nemissions-and considers the ;
EPA definition to be closer to the commenter's definition of
downtime. Downtime would include any operating time when a
CEM is not recording valid monitoring data at least 75 percent
of the hour while the source is in operation, because of
maintenance or some other similar circumstance. The commenter
(IV-D-52) stated that such downtime is not considered a
violation if less than specified availability levels. The
commenter (IV-D-52) recommended that the required operating
time for monitors should be 90 percent of the source's
operating time over a calendar quarter, because many CEM's
exceed 90 percent availability. The commenter (IV-D-52)
recommended .that the period of excess emissions be based on a
shorter period than a daily average and suggested the hourly
average. The commenter (IV-D-52) added that their State is
switching to hourly averages for CEM data that is used to
determine compliance with an hourly limit.
Response; The monitoring under this rule is not
CEM-based. Multiple options are available to demonstrate
compliance with the performance-based standard. Because of
the number of differing operation and production differences
across petroleum refineries, an absolute emissions limit would
not be practical. Therefore, periods of excess emissions are
defined based on operations and emissions control performance.
9-9
-------
Period of excess emissions means any of the following
conditions: ' •
(A) An operating day when the daily average value of a
monitored parameter, except presence of a flare pilot flame,
Łs outside the range specified in the Notification of
Compliance Status Report.
(B) An operating day when all pilot flames of a flare
are absent.
(C) An operating day when monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data for at least
75 percent of the operating hours. Monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured
values are available for less than three 15-minute periods
within the hour. For data compression systems approved under
paragraph (g) (5) (iv) of §. 63.651, monitoring data are
insufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if there are
less than four data values recorded during the hour.
The EPA's definition for process downtime has nothing to
do with GEM. If monitoring data are not collected or the
monitored parameter is out of range due to a "malfunction", as
defined in the NESHAP general provisions, this is not
considered to be a violation. (Requirements for startups,
shutdown and malfunction plans, records, and reports contained
-in the NESHAP .General Provisions address malfunction _,. ^ . ^ .
situations). However, if there is not a monitor malfunction,
it is reasonable to consider days when insufficient monitoring
data are collected to be periods of excess emissions and
violations of the emission standards. Otherwise, monitors
could be turned off when excess emissions were occurring.
While many monitors .may be able to function 90 percent of
the time on a long-term average basis, it would be
unreasonable to consider it a violation if monitors operate
less than 90 percent of the time in each single day.
Requiring monitors to operate greater than 90 percent of the
time in each single'day would add substantially to the
operating cost of the rule. The 75 percent level allows for
9-10
-------
short-term monitor problems that are promptly corrected; and
if 75 percent of the data are available, this is sufficient to
determine whether the monitoring parameter is within its range
on a daily average basis.
N Comment: One commenter (IV-D-59) strongly agreed that
violations of the parameters on which the compliance plan is
based must be considered violations of the emissions standard.
Response; As the commenter stated, an excursion of the
daily average value of a parameter outside the established
range would constitute a violation of the emission standards.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-59) maintained that if the
EPA wishes to allow data compression systems, it should aTso
require that these systems regard all deviations from the
operating parameters established as indicating noncompliance.
Response; Approved data compression systems are a fully
acceptable alternative type of continuous alternative type of
continuous monitoring system. As with any continuous
monitoring system, if the daily average recorded by the data
compression system is outside the established range, this is
considered a period of excess emissions and a violation of the
emission standard. The commenter is suggesting a different
standard for facilities using data compressor systems. Under
the commenter's suggestion, if a single measured value was
outside the range this would be considered a violation, -even
if the excursion was for only a few minutes. For continuous
monitoring systems, including approved data compressions
systems, the rule determines excess emissions based on the
daily average value of the monitored parameter. It would be
inequitable to establish a more stringent standard for sources
with data compression systems.
The proposed and final rule allows a source to request
approval to monitor using data compression as an alternative
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting system. Sources
wishing to use data compression must apply to the permitting
authority for the approval .of this alternative. The EPA has
established minimum criteria that data compression systems
9-11
-------
must satisfy in order to ensure recorded data are sufficient
to represent the process and determine whether excess *
emissions have occurred. These minimum criteria assure that
data compression systems will be equivalent to traditional
continuous monitoring and recordkeeping systems.
In order to be approved, an acceptable data compression
system must be capable of: (1) measuring the operating
parameter value more frequently than at least once every
15 minutes; (2) recording the hourly average values each hour
during periods of operation; (3) recording the date and time
when monitors are turned off or on; (4) recognizing unchanging
data that may indicate the monitor is.not functioning *
properly, alerting the operator, and recording the incident;
and (5) computing daily average values of the monitored
operating parameter based on recorded data. The request for
approval must contain a description of the monitoring system
and data compression recording system, -including the criteria
used to determine which monitored values are recorded and
retained, the method for calculating hourly and daily
averages, and a demonstration that the system meets the five
criteria previously discussed.
9.2 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-36) disagreed with the
five-year^record retention requirements. The commenter
(IV-D-36) found the requirement burdensome and not a direct
benefit to the environment. Two commenters (IV-D-36, IV-D-44)
recommended a three-year record retention policy.
Another commenter (IV-D-59) strongly disagreed with the
proposal to allow records to be destroyed after five years.
The commenter maintained that records should be retained as
long as necessary in order to document possible violations.
Response; The petroleum refinery NESHAP and General
Provisions require records to be kept for five years', which is
consistent with the recordkeeping requirements of section 70.6
of the operating permit program and other NESHAP. The rule
has been changed to state that records must be maintained in
9-12
-------
such a manner that they are readily accessible (e.g., within
24 hours). Records may -foe maintained on-site- or off-site, in
hard copy or computer readable format, as long as they are
readily accessible. This replaces the proposed provisions
that required records to be retained on-site or accessible
. >
from a central location by computer for the first 2 years. As
long as a record can be retrieved within 24 hours, the intent
of the standards is met. There is no need to be overly
restrictive in specifying how and where to maintain the
record. Storage of records for more than 5 years would be
burdensome, and any compliance issues should be identified
within 5 years. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for
enforcement is 5 years so there is no reason to keep records
for a longer period of time. r
Comment; Two commeriters (iv-D-19, IV-D-21) stated that
the words "each" in § 63.652(h)(3)(i)(A) and "all" in (B)
would make recordkeeping burdensome because many of the
refineries have computers to measure data values frequently.
The commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21) ^suggested that the
requirements of § 63.652(h)(iij be rewritten so that if data
is measured more than once per minute, only one measurement
from each one-minute block need be used to satisfy
§ 63.652 (h) (3) (i) (A)'or (B) .
•; -Response;. As explained in a previous response, the final
rule has been changed to require records of hourly average
values, rather than 15-minute averages. However, parameter
values must still be measured at least once every 15 minutes.
Generally, all measured values must be used to calculate the
hourly average. If values are measured once every 15 minutes,
4 values would be used to calculate each hourly average.
However, as the commenter pointed out, if a value is measured
more frequently than once per minute, more than 60 values
would be used to calculate the hourly average, if the wording
of the rule required use of all measured values. In
accordance with the commenter's suggestion, the wording has
been revised such that if data are measured more frequently
9-13
-------
than once per minute, one measurement from each 15-minute
block may be used in calculating the hourly averages. This-
procedure will yield a representative hourly average. It will
reduce the burden of the calculation and avoid penalizing
sources that measure values'much more frequently than is
required by the standard.
As stated in previous responses, only the hourly average
values are required to be retained on record. If a source
wishes to keep records of 15-minute or more frequent average
values instead of or in addition to hourly averages, they may
do this, but it is not required by the final rule. These
provisions ensure? that there will be enough monitoring valv&lss..
recorded and retained to be representative of the monitoring
period, while reducing the burden that would be associated
with digital conversion of data, transferring data to tape or
hard copy, copying, and storing the data if all the 15-minute
or more frequently measured values had to be retained.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) requested that
recordkeeping costs be minimized. The commenter (IV-D-29) did
not agree with the approach of using recordkeeping instead of
testing for enforcement. The commenter (IV-D-29) asserted
that recordkeeping places a high cost on the industry and
regulatory agencies to monitor unnecessary records.
One commenter (IV-D-2'2*) asserted that the language--of the r
proposed rule does not reflect some of the flexibility which
the EPA seems to be intending in the preamble language. The
commenter (IV-D-22) explained that the level of data required
in a complete test report for each test method used for a
particular source is an overly burdensome requirement. The
commenter (IV-D-22) stated that test reports should be on one
performance report per facility and should be submitted to the
EPA at the discretion of the source as to which report.
Response; Monitoring and recordkeeping is necessary to
demonstrate compliance on an ongoing basis. .If testing alone
were used, repeated testing would be required. Periodic
testing of every emission point subject to the standards would
9-14
-------
be extremely burdensome and is not necessary to determine
compliance. Instead, the rule specifies initial testing for
vents that are not routed to the fuel gas system. (Some
boilers and flares do not require a performance test.) After
the initial test, operating parameters are monitored and
>
recorded to assure compliance. Because monitoring can be done
on a continuous basis, it is a better indicator of ongoing
compliance than periodic testing, and it is also less
burdensome than frequent testing would be. For storage
vessels, periodic inspections of floating roof seals must be
performed because testing is not feasible.
i The EPA recognizes that unnecessary recbrdikeeping
requirements would burden both the source and the enforcement
agencies. Every attempt has been made to. reduce the amount of
recordkeeping to only that which is necessary to demonstrate
compliance. For example, sources have the option of retaining
records either in paper copy or in computer readable formats,
whichever is less burdensome and less costly. For
continuously monitored parameters, the rule has been changed
to require retention of only the hourly average data rather
than 15-minute data. For storage and equipment leak
inspections that reveal no problems, only the date of the
inspection must be recorded, not detailed results. Periodic
-reports include only periodsjofi excess emissions, not a
summary of all the data.
If multiple performance tests are conducted for the same
kind of emission point using the same test method, only one
complete test report is submitted along with summaries of the
results of the other tests. This reduces the number of
lengthy test reports to be copied and submitted.
The test report provisions apply primarily to process
vents. The storage vessel provisions allow a design analysis
instead of a performance-test; and the refineries NESHAP
refers to subpart W of part 60 or to the HON subpart H for
equipment leaks, recordkeeping and reporting, and to BWN for
wastewater, and does not impose any new requirements. For
9-15
-------
process vents, it is necessary to submit one complete test
report for each test method in order for the enforcement
authority to verify' that the test protocol, sampling and
analysis, quality assurance procedures, and calculations have
been done correctly. If the same method is used to test other-
process vents, the test reports for the other vents may be
retained on site and only the results must be reported. The
EPA considers this level of recordkeeping the minimum
necessary to ensure compliance.
9.3 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
9.3.1 Initial Notification
Comment; One commenter:(IV-D-59) stated that the initial
notification is a simple matter and should be required within
60 days of-promulgation instead of 180. •The commenter noted
that, with respect to construction and reconstruction,
consistency with the statute requires immediate notification,
since after promulgation new sources must comply with new
source MACT. The commenter stated that the State agencies
administering new source review programs must know whether a
source seeking a construction permit has a MACT obligation
before the permit is granted.
Response; The final rule has been changed to delete the
requirement for an initial notification. This decision was
made as-part of- a-reanalysis-df the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to eliminate duplicative requirements
and reduce the recordkeeping burden of the standards. As
summarized in section 9.4, many commenters believed the
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements were overly
» burdensome.
The Initial Notification is not necessary for refineries
because it would duplicate the operating permit program and
because the name and location of all the refineries in the
U.S. are already known. Several readily available journals
(e.g., Hydrocarbon Processing, Oil and Gas Journal) publish
lists of refineries. Thus, States and EPA regional offices
can easily determine which sources in each State will be
9-16
-------
subject to the petroleum refineries NESHAP. Furthermore,
refineries that are major sources are required to obtain
Title V operating permits.„The due-dates for title V operating
permit applications will .generally fall after proposal or
shortly after promulgation of the petroleum refineries NESHAP,
> '
depending on State schedules, but prior to the 3-year
compliance time in the NESHAP. The Title V applications will
identify that the refineries are subject to the NESHAP.
Therefore, a separate Initial Notification would be
duplicative and has been eliminated from the final rule.
9.3.2 Notification of Compliance Status
."-- Comment^ ^Several commeriters (IV-D-09?, IV-D-20, IV-D-21,
IV-D-22, IV-D-36, IV-D-42) objected to some of the
Notification of Compliance Status Report requirements in the
proposed rule. Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-20, IV-D-21,
IV-D-22, IV-D-36) objected to the requirement that refineries
that make changes to feedstock type make a Notification of
Compliance Status Report to the EPA or delegated authority.
The commenters (IV-D-09, -IV-D-20, IV-D-22) asserted that
refineries change crude slate constantly based on world-wide
market condition, product demand, transportation costs and
availability, and equipment operating conditions. One
commenter (IV-D-20) urged the EPA not to require a
'Notificationrof Compliance Status Report -for changes in the
throughput rate. The commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-20) concluded
that these requirements would require almost constant
notification.
Four commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-36, IV-D-42)
contended that the reporting requirements associated with
operational changes or addition of minor emission points are
too burdensome. The commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-42) contended
that refineries make many deliberate operational changes each
week that do not increase significant emissions; therefore, it
would be difficult to document each change in a Notification
of Compliance Status Report. The commenters (IV-D-21,
IV-D-22, IV-D-42) recommended that only when a deliberate
9-17
-------
operational change causes a Group 2 point to become a Group 1
point or meets the criteria for reconstruction should
additional reporting or recordkeeping be triggered. Two
commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-36) urged that notification not be
required for feedstock and operational changes due to their
frequency and the insignificant effect they have on emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that the underlined text
in the following sentence from § 63.640(i)(3) be deleted: "A
process change to an existing petroleum refining process unit
shall be subject to the reporting requirements...".
Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-42) stated that minor
emission points such as valves and connectors are added
periodically, which result in small increases in emissions,
and is it therefore unreasonable to require an Notification of
Compliance Status for additional equipment leak emission
points. One commenter (IV-D-42) suggested that either
equipment leaks be removed from the definition of emission
point or the phrase "emission point" in § 63.640(1)(3) be
replaced with "storage vessel, miscellaneous vents, or
wastewater stream" because the commenter (IV-D-42) contended
that it was not the EPA's intention that added potential
equipment leaks trigger a Notification of Compliance Status
Report because such emission points are tracked through a LDAR
,r -fy
program-?-- - ^ l =*-"•- : ••' - • • *
Response; The proposed provisions in § 63.640(1) and (m)
were intended to require a Notification of Compliance Status
Report only if a process vent, storage vessel, or wastewater
stream is added or if an operational change causes a process
vent or storage vessel to change from Group 2 to Group 1.
Most feedstock changes would not cause the group status of a
vent or storage vessel to change, and therefore, most
feedstock changes would not need to be reported. It was the
EPA's intent to require a Notification of Compliance Status
Report if a petroleum refinery makes an equipment change or
rebuilt equipment. It was not the EPA's intent to require a
Notification of Compliance Status Report if a petroleum
9-18
-------
refinery makes a change within the original design. The
wording of the final regulation has been revised to clarify
the intent.
The EPA has also removed the phrase "emission point" and
replaced it with "storage vessel, miscellaneous process vent,
or wastewater stream" to clarify that the addition of valves
and connectors does not trigger a Notification of Compliance
Status Report.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) supported the
flexibility provided by allowing information to be submitted
in an operating permit application, an amendment to an
operating permit application, a separate submittaJ., or a
combination of the three. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that
this minimizes the number of time consuming,, management reviews
required.
Response: The EPA has made every effort to reduce the
reporting burden, and to require only those reports necessary
to determine compliance. If the information required in the
notification of compliance status report has been previously
submitted in an operating permit application or- amendment,
then the requirements of the rule have been fulfilled.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that if a
Notification of Compliance Status or additional data is
.-required due to-a- changed or. added emission; point, the
Notification of Compliance Status Report or data should be
included with other periodic reports the next regular
reporting date after the Notification of Compliance Status
Report was due. The commenter (IV-D-21) asserted that
additional deadlines beyond normal reporting are not worth the
added burden because there is no associated emissions
decrease. The commenter (IV-D-21) requested that the sentence
"The applicable.reports include, but are not limited to:" be
changed to read "The applicable reports shall be submitted
with other periodic reports required by §§ 63.652(f) and (g)
and include but are not limited to:"
9-19
-------
Response: The final rule has been clarified such that
when a Notification of Compliance Status Report is required
due to the addition of an emission point or a change from
Group 2 to Group 1, the Notification of Compliance Status
Report may be submitted either in the next periodic report or
within 150 days after the new or changed emission point is
required to achieve compliance, whichever is later. This will
allow the operator flexibility, and reduce the reporting
burden and the number of separate reports that must be
submitted. Subpart CC requires periodic reports to be
submitted semiannually within 60 days of the end of each
-6-month period. Thus, if the Notification of Compliance .
Status Report is submitted in the next periodic report, it
will be within 8 months of the compliance date, even if the
compliance date falls on the first day of a reporting period;
and on the average the next periodic report would be 5 months
(150 days) after the compliance date for the new or changed
emission point. Allowing sources to include the Notification
of Compliance Status Report in the periodic report will
simplify reporting and reduce the number of submittals.
However, if a change is made near the end of a reporting
period, a source may not have time to perform any required
testing, receive the test results, and prepare the
Notification of Compliance Status Report before .the next .. ,
periodic report is due. In these cases, the source will be
allowed 150 days from the date the added or changed Group 1
emission point is required to achieve compliance. This is the
same amount of time as allowed for the initial -Notification of
Compliance Status Report.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-57) asserted that 150 days
is too long for filing a Notification of Compliance Status
Report because sources have 3 years to comply and should be
able to prepare the notice in a shorter time frame.
Response; The final provisions allow 150 days after the
compliance date for a source to submit their Notification of
Compliance Status Report. This amount of time is necessary
9-20
-------
and sufficient for the source to complete the performance
tests and set monitoring parameter ranges. The rule requires
control equipment to be installed and operating on the
compliance date. Testing cannot take place until the control
equipment has been installed. Time is needed after the
compliance date to conduct performance tests, receive
analytical results from the lab, prepare test reports and
other compliance demonstration documentation, and allow for
management review* The 150 days is based on information
submitted by the chemical industry during development of the
HON on the length of time it takes to conduct a performance
test and receive the analytical results. The-scope of the-.
MACT standard will involve large amounts of information, where
150 days is necessary.. Both the HON and....lpSHAP General
Provisions allow 150 days or more for these activities. A
source is always allowed to submit a report prior to the due
date.
9.3.3 Periodic Reports
Comment; Some commenters (IV-F-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-22)
expressed opposition to quarterly reporting of an emission
point if the parameter values are outside the established
range for more than 1 percent of the operating time or its
monitoring device has a downtime greater that 5 percent in a
semiannual reporting period. ,,,.One-commentatr. J(IV-D-19)
suggested that only semiannual reporting be required. The
commenters found this requirement burdensome and inconsistent
with other recordkeeping requirements. One commenter
(TV-D-19) attested that penalties for noncompliance are
sufficient incentive for compliance and increased reporting
does not improve enforceability. One commenter (IV-D-21)
claimed that the proposed percentages could be interpreted as
requiring calculation of percentages based on 15 minute
averages rather than periods of excess emissions (days). The
commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that this interpretation would
make the data compression^ pirovision useless. The commenter
(IV-D-21) provided changes to avoid interpretation that
9-21
-------
15 minute averages should be used in determining percent of
time outside of a compliance range. The commenter (IV-D-21)
suggested several minor corrections concerning the period of
excess emissions. One commenter (IV-D-22) recommended using
5xpercent monitor noncompliance and 5 percent monitor downtime
provisions as a standard for submittal of quarterly reports.
One coramenter (IV-D-44) suggested that the continuous
emissions monitor noncompliance rates should be a 5 percent
monitor noncompliance rate and a 10 percent monitor downtime
rate measure for each monitor, not across the refinery or
process units.
.In response*-to a,- request for comments onj? requiring more
frequent reporting dependent upon the frequency or duration of
exceedences, one'commenter (IV-D-46) suggested that the
requirements address the periodicity of exceedences, in order
to encourage fundamental problems that result in frequent, but
short duration exceedences to be corrected.
One commenter (IV-D-59) was concerned about the
complexity of making ~the frequency of reporting depend upon
the number of violations. The commenter stated that it is
unlikely that the State agency will have the time necessary to
determine whether sources claiming the right to report less
frequently have earned it. The commenter suggested that if
. the EPA wishes, toi-reduce "the * frequency of reporting for
facilities with good compliance histories, it should set
reasonably high standards for these reductions and require
companies to report more frequently if violations.occur. The
commenter recommended that EPA require a statement listing
Act requirements that applied during the last two years and
certification that there had been no violations.
One commenter (IV-D-59) suggested that companies that
qualify for semiannual reporting must report more frequently
if a violation occurs after qualifying for semiannual
reporting. The commenter specifically suggested that
reporting should be quarterly if a violation occurs within the
year. The commenter stated that if any non-compliance is
9-22
-------
tolerated for this purpose, 1 percent of time out of
compliance is better than 5 percent.
Response: The final rule has been changed to remove the
requirement for quarterly reporting in cases where monitoring
parameters are out of range or monitors are not operating more
than a specified percent of time. Instead, semi-annual
reporting is required for all facilities. At proposal, all
facilities were required to report semiannually, but if the
specified percentages were exceeded and the regulatory
authority requested it, quarterly reporting could be required.
This change was made because the EPA agrees that the
quarterly reporting system proposed addeti complexity to the
rule, it may not be helpful for enforcement, and that
penalties for noncompliance are a sufficient deterrent for
poor performance. The rule specifies that if the daily
average value of a monitored parameter is outside the
established range or if valid monitoring data are not
available for at least 75 percent of the operating hours in a
day, then excess emissions have occurred and the emission
standard has been violated. Thus, sources have a clear
incentive to keep monitors operating and parameters within
range. Because a single .day out of the 6^month (182 days)
reporting period can be a violation, sources with parameters
out of range as little as .0,^5, percent of the time may have a .
violation.
Semiannual reporting is consistent with Title V operating
permit reporting requirements. Requiring separate quarterly
reports for some facilities adds complexity and increases the
reporting burden for both the facility and the enforcement
agency. It would require calculation of percentages, tracking
of which facilities and emission points are on quarterly
versus semiannual schedules, and extra report preparation and
review time. Semiannual reports will provide the regulatory
agency information on excess emissions within about 6 months
of the occurrence. This is well within the 1-year timeframe
9-23
-------
in which the agency can take administrative enforcement
actions (see later comments in this section).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-52) suggested periodic
reports be submitted within 30 days of the recording period,
instead of 60 days as currently required.
Response; The final provisions require periodic reports
to be submitted no later than 60 days after the end of each
6-month period. This time period should allow enough time for
the source to gather data, prepare, review, and finalize the
periodic report. Because of the large number of emission
points at a refinery, 30 days may be inadequate. A source is
always allowed to smbmit a report prior to "the due date.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) suggested annual
reports instead'of "semiannual reports for those reports
required by § 63.652(f)(l) and (f)(6).
One commenter (IV-D-59) stated that a chaotic situation
will exist where the frequency of reporting varies from
standard to standard.
Response; The periodic reporting system of semiannual
reporting is in conformance with § 70.5(c) of the operating
permits program, which states that sources are required to
submit reports no less frequently than once every six months.
Annual reporting was not selected as requested by the
commenter s,T "because it""wcru±d~significantly .reduce the EPA's .
ability to take administrative enforcement actions.
Section 113(d) of the Act limits assessment of administrative
penalties to violations that occur no more than 12 months
prior to the initiation of the administrative proceeding.
Periodic reports are a primary means of identifying possible
violations, and annual submittal would not give the
enforcement agency time to review the report and take action
on a violation that occurred early in the reporting period
within one year after the event. Administrative proceedings
are far less costly than judicial proceedings for both the EPA
and the regulated community.
9-24
-------
9.3.4 -Additional Reporting
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-29) stated that
notification before tank inspections is unnecessary. Another
commenter (IV-D-20) requested that the reporting requirements
for notifications of inspections for storage vessels be
^
removed and changed to a recordkeeping requirement. .One of
the commenters (IV-D-29) questioned the existence of data •
showing that occasional tank inspections are a significant
health risk. The commenter (IV-D-29) questioned who was going
to pay for the local inspector and if the emissions created by
the local inspector coming to the tank site had been
considered.
Response; The proposed and final refineries NESHAP
requires the same notification as previous jstorage tank
regulations including HON and the NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb). The EPA has determined that the notification
requirements for an owner or operator to inform the
implementing agency of an upcoming seal gap measurement (for
EFR vessels) and of vessel refilling when a vessel has been
emptied and degassed (for both IFR vessels and EFR vessels) is
a reasonable requirement and is not unnecessarily burdensome.
These notifications are not required to be submitted very
frequently. For IFR vessels, which is a common type of
floating roof vessel; the' .notification requirementi-for vessel
refilling will be required once per ten years, or each time
the vessel is emptied and degassed. For EFR vessels, the
notification requirement for vessel refilling has no
specified schedule, as the notification is required each time
%*
this type of vessel is emptied and degassed, according to the
schedule established by the facility operating the vessel.
The EPA anticipates that EFR vessels will be emptied and
degassed no more frequently than once every ten years. Also
for EFR vessels, the notification requirement for seal gap
measurements will be required once per year. The EPA
maintains that this notificeition requirement is not
9-25
-------
unnecessarily burdensome; these notifications are necessary
for effective enforcement of the rule.1
The EPA also concluded that these notification
requirements are not likely to result in findings of
noncompliance against sources. If a source cannot notify the
implementing agency within 30 days due to an unplanned event,
a source is not necessarily in noncompliance. Both of these
notification provisions specify that if the seal gap
measurement or internal inspection associated with the vessel
refilling were unplanned, then the notification could be made
seven days in advance of the measurement or refilling, rather
than the standard -3 0 days in advance. *
The EPA has also concluded that, based on discussions
with "State agencies, these notifications "will result, in many
cases, in observers being sent to facilities to be present
during the measurement or inspection. The EPA recognizes that
some implementing agencies may choose to send observers to
these measurements and inspections less frequently than other
implementing agencies; however, the EPA anticipates that the
majority of implementing agencies will use these notifications
for enforcement purposes.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-36) recommended that the
EPA make modifications necessary to allow reports required by
the Benzerie'TTESHAP's* and NSPS programs to satisfy all
reporting requirements of Title III and the proposed refinery
NESHAP regulation.
Response; The EPA agrees that duplicative reporting
should be avoided, and has clarified the^refineries NESHAP to
state which compliance and reporting requirements apply to
emission points that are subject to the refineries NESHAP as
well as previous NSPS or NESHAP. The proposed refineries
NESHAP specified that the only reporting required for-
wastewater is the reporting required by the BWON. This
provision has been retained in the final rule. The refineries
NESHAP equipment leaks reporting is the same as "for 40 CFR
part 60, subpart W or the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G),
9-26
-------
depending on the compliance method chosen by an owner or
operator." The HON overrode reporting requirements of the
SOCMI equipment leaks NSPS in cases where the same equipment
was subject to both rules. Wording has been included in the
final refineries NESHAP to clearly state that the refineries
> •
NESHAP reporting requirements also over-ride the petroleum
refinery equipment leaks .NSPS and the benzene equipment leaks
NESHAP for equipment subject to multiple rules. For storage,
provisions have been added to the final rule to state whether
the refineries NESHAP, the benzene storage NESHAP, or the NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) apply for storage
vessels subject to multiple rule.s. This will result in only a
single report for each storage vessel. For process vents, no
other NSPS or NESHAP are expected to apply to the same process
vents that are subject 'to the petroleum refineries NESHAP.
The reader is referred to section 3.5 of this document for
additional discussion of regulatory overlap issues.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) suggested that test
reports be combined so that one performance report can be
submitted on the frequency established in the Title V permit.
Two commenters (IV-D-42, IV-D-51) recommended
incorporating MACT reporting requirements into the Title V
permitting program.
- Response; A source must comply with all rules that apply.
to each emission point. If some of the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for these different rules
requires submittal of the same information, then the source
can discuss with the implementing agency how to avoid
duplicative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
If test reports and other information required by the
Notification of Compliance Status have already been submitted
as part of a Title V operating permit program they do not have
to be submitted again.
9.4 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN
Comment: Many commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-19, IV-D-22,
IV-D-34, IV-D-36, IV-D-39, IV-D-42, IV-D-51) alleged that the
9-27
-------
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are extremely
burdensome, and do not contribute to improvement in air
quality and may divert resources away from compliance
activities. One commenter (IV-D-39) urged the EPA to continue
to look for ways to reduce the monitoring and reporting burden
associated with the proposed rule. Some commenters (IV-D-13,
IV-D-34) contended that State and local agencies need
flexibility to allow alternative recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring approaches that are more cost effective, but
provide equally effective compliance determinations. •
Otherwise, one commenter (IV-D-13) asserted, that sources
would bes subject to duplicate recordkeeping requirements and
would incur additional costs and use of resources. One
commenter (IV-D-34) believed that States a'nd local agencies
need flexibility to allow alternative recordkeeping and
reporting requirements as an incentive for enhanced inspection
and maintenance and the installation of high performance
equipment. One commenter (IV-D-51) also requested that the
EPA consider monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping required
for compliance with State and local standards to be equivalent
to the MACT monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the refinery NESHAP.
Response; The EPA recognizes that unnecessary
monitoring, recordkeeping, -and reporting requirements would
burden both the source and the enforcement agencies. Every
attempt has been made to reduce the amount of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to only that which is necessary
to demonstrate compliance.
Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the EPA
always attempts to reduce the burden of recordkeeping and
reporting requirements on the regulated community to the
maximum extent, while still maintaining the enforceability of
the rule. The types of data required and frequency of
monitoring and recordkeeping are based on the likely
variability of emissions from the kind of point being
regulated. The EPA believes that the recordkeeping and
9-28
-------
reporting requirements in the petroleum refinery NESHAP are
the "bare minimum" necessary to determine compliance on a
continuous basis.
For example, at proposal almost all reports were
consolidated into the Notification of Compliance Status, and
the Periodic Reports. This simplifies and reduces the
frequency of reporting. Sources have the option of retaining
records either in paper copy or in computer readable formats,
whichever is less burdensome. If multiple performance tests
are conducted for the same kind of emission point using the
same test method, only one complete test report is submitted
.along with summaries of the results of the-other .tests. This
reduces the number of lengthy test reports to be copied and
submitted. For continuously monitored parameters, periodic
reporting is limited to excursions outside the established
ranges. The in-range values are not required to be reported.
Changes have been ma'de between proposal and promulgation
to further reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden. In
particular, the requirement to submit an Initial Notification
has been eliminated. Periodic reports are required to be
submitted semiannually for all facilities that do not use
emissions averaging (the proposal would have required
quarterly reports if monitored parameters were out of range
more than a specified percent of .the time.)
The final rule also allows retention of hourly average
values of monitored parameters, whereas the proposal would
have required retention of 15-minute records on days when
excess emissions occurred. Provisions were added to avoid
duplicative reporting for equipment subject to multiple NESHAP
and NSPS. The rationale for these changes is presented in the
preceding sections of this chapter.
The rule contains provisions to request the use of
alternative monitoring and recordkeeping systems, providing
sources the flexibility to use their existing monitoring and
recordkeeping equipment as long as the source can demonstrate
compliance with the rule. Non-automated sources can request
9-29
-------
approval to take manual readings and record a value at least
once an hour, for use in determining daily average values.
Sources wishing to use data compression systems can request
approval to do so. This will allow sources that have data
''compression systems already installed or who plan to install a
system to monitor process control, to utilize these systems if
they demonstrate compliance with the rule. These requests can
be approved by the State permit authority. The General
Provisions (§ 63.8(f)(4) of subpart A) also include procedures
for sources to apply to use alternative monitoring procedures.
State and local agencies have the option of enforcing
•different, Tfeut equivalent, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements if they submit information on their
program to the EPA for approval under the procedures for
delegation of NESHAP authority under section 112(1) of the
Act.
Furthermore, in cases where reporting requirements of
State or local rules duplicate those of the petroleum
refineries NESHAP, a source can work with their State or local
Title V permit authority to avoid duplicate submittals.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) was concerned that the
4,281 hours estimated per refinery for recordkeeping and
reporting in the preamble represents 2.25 employees per
.refinery.,, which seems excessive since the associated, costs :
will do nothing to improve the environment.
One commenter (IV-D-19) argued that the estimate of 4,281
hours per record keeper annually may be valid for smaller,
less complex refineries, but would be much greater for
refineries with greater throughput and complexity. The
commenter (IV-D-19) suggested that the EPA be required to
demonstrate net cost benefit to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements contained in the proposal, similar to
analyses prepared on the stringency of controls.
One commenter (IV-D-22) added that recordkeeping and
reporting costs were not included in the cost impact analysis.
9-30
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter (IV-D-20)
that the recordkeeping and reporting associated costs do
nothing to improve the environment. Although direct HAP
emissions reduction does not occur as a result of
recordkeeping and reporting, it is the only way that the EPA
can ensure that control requirements, and thus HAP emissions
reductions, are met.
The EPA included monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
costs along with the cost of control in the cost impact
analysis done to support the MACT determination. Therefore, a
separate cost analysis for monitoring, recordkeeping and
-reporting is not necessary. The EPA has also reduced the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden 20 percent
since proposal.
The EPA agrees with the commenter (IV-D-19) that
refineries with a greater throughput and complexity may incur
a greater burden than a smaller refinery. However, those
refineries that are more complex with greater throughputs hava
more emission points for which control must be assured.
Although a larger, more complex refinery may incur a larger
burden than average, the revenue from greater production would
offset any inequities.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) requested that
performance tests conducted prior to the effective date of
this rule be allowed in demonstrating compliance with this
rule (e.g., if flares have previously demonstrated compliance
with the NSPS requirements contained in § 60.18, this should
suffice since these requirements are identical to § 63.11).
Response; Previous test results may be used as long as
the test methods required by the petroleum refineries NESHAP
were used and the process emission characteristics during tlie
test are still representative of current operations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-39) supported an
alternative method of providing operational flexibility that
the EPA would establish through a case-by-case waiver system.
The commenter's suggested waiver system would allow sources
9-31
-------
that meet specific threshold criteria to determine an
alternative compliance option where the control level for the
entire source is at least as stringent as the MACT level of
control. The commenter (IV-D-39) offered to participate in a
pilot project if the EPA decided to pursue one.
Response; In keeping with the EPA's stated goal in
rulemakings, the EPA is a'llowing an owner or operator of a
petroleum refinery to emissions average among different
emission points defined under the "affected source" to comply
with the petroleum refinery NESHAP. Similar to the
commenter's suggestion, this offers refineries more
opportunities to find cost-effebtive emission reductions from
overall facility operations. The averaging provisions are
structured such that "debits" generated by not controlling an
emission point that otherwise would require control must be
balanced by achieving extra control at other refinery emission
•
points covered by the NESHAP.
9-32
-------
10.0 EMISSIONS AVERAGING PROVISIONS
10.1 SHOULD EMISSIONS AVERAGING BE ALLOWED
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-19,
IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-30, IV-D-36, IV-D-38,
IV-D-42, IV-D-44, IV-D-50, IV-D-51, and IV-F-1) expressed
support for the concept of emissions averaging to allow more
cost-effective HAP emission reduction. One commenter
(IV-D-19) found the philosophy of emissions averaging to be
consistent with the published statements of Administrator
Browner, the Common Sense Initiative and Executive Order
12866. The commenter (IV-D-19) maintained that requiring
facilities to install costly controls when less expensive
controls will achieve the same or greater results does not
make sense. The commenter (IV-D-19) cited the Amoco Yorktown
study as a good example of what emissions averaging attempts
to accomplish. One commenter (IV-D-25) recommended several
changes to the proposed averaging provisions to improve
overall cost-effectiveness, as Summarized naftSer-sections 10.2
through 10.10 of this chapter. Three commenters (IV-D-12,
IV-D-22, IV-D-42) stated that emissions averaging provides
flexibility to facilities for developing site-specific and/or
the most cost-effective controls for HAP's. Two commenters
(IV-D-20, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) supported the concept of
emissions averaging as a cost- effective way to achieve
environmental benefits.
Three commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-35, IV-D-51) were opposed
to emissions averaging in the proposed rule. One commenter
(IV-D-35) opposed emissions averaging because they do not
believe that it is possible to prove emissions "equally
hazardous." One commenter (IV-D-54) objected to any emissions
10-1
-------
averaging scheme because the commenter claimed it is a
loophole for refineries to perform peak pollution dumping.
The commenter (IV-D-54) contended that averaging lets industry
use cost instead of toxicity as the basis of making emissions
reductions. One commenter (IV-D-52) had serious reservations
about emissions averaging because of the difficulties inherent
in determining compliance and risk.
Three commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-55, IV-D-57) opposed the
use of emissions averaging for existing and new sources. One
commenter (IV-D-55) expressed concern that emissions averaging
would result in less environmental protection and increased
administrative and enforcement burdens. Two commenters
(IV-D-55, IV-D-16) suggested that emissions averaging be
eliminated from the proposed regulation. One commenter
(IV-D-55) provided their comments opposing the proposed
emissions averaging provision in the HON for further
explanation of their opposition to the emissions averaging
provision in the proposed regulation. One commenter (IV-D-57)
objected to emissions averaging because it would promote
regulatory and enforcement complexity by allowing averaging
between emission points that operate under different
conditions, processing different materials, and at remote
locations.
One commenter (IV-D-46) stated that emissions.averaging
is costly and resource intensive and the level of effort could
be applied to other areas of compliance with greater results,.
The commenter (IV-D-46) asserted that paperwork and workload
could be reduced by eliminating emissions averaging.
Response; Emissions averaging has been maintained in the
final rule as an option for sources to use to comply with
subpart CC. This decision is in keeping with the EPA's
general policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance
approaches where they can be properly monitored and enforced,.
Under particular circumstances, emissions averaging can
provide sources the flexibility to comply in the least costly
manner while still maintaining a regulation that is workable
10-2
-------
and enforceable. The EPA's goal in crafting the emissions
averaging provisions in the final rule has been to make
emissions averaging available to sources faced with some
emission points that are particularly difficult or costly to
control. At the same time, the EPA has structured the
emissions averaging provisions to ease the enforcement burden
on implementing agencies.
The rationale for the specific provisions of the
emissions averaging policy is detailed throughout this
chapter.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-53) was opposed to
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-53) stated that if
the BWON level of control without the 10 Mg benzene cutoff is
selected as Wastewater MACT and Option 1 is chosen as MACT for
storage vessels, any possibility of emissions averaging will
be eliminated and therefore the provision is unnecessary.
Response: Neither of the options described by the
commenter were chosen as MACT for wastewater or storage
vessels in this rule. Hence, there are opportunities for a
source to use emissions avereiging. Moreover, the final rule
has expanded opportunities for using emissions averaging
because emission points at meirine terminals can now be
considered as part of the source subject to the rule.
. comment; Four commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25 ^nd. IV-E-1,
IV-D-42, ID-F-49) opposed allowing States the discretion to
include or exclude emissions averaging. One commenter
(IV-D-22) opposed giving States the option to not include
emissions averaging in the implementation of refinery MACT
because it will allow States to circumvent statutory
requirements to demonstrate increased stringency for not using
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-22) added that it
was possible that the over-control of credit sources will lead
to even greater HAP emission reduction than if all sources
were controlled without averaging. The commenter (IV-D-22)
contended that the rule is a national regulation instead of a
site-specific rule; therefore, all facilities should be
10-3
-------
governed by the same standard and compliance approaches.
Otherwise, the commenter (IV-D-22) asserted some facilities
would suffer economic disadvantages. The commenter (IV-D-22}
concluded that if States exclude averaging, they should be
required to develop a section 112(1) delegation process.
Another commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the provision to allow
States to eliminate emissions averaging as a compliance option
is inconsistent with E.G. 12866. The commenter (IV-D-25)
contended that without averaging the rule "specifies the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt," ignores the directive that regulations be designed "in
the most cost-effective manner •'to. achieve regulatory
compliance," and stifles innovation. The commenter (IV-D-25)
said that the proposed section 112(1) rule provides ample
flexibility for State agencies, and that the special
provisions to allow adoption of the rule with or without
averaging will actually make the adoption process more complex
for many States. Two commenters on the marine loading rule
(Docket A-90-44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) argued that State and local
discretion to preclude averaging might effectively eliminate
the utility of emissions averaging.
On the other hand, one commenter (IV-D-55) urged that the
restriction allowing states to implement the MACT standards
without emissions, averaging be .maintained. The commenter
(IV-D-55) supported the portions of the preamble that allow
State and local agencies "to obtain delegation of the
standards without the averaging provisions without having to
undergo section 112(1) delegation and approval process." The
commenter (IV-D-55) requested that these provisions be
included and clearly stated in the final rule and in the
preamble. Another commenter (IV-D-13) opposed emissions
averaging unless, in addition to allowing States the
flexibility to exclude averaging, the regulation requires that
sources must demonstrate that emissions averaging is more
stringent than MACT and allows States and local agencies to
10-4
-------
require demonstration of no net increase in risk when
emissions averaging is used.
Response; The EPA maintains that States should have
discretion on whether to allow emissions averaging for a
number of reasons. First, the EPA acknowledges that averaging
can be more complex to administer than the rule allowing only
point-by-point compliance, so allowing averaging could
increase the administrative burden, which is an especially
important concern for implementing agencies with limited
personnel and resources. However, the determination of what
constitutes too much administrative burden will differ from
State to State. -rSome States may consider emissions averaging
an acceptable strategy for compliance and will retain the
program.
Second, the EPA recognized that averaging in the rule
could be inconsistent with some States' ongoing air pollution
control programs. The EPA supports the use of emissions
averaging where it may be appropriate, and maintains again
that the program has been designed to be enforceable and
protective of health and welfare. However, the EPA also
acknowledges that its use must be balanced by the individual
needs of State and local agencies that bear the responsibility
for administering and enforcing the rule. Furthermore, with
the inclusion of these provisions, the EPA does not consider
the stringency of the rule with or without averaging to be an
issue.
This rule is a national rule that must fit into a
situation that is already not an even "playing field"; States
have differing rules and sites are all unique in terms of
their mix of products, rules that govern them, site layout,
etc. Allowing this discretion will not add to the uneven
"playing field" because without this provision, most States
already have the ability to exclude emissions averaging
through the section 112(1) rule adjustment process encoded in
40 CFR 63.92, 63.93, and 63. 94. Rather, the EPA has decided
to make excluding averaging more simple by exempting the
10-5
-------
decision from the section 112(1) rule adjustment process.
Including this provision will reduce paperwork burdens on
States, expedite delegation of the rule to States, and remove
a potential source of uncertainty for sources subject to the
petroleum refineries NESHAP.
The EPA does not agree that providing for State
discretion in the rule itself is either unnecessary or
burdensome for States. While the section 112(1) rule
adjustment process would also permit States to choose to
implement the rule without averaging, providing for that
choice in the rule itself streamlines the process by
eliminating EPA review of the choice. In addition, since the
section 112(1) rule permits States to make the choice,
providing for the exercise of such discretion in the rule
itself cannot be viewed as placing any new burdens on States.
The provision of an option will not impose a burden or impose
new requirements; it increases choice and flexibility.
Because emissions averaging is an alternative compliance
method to the primary control strategy, States should have the
discretion to exclude it as opposed to other provisions that
are essential to the rule and for which no alternative
compliance mechanism has been provided.
Finally, the EPA predicts that instead of creating
promulgation difficulties-1 and uncertainties, providing the
clarifications in this provision at this time will benefit
sources as well as States. Without this provision, sources
might be uncertain during the section 112(1) rule adjustment
process about whether averaging ultimately would be allowed or
not in their State, yet would be given no added time for
compliance. The EPA predicts that because of their complex
nature, many sources will need the full time period allowed
for compliance. .. .... 5
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-34) urged the EPA to adopt
emissions averaging with provisions similar to those developed
in the HON. Another commenter (IV-D-57) added that all
10-6
-------
restrictions on averaging included in the HON should be
incorporated into this standard.
In contrast, three commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-44)
maintained that attaching conditions to emissions averaging,
as was done for the HON, would make emissions averaging
virtually useless for cost-effective HAP emission reduction.
Response; The emissions averaging program in this rule
includes essentially the same, provisions as those featured in
the emissions averaging program in the HON. Similarities
between the two rules include the following: inclusion of all
points except equipment leaks and biotreatment units;
interpollutant trading; no averaging at new sources or between
sources; a limit on the number of points that can be included
in averages; no banking of credits; States discretion to allow
averaging; and risk or hazard consideration in averages. More
similarities between the two rules exist other than those
listed here. The similarities are intentional because the
program designed for the HON addressed most of the same
concerns voiced during this rule proposal. The averaging
programs designed for the HON and for this rule strike the
appropriate balance between allowing sources flexibility to
comply and adequately protecting the environment.
10.2 SCOPE OF EMISSIONS AVERAGING
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D^-25, IV-D-30)
supported including new sources in emissions averaging. One
commenter (IV-D-25) argued that because new source MACT is
based on the single best-controlled source and is very
stringent, it is inevitable that cost-ineffective controls
will be required for some emission points. The commenter
(IV-D-25) therefore concluded that there is a great need for
new and reconstructed sources to be included in the emissions
averages in order to allow more cost-effective means of
achieving equivalent emission reductions. The commenter
(IV-D-25) also disputed the relevance of the proposal
statement that averaging would not be useful because new
sources would be required to meet the NSPS, and commented that
10-7
-------
in cases where the NSPS is less stringent, than MACT, averaging
would be possible.
On the other hand, three commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-52,
IV-D-55) supported the exclusion of new sources from emissions
^averaging. One commenter (IV-D-55) requested that this
provision be included and clearly stated in the final rule and
in the preamble. "
Response; The EPA agrees with some of the commenters
that it is appropriate that emissions averaging be restricted
to existing sources only. Averaging is a mechanism designed
to provide each source the flexibility to comply with the MACT
standard in a way that is most practical and cost-effective
for the individual source. By employing averaging, a source
is able, for example, to avoid adding controls to an outlying
emission point that would be very expensive to control, or to
avoid replacing expensive control technology that does not
achieve enough emission reduction to meet the standard. These
concerns are applicable to existing sources. A new source can
be designed to avoid expensive outlying emission points, and
retrofitting is obviously not an issue. In addition, when a
new source is constructed, it can be designed to accommodate
the required MACT controls in the most practical and cost-
effective manner, thus reducing the need for the flexibility
of,averaging.
The EPA does not agree with the commenters who argue that
prohibiting averaging at new sources would result in a more
stringent standard. This rule lias been drafted to provide
that averaging is no less stringent than the standard without
averaging. Thus, allowing new sources to comply only via use
of the reference control technologies and not via averaging
does not require those sources to meet a more stringent
standard. Instead, it requires them to meet a more specific,
and thus more easily implemented standard. However, even if
prohibiting averaging at new sources would result in new
sources being held to a more stringent standard, such a result
would not be unlawful as the statute clearly provides that new
10-8
-------
source standards may be more stringent than those for existing
sources.
Comment; Eight commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-19, IV-D-20,
IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-42, IV-D-48, IV-D-51) contended that a
facility composed of several source categories should be
allowed to average emissions across the entire facility.
Seven commenters on the proposed marine loading rule
(Docket A-90-44: IV-D-23, IV-D-91, IV-DT92, IV-D-93, IV-D-97,
IV-D-99, IV-D-101) also supported averaging across source
categories. Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22, IV-D-42)
contended that fugitive emissions, marine vessel loading and
gasoline distribution operations should also be included in
emissions averaging. One commenter (IV-D-19) stated that
averaging should be allowed anywhere and everywhere within the
contiguous boundaries of a major source. Two commenters
(IV-D-19, IV-D-21) cited facilities where marine operations,
refining operations, gasoline distribution operations and/or
pipeline breakout stations are co-located as being a critical
example because promulgation of MACT standards for these fall
within a seven-month window. The commenter (IV-D-19)
suggested that the position to prohibit inter-source category
averaging be reconsidered.
One commenter (IV-D-19) claimed that inter-source
category averaging is not precluded by law, citing
section 112(a)(1) in which Congress defined a "major source"
as "a contiguous area under common control." Two commenters
(IV-D-19 and IV-F-1) submitted that inter-source averaging is
supported philosophically by the Common Sense Initiative and
Executive Order 12866.
One commenter (IV-D-25 and IV-F-1) recommended that
emissions averaging should be broadened to include all
emission points subject to MACT controls within a contiguous
major source facility regardless* of whether the emission
points are within the same source category. Specifically, the
commenter (IV-D-25 and IV-F-1) would like to include process
units subject to the refineries NESHAP, marine vessel loading
10-9
-------
operations, gasoline distribution systems, and process units
subject to the HON in the same emissions averaging when these
units are co-located at refineries. The commenter (IV-D-25
and IV-F-1) cited more cost-effective emission reductions as
>an advantage of a broader averaging program and stated that
without emissions averaging the cost of the marine loading
regulation is over $100,000/Mg of HAP reduction. The
commenter (IV-D-25) attached.a legal analysis to support their
position that the EPA has ample legal authority to allow MACT
compliance by emissions averaging across source categories.
Another commenter (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-91) argued that
emissions averaging will increase flexibility, encourage
innovative control strategies, and result in more cost
effective control and greater HAP emission reduction.
Two commenters (IV-D-51, IV-D-57) recommended that the
earliest compliance date be used for different source
categories with different compliance dates that are included
in an emissions averaging scheme. One commenter (IV-D-25)
suggested that differences in compliance deadlines among
difficult NESHAP should not prevent averaging across source
categories. The commenter (IV-D-25) observed that the
standards for petroleum refineries, marine vessel loading, and
gasoline marketing will be promulgated within a short time
period.- The-commenter {IVrD-25) suggested that JEPA could
address the issue of different compliance dates by requiring
that any emission debits be offset by credits generated at the
same time as the earlier compliance date.
One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the EPA includes
facilities that are co-located in applicability
determinations; therefore, the same criterion should be used
in emissions averaging provisions. The commenter (IV-D-22)
supported making the refinery MACT rule compatible with the
112(d) intent to base MACT rules on average emission
limitation instead of best controls for each category of
emissions for the best refineries. One commenter (IV-D-49)
recommended including as an option emissions averaging across
10-10
-------
all organic source categories co-located at the petroleum
refinery site. • *'
On the other hand, two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57)
contended that it was inappropriate to allow emissions
averaging between source categories. Three commenters on the
proposed marine loading rule (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-94,
IV-D-98, IV-D-100) opposed averaging emissions between
separate source categories. Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57)
objected to emissions averaging across facilities and source
categories for MACT standards unless the rule allowed
flexibility for State and local agencies to exclude emission
averaging. One commenter (IV-D-57) contended that the EPA
indicated that such an option would be available, but it was
not in the proposed rules. Another commenter (IV-D-12)
expressed concern that emissions averaging in the proposed
rule would allow too many different kinds of emission points
to be averaged. The commenter (IV-D-12) opposed emissions
averaging across divergent processes and operations because it
would augment the already substantial competitive advantages
enjoyed by large refineries without creating any air quality
benefits. The commenter (IV-D-12) contended that unlike small
refineries, large refineries are vertically integrated with a
diverse array of operations allowing them to cut back high
cost reductions in refinery process and offset them with' low
cost reductions in other areas. Therefore, the commenter
(IV-D-12) concluded that emissions averaging should not
include marine loading operations, distribution, or SOCMI
areas.
Response: After studying the arguments presented by the
commenters both for and against a broader averaging approach,
the EPA has decided to retain the narrower approach contained
in the proposed rule.
The EPA agrees with the commenters who argued that the
statute provides broad discretion to define "source," and does
not prohibit averaging in setting standards under
section 112(d) of the Act. However, the EPA has determined
10-11
-------
that section 112 does provide some limits on the scope of
averaging, and that the broader averaging approach exceeds
those limits.
The statute reguires the EPA to consider emissions from
the entire facility in order to determine whether it is a
major source subject to a given MACT standard. However, the
EPA is also required to develop a list of source categories,
which are to be composed of "sources" that are then subject to
regulation under MACT standards. Both the language of
section 112(d) and the legislative history indicate that
sources in the category can be co-located with a major source,
but are just as likely to be merely a portion of a facility.
Thus, a large facility emitting more than 25 tons of multiple
HAP's will, in most cases, be composed of multiple sources in
different source categories subject to standards on different
dates. It does not follow that, because applicability under
section 112 (i.e., whether a facility emits sufficient HAP's
to be considered a major source) is determined on a facility-
wide basis, compliance with specific standards written for
sources that comprise only a part of a facility should be
permitted on a facility-wide basis. The most that can be
inferred is that the entire facility is the largest entity
that can be defined as a source within any category, but that
the source in a category can, and often will/be,; smaller than
the entire facility.
In accordance with section 112(i) of the Act, all sources
in the category for which a standard is in effect must be in
compliance by a specified date. Commenters' arguments that
section 112(i) allows compliance with a standard that is set
for a source category to be achieved by a "source" that is
more extensive than the source in the category (i.e., the
entire major source that the source in the category is a
fraction of), is inconsistent with the specific language of
section 112(i). Section 112(i) provides different compliance
requirements for new and existing sources. New sources must
comply with an applicable standard earlier than existing
10-12
-------
sources, which can be given up to three years to comply.
Moreover, section 112(i)(3) provides for compliance dates to
be established for "each category or subcategory of existing
sources." This provision cleeirly applies to compliance by
sources in a category rather than compliance with a standard
by any points within an entire major source. Therefore,
section 112(i) clearly provides for compliance by individual
sources within the relevant category rather than overall
compliance by a major source with a standard applicable to
only part of the major source.
Thus, the EPA is adopting the more limited approach to
averaging that was contained in the proposed rule. All
sources within a given source category must comply
individually with the standard either by application of the
reference control technology or by compliance with an approved
emissions average. Transferring emission reduction
obligations to points outside of the source within the
category would be inconsistent with the requirement of
section 112(d) of the Act that standards be set for sources in
a listed category, and the requirements of section 112(i) that
compliance with such standard be achieved by sources in the
category.
The petroleum refineries source category has been
redefined since proposal to include marine loading and
gasoline distribution operations located at -refineries for
reasons described in the response to the next comment. Thus
these operations can be included in emissions averages.
Sources in other source categories, such as SOCMI process
units located at refineries, cannot be included in emissions
averages. The SOCMI is a distinct source category for which a
NESHAP (the HON) was promulgated in April 1994, oyer a year
ago. The commenters have provided no compelling information
or rationale for changing the source category-definition that
was already established under the HON. The HON compliance
date is already established in the April 1994 standards, and
cannot legally be extended beyond the 3-year period allowed by
10-13
-------
the Act. Detailed implementation plans for HON sources using
emission averaging must be»-submitted by October 1995. Thus,
significant planning and investment has already been made
toward compliance with the HON. Changing the source category
and source definitions and allowing averaging across HON and
refinery process units would be disruptive and of little
practical value. Both the HON and refineries NESHAP provide
significant flexibility, without the added complexity of
averaging across SOCMI and refinery process units.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-25 and
IV-F-1, IV-D-51) supported averaging of refinery emissions
with -emissions from marine terminals. In response to the
EPA's request for comments, one commenter (IV-D-25) stated
that including marine loading in emissions averaging will not
appreciably increase the complexity of rule enforcement. The
commenter (IV-D-25) observed that assessment of compliance for
marine loading is no more difficult than for storage vessels,
process vents, or wastewater operations and should not be a
reason to exclude marine loading from emissions averaging.
The commenter (IV-D-25) added that emission factors for marine
loading and other transfer operations are well characterized
and accepted, so credit and debit calculations will be
practical.
- Xn response to EPA concerns about the equity of allowing.
emissions averaging for marine loading at refineries, while
other marine loading operations would not have a similar means
of reducing compliance costs, the commenter (IV-D-25)
suggested two solutions. First, commenter (IV-D-25) suggested
expanding averaging outside the source category such that
marine loading operations located at gasoline marketing
terminals, or other sources could also use emissions averaging.
Second, commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that the proposed marine
loading rule should be revised to exclude small operations
emitting low levels of HAP's. Another commenter (IV-D-51)
added that marine terminals connected to the refinery
operations by pipeline, 1'ocated near the refinery and
10-14
-------
associated with its operations, or if a marine terminal is
integrally linked with the refinery, should be considered "co-
located." The commenter (IV-D-51) stated that where the
operations of a refinery are dependant on the marine terminal
fof its supply, and the refinery is the main supplier of
commodities going to the marine terminal they.should be
considered one facility. The commenter (IV-D-51) recommended
allowing averaging of refining emission sources with those at
marine terminal loading operations because it would reduce
costs and provide flexibility in achieving the required
reductions.
In contrast, four commenters (IV-D-4'6, IV-D-48, IV-D-52 r :
IV-D-57) opposed the inclusion of marine loading emissions in
the emissions averaging scheme. One commenter on the marine
loading rule (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-98) also opposed including
marine loading in emissions averaging. Two commenters
(IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44: IV-D-98) argued that marine loading
and petroleum refineries are two separate source categories
and that the Act does not permit averaging across source
categories. (See section 3.1 for additional comments on
source category selection.)
Three commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-98) claimed that averaging with marine loading operations
will result in uncontrolled peak emissions-.. The commenters
(IV-D-46, IV-D-48) pointed out that marine loading generates
significant emissions during-loading and little between
loading. The commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48) claimed that
including marine loading operations in emissions averaging
would allow high peak concentrations and augment a facilities
emissions' contribution to peak ozone concentrations,
violating the health standard and limiting the health effects
of the proposed regulation. One commenter (IV-D-46) added
that making up for marine loading emissions by controlling
other refinery units would be complicated because of the
variability of materials due to changes in market demand. The
commenter (IV-D-46) contended that balancing the emissions
10-15
-------
would be difficult and cumbersome and the owner/operator could
easily be in noncompliance.
Two commenters (IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44: IV-D-98) claimed
that the EPA has not proposed monitoring sufficient to
xreliably determine the amount of emissions allowed or emission
reductions generated for marine loading operations. One
commenter (IV-D-48) also provided that the Amoco Yorktown
study identified marine loading as a cost-effective emission
reduction opportunity. Two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48)
stated that this opportunity should be addressed by the marine
loading rule. One commenter (IV-D-48) disagreed with the
study's conclusion that* tsuppor ted a broader averaging. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that there were many technical
deficiencies in the study. The commenter (IV-D-48) suggested
that emissions reductions could be achieved by additional
controls on wastewater, which the commenter did not agree are
cost ineffective, as opposed to including marine loading
operations.
One commenter (IV-D-46) recommended variables to be taken
into consideration in calculating emissions from marine vessel
loading operations, if they are to be included in emissions
averaging. The commenter (IV-D-46) also suggested potential
methods to be used and potential difficulties that may be
.encountered.
One commenter (IV-D-57) provided the following reasons
for objecting to averaging between refineries and marine
vessels: (1) the categories are separate because marine
terminals are major sources in their own right and their
operation is not continuous; (2) SOCMI products are covered
under the Marine Vessel category as well as refinery products;
(3) marine terminals are often separated from the refinery
plant site by a substantial distance; which has significant
impacts on the exposed population, because there may be two or
more entirely separate exposed populations; and (4) the
disparate nature of the operations could reasonably result in
10-16
-------
exposure spikes, when batch processes are left .uncontrolled in
exchange for control of continuous emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-52) disagreed with the proposal to
include marine vessel loading operations in emissions
averaging because emissions, from marine vessels are so high
that an incidental amount of overcontrol might allow a
refinery to avoid control of most other HAP sources, thereby
circumventing the intent of Title III to apply MACT to all HAP
sources. Additional comments for and against including marine
loading in emissions averages that were submitted to the
marine loading regulation docket (A-90-44) are summarized in
the promulgation BID for that regulation.
Response; In the final rule, emission points in marine
vessel loading and unloading facilities and bulk gasoline
terminals co-located with a refinery have been included in the
petroleum refinery source category and in the definition of
"source" for the petroleum refineries NESHAP. Under the final
rule, emission points from marine vessel loading and bulk
gasoline terminal transfer racks may be included in an
emissions average with other refinery process unit emission
points. Because marine loading operations and bulk gasoline
transfer operations located at refineries are supplying raw
materials to petroleum refinery process units or transferring
products of the refinery process units, they are logically
considered part of the same source as the petroleum refinery
process units. (In a similar way, loading of SOCMI chemical
products into tank trucks and railcars was considered part of
the chemical manufacturing process unit for sources subject to
the HON). Marine loading and bulk gasoline terminal
operations at refineries must be operated in close connection
with refinery process units since they supply feed to and
receive products from these units. Because marine loading and
-• " -"-'aps.f * :t*s ' - * '.
bulk gasoline terminals have been defined to be part of the
source subject to the petroleum refineries rule/ the
prohibition against intersource averaging is not violated.
10-17
-------
In keeping with the EPA's stated goal of increasing
flexibility in rulemakings, this decision has -been made to
provide more opportunities to average and in so doing optimize
the opportunities for finding cost-effective emission
^reductions from overall facility operations on-site. Controls
cannot be designated for each and every point in a refinery
source due to economics and site-specific variations.
Emissions averaging allows the owner or operator to find the
optimal control strategy for their particular situation.
In this line, the Amoco Yorktown study must not be over-
used to conclude that marine loading is always cost effective
to control. Specific emission estimates, cost estimates, and
control strategies for the Yorktown facility may not represent
other refineries due to site-specific differences, and
uncertainties in the Yorktown cost and emission estimates.
The study does highlight the importance of compliance
flexibility and site-specific pollution prevention strategies
to achieve cost-effective control. Emissions averaging allows
this flexibility.
In regards to the comments on peak exposure, the EPA took
this into account by requiring a quarterly check along with
the requirement that debits and credits balance annually. If
a State believes that further consideration of peak exposure
is needed, it can be taken into account in theirrown risk
assessment methodologies;, they are free to consider it in the
hazard or risk equivalency demonstration.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) stated if marine
operations are included in emissions averaging, the deadlines
for establishing emission standards for petroleum refineries
must be accelerated to the marine vessel schedule. Another
commenter (IV-D-46) stated that all deadlines for petroleum
refineries and marine vessels should remain separate, except
for the emission averaging deadlines. The commenter v(IV-D-46)
suggested that averaging plans and compliance deadlines should
be based on promulgation of the regulation that is promulgated
last.
10-18
-------
Response; Because marine loading and bulk gasoline
terminals located at refineries are now included in the
petroleum refineries source category and are subject to
subpart CC, the compliance date for these operations is the
same as for petroleum refining process units. The EPA has
amended the marine vessel loading and unloading operations
NESHAP MACT standards schedule to the same schedule as the
petroleum refineries NESHAP. Marine vessel loading operation
sources subject to reasonably available control technology
(RACT) standards, under section 63.560(c), must be in
compliance with the MACT provisions (RACT is equal to MACT) on
and after 2 years after the .promulgation date. s
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-19) objected to the
exclusion of fugitive emissions from averaging. One commenter
(IV-D-25) requested that .the EPA reconsider including
equipment leaks in the emissions averaging program. The
commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that emission data they have
previously submitted to the EPA could be used to quantify
emissions for purposes of averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25)
gave specific examples of equipment leak control programs that
could generate credits, such as using lower leak definition
rates than required by the rule or performing LDAR on streams
that would otherwise be excluded.
Response; The EPA acknowledges that methods are
available for quantifying emissions from equipment leaks;
however, this is not at issue in emissions averaging.
Equipment leaks cannot be included in emissions averages for
two reasons. First, a reference control efficiency cannot be
established for the standard for equipment leaks because the
percent reduction achieved by complying with the equipment
leaks provisions of subpart CC will vary depending on the
characteristics of the process and the equipment being
controlled. Second, no method currently exists "for
determining allowable emissions for leaks, i.e., residual
emissions from equipment controlled according to subpart CC.
Without a reference control efficiency or the ability to
10-19
-------
assign allowable emissions, debits and credits cannot be
established for any kind of point. Third, there is no
practical way for enforcement to verify compliance.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) requested that the
\wording in § 63.650(d) (4)- be revised to say "Wastewater,
whether or not treated in a biological treatment unit, cannot
be used to generate credits or debits." Another commenter
(IV-D-46) who requested that wastewater streams be excluded
from emissions averaging claimed that wastewater emissions are
difficult to quantify due to changing conditions and lack of
calculation techniques. The commenter (IV-D-46) contended
that -the.transitory nature of wastewater is contradictory to
the basis of emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-46)
requested that if wastewater emissions are not excluded, they
be subject to more rigorous monitoring and testing and a more
conservative discount factor, such as three to one, be used.
Response; The EPA considers the estimation of wastewater
emissions on an annual basis to be as reliable as for the
other kinds of points and hence, suitable for inclusion in
emissions averaging.
The EPA has recognized that the testing procedures for
measuring emissions from areas such as surface impoundments
influence the emission mechanisms and would not yield accurate
-estimates of actual emissions. Therefore, credits for
wastewater streams, as well as applicability of this rule to
wastewater streams and Group status of streams, are determined
at the stream point of generation. Also, if a wastewater
stream is being controlled as a credit generator, the stream
must comply with the standards for transport and .handling
equipment, which require suppression to eliminate the
influence of factors such as wind speed, and surface
configurations. This ensures that the only emissions that
need to be considered are those from the control device.
As in the case of other emission points, characteristics
such as HAP concentration, temperature, and flow rate remain
relatively constant in wastewater streams so that
10-20
-------
representative values can be vised. The rule provides that if
operating conditions change such that previously measured
values are no longer representative, the values must be
=. .„. . • '. '"' *7T
redetermined.
The rule specifies that wastewater streams treated in
biological treatment units are not eligible fo* Emissions
averaging. All other types of control are acceptable as long
as their reduction efficiency can be determined. The EPA is
confident that by making biological treatment of wastewater
ineligible for averaging, the potential for underestimation of
wastewater emissions will be minimized.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) recommended that
emissions averaging be limited to allow only emission points
that are unfeasible or impractical to control in some
extraordinary way to be included.
Response; Emissions averaging is intended to be used for
just such emission points referred to by the commenter.
However, the source does not have to make any type of
demonstration of feasibility or practicality of controlling an
emission point to include it in an average. As long as
emissions credits and debits can be calculated accurately
through use of the equations in the rule, the kinds of
emission points specified in the rule will be eligible for
inclusion in averages.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-46) supported use of the
HON threshold criteria (hazard or risk equivalency, discount
factor) in the petroleum refinery NESHAP. The commenter
(IV-D-46) did not support including cost as a threshold
criterion for an interpollutant averaging scheme. The
commenter (IV-D-46) contended that extreme cost would be
different for different size refineries and difficult to
define. The commenter (IV-D-46) agreed with using
environment-based criteria, but-asserted that using eostrbased
--'.;'--->. tSr. . • - •> ?"*":''* ".;"*-'• '•>'>» -.*""' TK ".- ' -T '-"
criteria is beyond the authority of the EPA.
Response; In the final rule %he; EPA lias maintained the
threshold criteria used at proposal and in the HON (hazard or
10-21
-------
risk equivalency and a discount factor). No additional
threshold criteria was added, including ones- based- on cost.
Comment: Two coitunenters (IV-D-57, Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-100) asserted that emissions averaging should not be
Nallowed if a net VOC increase would occur. The commenter
(IV-D-57) stated that HAP decreases should not occur at the
expense of potential ozone increases.
Response: If another State or Federal regulation applies
to an emission point subject to this rule, the more stringent
of the requirements takes precedence. As such, if another
rule requires control more stringent than the reference
control technology • (RCT) established by this rule, the point
cannot be left uncontrolled or undercontrolled as a debit
generator in an emissions average. However, if controls are
installed after 1990 and achieve more stringent control than
is required by the other State or Federal rule, the emission
point is eligible as a credit generator in an emissions
average, but only for the control above what is required by
the other rule.
Even if the RCT established in this rule is the more
stringent of two requirements, the source must maintain the
control established by the other requirement. If the point
were controlled with the RCT from this rule, both requirements
would be met. However, if the source plans to use the point
as a debit generator, the point must still meet the other
requirement. The emission point can be used as an
undercontrolled (according to this rule) debit generator for
which the difference in control between this rule and the
other requirement is the basis for the debits.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) supported a case-by-
case review of proposals to average, rather than making a
blanket allowance for the category. The commenter (IV-D-57)
supported requiring a source to demonstrate the burden faced
by the source in complying without averaging as well as
enhanced environmental benefits from averaging.
10-22
-------
One commenter (IV-D-46) stated opposition to an option
for compliance allowing case-by case waivers for facilities
meeting certain threshold criteria. The commenter (IV-D-46)
claimed that the system would be too burdensome with a third
option. Additionally, the commenter (IV-D-46) stated that
case-by-case waivers should be administered at the State, not
Federal, level. The commenter (IV-D-46) asserted that if
waivers are allowed, the associated emission points should be
considered in an averaging program.
Response; Emissions averaging is allowed for all sources
except those in States that exercise the discretion to exclude
it from-.-their implementation of the rule. Including the
program in the rule is preferable to a case-by-case "variance
waiver" approach to allowing or disallowing emissions
averages. Again, the decision to include emissions averaging
was made to increase the flexibility of sources to comply with
the rule as long as equivalent emission reductions to point-
by-point compliance is ensured.
The EPA does not consider it necessary for a source to
submit comparative cost or burden analyses with proposals to
emissions average. As long as the emissions average achieves
equivalent emission reductions to compliance on a point-by-
point basis, the average is suitable. Furthermore,
incorporation of a discount factor in the averaging program
provides some assurance of an enhanced environmental benefit
from the use of averaging.
10.3 INTERPOLLUTANT TRADING AND RISK ANALYSIS
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-48, IV-D-52,
IV-o-55) supported the requirement that sources demonstrate
equivalent risk in their emissions average and that the
methodology chosen to make this assessment will be determined
by the implementing agency. One commenter (IV-D-46) requested
that specific steps for determining equivalent risk be'*
provided. The commenter (IV-D-46) recommended that the health
risk analysis include carcinogenicity, acute and chronic:;:^
impacts, bioaccumulation, and existing chemical background
10-23
-------
levels. The commenter (IV-D-46) also requested that the
effects of dispersion and exposure spikes be addressed. Two
conunenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-57) supported making risk
demonstrations required for refinery sources as stringent as
those for the HON. One commenter (IV-D-57) stated that the
rule should specify that where the assessment methods
available can not adequately address the potential health
impacts of a proposed averaging scenario, the averaging should
be disallowed. The commenter (IV-D-57) stated that Protocols
must be approved in advance on a case-by-case basis.
In contrast, five commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-19, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25, IV-D-36) opposed the requirement "to demonstrate
equivalent risk when opting for emissions averaging. Two
commenters on the proposed marine loading rule (Docket A-90-
44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) commented that equivalent risk
demonstration has no place in a technology-based regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-22) concluded that the MACT provisions do
not require risk to be equal across different source
categories and also do not require risk to be equal within a
given source category. One commenter (IV-D-36) stated that
health risk assessment should not be required as it is
expensive and time-consuming.
One commenter (IV-D-25) contended that risk assessments
will be a significant -burden-and will discourage emissions
averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25) thought it is unreasonable
and arbitrary to require risk demonstrations without regard to
whether risks are significant or insignificant. The commenter
(IV-D-25) further contended that there is no evidence that
averaging will create unacceptable risks, and that,in some
cases averaging may reduce risks. One commenter (IV-D-10)
also added that after installation of MACT controls or
establishment of work practices, health risks would be
significantly reduced. The commenter (IV-D-10) concluded that
addressing health risks now would halt any emissions averaging
program.
10-24
-------
Response; It is appropriate to introduce the
consideration of risk in emissions averaging. The floor and
the RCT's for the rule were determined without any
consideration of risk. On the other hand, averaging
represents an alternative to the technology-based system of
point-by-point compliance, and as an alternative, must be
demonstrated to result in equivalent control. This
demonstration can consider risk without violating the intent
of section 112 (d) of the 'Act.
It is possible that in some cases having to make a risk
equivalency demonstration may so increase the cost of
averaging that it is no longer more cost-effective to average,
but the EPA does not think this is likely in most cases
because of the limited size of most averages. Even though it
is difficult to predict whether averaging would be more likely
to increase or decrease risk, any possibility of increased
risk would represent HAP control that is not completely
equivalent to point-by-point compliance.
The EPA considers risk assessment methodologies and
toxicological information to be developed sufficiently to make
adequate risk and hazard equivalency determinations. The EPA
will not establish a presumptive minimum process for making
determinations; however, an annotated bibliography of hazard
and risk: assessment references is being published by EPA to
assist State and local agencies and the industry in locating
suitable methods for their situation. The provisions of the
final rule are that risk or hazard equivalency demonstrations
are to be made to the satisfaction of the implementing agency.
As such, the process is left entirely at the discretion of the
implementing agencies. They are free to use any methodologies
and procedures they choose.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22, IV-D-25)
" - , , "'." •-•""'•, ' • — '-':n--. ', US' ?'.?; ,':'•*. '
argued that the proposed risk equivalency demonstration
provisions should be eliminated /;;\Two^caBment^rs^(IV-D-l6,
IV-D-25) claimed that it is inappropriate ^ addt&ss risk
'under section 122 (d) of the Act because standards prescribed
10-25
-------
under section 112(d)(2) are to be based on technology, not
risk, and -risk will be adequately addressed in the future
under section 112(f). One commenter (IV-D-19) cited
section 112(f) of the Act as reserving risk assessments for
eight years after promulgation of a section 112(d) standard.
One commenter (IV-D-25) noted that section 112(d) lists
emission reduction, costs, and other factors to be considered
in setting MACT standards, but does not list risk. The
commenter (IV-D-25) claimed that Congress1 exclusion of risk
from section 112(d) was deliberate, and that Congress intended
EPA to establish technology-based standards first, and then
address remaining residual risks 8 years later. one; commenter
(IV-D-10) added that residual health risk is to be addressed
after the installation of MACT controls or the establishment
of work practice standards. The commenter (IV-D-25) contended
that the refinery NESHAP, with averaging, will achieve
substantial emission and risk reductions, and that the
potential for small remaining health risks should not
compromise the effort to make the NESHAP requirements as
efficient and cost-effective as possible.
Response; The EPA believes it has the authority under
the Act to establish provisions as part of the alternative
averaging system that will assure that there is no increase in
risk or hazard as a result of a source's election of the
averaging compliance option. The fact that section 112(f) of
the Act contemplates that residual risk will be evaluated at a
later time and that other provisions specifically call for the
consideration of risk does not mean that the EPA is precluded
from considering risk or hazard in other contexts.
Consequently, the EPA maintains that it has the authority to
address risk and hazard in the averaging program through a
procedure such as the one adopted in the final rule—the
requirement that sources that elect to"use averaging must
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the implementing agency,
that compliance through averaging would not result in greater
risk or hazard than compliance without averaging.
10-26
-------
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-35, IV-D-48, IV-D-54,
IV^D-55) opposed interpollutant trading. *
Two commenters (IV-D-35, IV-D-55) explained that they are
opposed to emissions averaging because they do not believe
that it is possible to determine equitable trades for
chemicals with varying toxicity. Two commenters (IV-D-35,
IV-D-48) asserted that interpollutant trading is legally and
scientifically unsound because not enough data exist for
ranking and a sophisticated methodology that can be used to
accurately rank chemicals has yet to be developed.
One commenter (IV-D-35) maintained that interpollutant
trading would not ensure greater emission reductions than a
direct implementation of MACT. The commenter (IV-D-35)
further claimed that one-directional "equivalence" is
theoretically more feasible than two-directional. The
commenter (IV-D-35) contended that while it is possible to
determine which chemical's emissions should be a high priority
for reduction, it is not possible to determine how much
emissions of a less hazardous chemical must be reduced to
account for increased or continued emissions of a more
hazardous chemical. The commenter (IV-D-35) further explained
the above arguments by providing summary of their comments on
the ranking scheme proposed by section 112(g) of the Act. The
commenter (IV-D-35) also provided the complete comments as an
attachment.
One commenter (IV-D-54) objected to interpollutant
trading on the grounds that interpollutant trading would
increase workplace hazards and increase adverse health effects
to the community. One commenter (IV-D-55) asserted that the
public health risks of interpollutant trading are uncertain
and should be reviewed by experts in public health risk
assessment before being included in any national policy.
One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that trading can"be
accomplished without interpollutant trading. The commenter
,-. a»-j ->H ,/..;.. ..-^.i^y.j&K
(IV-D-48) contended that the reasoning for allowing
interpollutant trading in the HON, that there are a large
10-27
-------
number of chemicals and chemical processes in SOCMI
facilities, does not hold true for petroleum refineries. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that if the EPA concluded that
trading cannot be accomplished without interpollutant trading,
trading should not be allowed at all.
The commenter (IV-D-48) contended that if interpollutant
trading is allowed by the proposed regulation, the
requirements for evaluating risk should be much stronger than
those required by the HON. The commenter (IV-D-48) suggested
that the EPA require demonstration that the trade reduces
hazard, reduces risk, and provides greater benefit for the
--environment. The commenter (?IV-D-48) claimed that it is
inappropriate for companies to determine which health risk a
community will be exposed to; the commenter (IV-D-48)
requested that the population a certain distance from the
facility have the right to veto the proposed average.
On the- other hand, one commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that
trading HAP's on a pound for pound basis would have little
adverse effect on the surrounding community because in
petroleum refineries HAP's generally exist in low
concentrations. The commenter (IV-D-36) also proposed that a
simplified method of determining toxicity could be used. The
commenter (IV-D-36) offered a weighing factor method developed
by the Bay Area Quality Management District'in California as
an example. The commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that
pound-for-pound or weight-factor tradeoffs be allowed if the
nearest residential area is more than a specified distance
from a facility.
Response: As stated at proposal, the EPA considers it
appropriate to allow interpollutant trading, i.e., to allow
emissions of different HAP's to be included in emissions
averages. To restrict averaging to only points emitting the
same HAP would be excessively restrictive in this industry
where emission streams are mixtures of different HAP's.'-The
requirement in the final rule of a risk or hazard equivalency
demonstration should help to allay concerns for public health
10-28
-------
and welfare. Worker health and safety continues to be guarded
by other Federal statutes, and allowing averaging of different
HAP's will not compromise that protection.
The EPA is also sensitive to the charges that a HAP-
speciated averaging system would consume additional resources
s ' .•-••• • •",;-"-. • • -••;• • .
and increase the administrative burden for both sources and
implementing agencies. However, many States already require
*• t _ : i-"-***•• • -.-.,. -.-• . . ..-.
risk or hazard examinations, and so would not consider the
demonstration of risk or hazard equivalency an additional
burden. Moreover, the limit on the number of points that can
be included in averages should minimize any additional burden
and cost.
The EPA agrees with -the claims that sources have no
incentive to propose emissions averages that could increase
risk or hazard, and stated as much at proposal. However, the
EPA was equally persuaded that a source's decision to average
will be based largely on technical and economic criteria, and
so recognized the necessity of elevating risk or hazard as a
consideration in averaging as well. If sources will control
the most hazardous emissions first for the reasons commenters
stated, then they need not fear that a risk or hazard
examination would severely limit their averages.
The EPA acknowledges that limitations in the scientific
understanding, of HAP toxicity exist. However.,- the EPA.does
not believe the limitations are substantial enough to make
interpollutant trading impossible or to bar implementing
agencies from making adequate risk and hazard evaluations.
The EPA agrees that trades should not result in increased
hazard or risk from any source. In the final rule, the State
or local regulatory agency can prevent any of the situations
described by commenters from occurring by restricting or
rejecting emissions averaging plans that do not demonstrate
hazard or risk equivalency to their satisfaction.
Comment; Four commenters (iV-D-55, IV-D-35,IV-D-16)"
urged that the hazard ranking system developed under
section 112(g) of the Act not be used for emissions averaging
10-29
-------
in this rule. One commenter (IV-D-55) asserted that the
section 112(g) de minimis and hazard ranking scheme were
developed to comply with -specific conditions and are not
applicable to other situations because of the assumptions
sused. The commenter (IV-D-55) recommended that the EPA
prepare a memorandum on how the de minimis and hazard ranking
were derived and warn that they not be adapted to other
regulations. The commenter (IV-D-57) added that until the
hazard ranking scheme in section 112(g) has undergone full
peer review and has been tested in practice on similar
sources, it should not be used to determine the acceptability
of a trade. One commenter (IV-D-25) contended that
toxicity-based credit and debit determination would add
complexity and difficulty. The commenter (IV-D-25) also noted
that several compounds, (including 2,2,4-trimethylpentane
[iso-octane], which is a common component of refinery
emissions) are unranked under the proposed section 112(g)
rules.
In contrast, two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48)
recommended that the restrictions on interpollutant trading be
at least as stringent as those in section 112(g). One
commenter (IV-D-46) requested that an offsetting definition of
"less hazardous pollutant" be used instead of "less hazardous
quantity."
Response; The EPA has published an annotated
bibliography of references that represents a collection of
methods for carrying out comparative risk and hazard
determinations. States can select a method from this
bibliography as guidance or they may use their own established
procedures, or review procedures used by plants proposing
averages on a case-by-case basis. A State agency has full
discretion if it so chooses to employ a method similar to or
. ..-...".. '-"J™1" "' , ' l*_""1. "*,{"-'''" - . " ;~-"- .
based on the system incorporated into the proposed rule
implementing section 112(g) of the Act. On the other hand, if
a State has an established risk estimation protocol for their
10-30
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter (IV-D-2'0)
that the recordkeeping and reporting associated costs do
nothing to improve the environment. Although direct HAP
emissions reduction does not occur as a result of
recjordkeeping and reporting, it is the only way that the EPA
can ensure that control requirements, and thus HAP emissions
reductions, are met.
The EPA included monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
costs along with the cost of control in the cost impact
analysis done to support the MACT determination. Therefore, a
separate cost analysis for monitoring, recordkeeping and
-. reporting is not necessary. The EPA has also reduced the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden 20 percent
since proposal.
The EPA agrees with the commenter (IV-D-19) that
refineries with a greater throughput and complexity may incur
a greater burden than a smaller refinery. However, those
refineries that are more complex with greater throughputs have
more emission points for which control must be assured.
Although a larger, more complex refinery may incur a larger
burden than average, the revenue from greater production would
offset any inequities.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) requested that
performance tests conducted prior to the effective date of
this rule be allowed in demonstrating compliance with this
rule (e.g., if flares have previously demonstrated compliance
with the NSPS requirements contained in § 60.18, this should
suffice since these requirements are identical to § 63.11).
Response; Previous test results may be used as long as
the test methods required by the petroleum refineries NESHAP
were used and the process emission characteristics during the
test are still representative of current operations.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-39) supported an
alternative method of providing operational flexibility that
the EPA would establish through a case-by-case waiver system.
The commenter's suggested waiver system would allow sources
9-31
-------
that, meet specific threshold criteria to determine an
alternative compliance option where the control level for the
entire source is at least as stringent as the MACT level of
control. The commenter (IV-D-39) offered to participate in a.
"pilot project if the EPA decided to pursue one.
Response; In keeping with the EPA's stated goal in
rulemakings, the EPA is a'llowing an owner or operator of a
petroleum refinery to emissions average among different
emission points defined under the "affected source" to comply
with the petroleum refinery NESHAP. Similar to the
commenter's suggestion, this offers refineries more
opportunities to find cost-effeotive emission reductions from
overall facility operations. The averaging provisions are
structured such that "debits" generated by not controlling an
emission point that otherwise would require control must be
balanced by achieving extra control at other refinery emission
points covered by the NESHAP.
9-32
-------
10.0 EMISSIONS AVERAGING PROVISIONS
10.1 SHOULD EMISSIONS AVERAGING BE ALLOWED
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-19,
IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-30, IV-D-36, IV-D-38,
IV-D-42, IV-D-44, IV-D-50, IV-D-51, and IV-F-1) expressed
support for the concept of emissions averaging to allow more
cost-effective HAP emission reduction. One commenter
(IV-D-19) found the philosophy of emissions.,averaging to be
consistent with the published statements of Administrator
Browner, the Common Sense Initiative and Executive Order
12866. The commenter (IV-D-19) maintained that requiring
facilities to install costly controls when less expensive
controls will achieve the same or greater results does not
make sense. The commenter (IV-D-19) cited the Amoco Yorktown
study as a good example of what emissions averaging attempts
to accomplish. One commenter (IV-D-25) recommended several
changes to the proposed averaging provisions to improve
overall cost-effectiveness, as summarized niftder-^sections 10.2
through 10.10 of this chapter. Three commenters (IV-D-12,
IV-D-22, IV-D-42) stated that emissions averaging provides
flexibility to facilities for developing site-specific and/or
the most cost-effective controls for HAP's. Two commenters
(IV-D-20, IV-D-50 and IV-F-1) supported the concept of
emissions averaging as a cost- effective way to achieve
environmental benefits.
Three commenters (IV-D-15, XV-D-35^ iy-D-51) were opposed
to emissions averaging in the proposed rule. One commenter
(IV-D-35) opposed emissions averaging because «xey_do not
believe that it is possible to prove emissions "e;
-------
averaging scheme because the commenter claimed it is a
loophole for refineries to perform peak pollution dumping.
The commenter (IV-D-54) contended that averaging lets industry
use cost instead of toxicity as the basis of making emissions
"reductions. One commenter (IV-D-52) had serious reservations
about emissions averaging because of .the difficulties inherent
in determining compliance and risk.
Three commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-55, IV-D-57) opposed the
use of emissions averaging for existing and new sources. One
commenter (IV-D-55) expressed concern that emissions averaging
would result in less environmental protection and increased
administrative and enforcement burdens. Two commenters
(IV-D-55, IV-D-16) suggested that emissions averaging be
eliminated from the proposed regulation. One commenter
(IV-D-55) provided their comments opposing the proposed
emissions averaging provision in the HON for further
explanation of their opposition to the emissions averaging
provision in the proposed regulation. One commenter (IV-D-57)
objected to emissions averaging because it would promote
regulatory and enforcement complexity by allowing averaging
between emission points that operate under different
conditions, processing different materials, and at remote
locations.
©ne commenter (IV-D-46) stated that emissions .averaging
is costly and resource intensive and the level of effort could
be applied to other areas of compliance with greater results.
The commenter (IV-D-46) asserted that paperwork and workload
could be reduced by eliminating emissions averaging.
Response; Emissions averaging has been maintained in the
final rule as an option for sources to use to comply with
subpart CC. This decision is in keeping with the EPA1s
general policy of encouraging the use of flexible' compliance
approaches where they can be properly monitored and enforced.
Under particular circumstances, emissions averaging can
provide sources the flexibility to comply in the least costly
manner while still maintaining a regulation that is workable
10-2
-------
and enforceable. The EPA's goal in crafting the emissions
averaging provisions in the final rule has been to make
emissions averaging available to sources faced with some
emission points that are particularly difficult or costly to
control. At the same time, the EPA has structured the
emissions averaging provisions to ease the enforcement burden
on implementing agencies.
The rationale for the specific provisions of the
emissions averaging policy is detailed throughout this
chapter.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-53) was opposed to
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-53) stated that if
the BWON level of control without the 10 Mg benzene cutoff is
selected as Wastewater MACT and Option 1 is chosen as MACT for
storage vessels, any possibility of emissions averaging will
be eliminated and therefore the provision is unnecessary.
Response: Neither of the options described by the
commenter were chosen as MACT for wastewater or storage
vessels in this rule. Hence, there are opportunities for a
source to use emissions averaging. Moreover, the final rule
has expanded opportunities for using emissions averaging
because emission points at marine terminals can now be
considered as part of the source subject to the rule.
. Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25 -and, IV-E-1,
IV-D-42, ID-F-49) opposed allowing States the discretion to
include or exclude emissions averaging. One commenter
(IV-D-22) opposed giving States the option to not include
emissions averaging in the implementation of refinery MACT
because it will allow States to circumvent statutory
requirements to demonstrate increased stringency for not using
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-22) added that it
was possible that the over-control of credit sources will lead
to even greater HAP emission reduction than if all sources
were controlled without avereiging. The .commenter (IV-D-22)
contended that the rule is a national regulation instead of a
site-specific rule; therefore, all facilities should be
10-3
-------
governed by the same standard and compliance approaches.
Otherwise, the commenter (IV-D-22) asserted some facilities
would suffer economic disadvantages. The commenter (IV-D-22)
concluded that if States exclude averaging, they should be
.required to develop a section 112(1) delegation process.
Another commenter (IV-D-25) stated that the provision to allow
States to eliminate emissions averaging as a compliance option
is inconsistent with E.G. 12866. The commenter (IV-D-25)
contended that without averaging the rule "specifies the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt," ignores the directive that regulations be designed "in
the most cost-effective manner-'"to .achieve regulatory '?
compliance," and stifles innovation. The commenter (IV-D-25)
said that the proposed section 112(1) rule provides ample
flexibility for State agencies, and that the special
provisions to allow adoption of the rule with or without
averaging will actually make the adoption process more complex
for many States. Two commenters on the marine loading rule
(Docket A-90-44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) argued that State and local
discretion to preclude averaging might effectively eliminate
the utility of emissions averaging.
On the other hand, one commenter (IV-D-55) urged that the
restriction allowing states to implement the MACT standards
without emissions, averaging be .maintained. The commenter
(IV-D-55) supported the portions of the preamble that allow
State and local agencies "to obtain delegation of the
standards without the averaging provisions without having to
undergo section 112(1) delegation and approval process." The
commenter (IV-D-55) requested that these provisions be
included and clearly stated in the final rule and in the
preamble. Another commenter (IV-D-13) opposed emissions
averaging unless, in addition to allowing States the
flexibility to exclude averaging, the regulation requires that
sources must demonstrate that emissions averaging is more
stringent than MACT and allows States and local agencies to
10-4
-------
require demonstration of no net increase in risk when
emissions averaging is used.
Response; The EPA maintains that States should have
discretion on whether to allow emissions averaging for a
number of reasons. First, the EPA acknowledges that averaging
cein be more complex to administer than the rule allowing only
point-by-point compliance, so allowing averaging could
increase the administrative burden, which is an especially
important concern for implementing agencies with limited
personnel and resources. However, the determination of what
constitutes too much administrative burden will differ from
State to State. -^Some States may consider emissions averaging
an acceptable strategy for compliance and will retain the
program.
Second, the EPA recognized that averaging in the rule
could be inconsistent with some States' ongoing air pollution
control programs. The EPA supports the use of emissions
averaging where it may be appropriate, and maintains again
that the program has been designed to be enforceable and
protective of health and welfare. However, the EPA also
acknowledges that its use must be balanced by the individual
needs of State and local agencies that bear the responsibility
for administering and enforcing the rule. Furthermore, with
the inclusion of these provisions, the EPA does not consider
the stringency of the rule with or without averaging to be an
issue.
This rule is a national rule that must fit into a
situation that is already not an even "playing field"; States
have differing rules and sites are all unique in terms of
their mix of products,"rules that govern them, site layout,
etc. Allowing this discretion will not add to the uneven
"playing field" because without this provision, most States
already have the ability to exclude ^missions averaging
through the section 112(1) rule adjustmentprocessencoded in
40 CFR 63.92, 63.93, and 63-94. Rather, the EPA has decided
to make excluding averaging more simpler lay* exempting the
10-5
-------
decision from the section 112(1) rule adjustment process.
Including this provision will reduce paperwork burdens on
States, expedite delegation of the rule to States, and remove
a potential source of uncertainty for sources subject to the
petroleum refineries NESHAP.
The EPA does not agree that providing for State
discretion in the rule itself is either unnecessary or
burdensome for States. While the section 112(1) rule
adjustment process would also permit States to choose to
implement the rule without averaging, providing for that
choice in the rule itself streamlines the process by
eliminating EPA review of the choice. In addition, since the
section 112(1) rule permits States to make the choice,
providing for the exercise of such discretion in the rule
itself cannot be viewed as placing any new burdens on States.
The provision of an option will not impose a burden or impose
new requirements; it increases choice and flexibility.
Because emissions averaging is an alternative compliance
method to the primary control strategy, States should have the
discretion to exclude it as opposed to other provisions that
are essential to the rule and for which no alternative
compliance mechanism has been provided.
Finally, the EPA predicts that instead of creating
promulgation difficulties-1 and uncertainties, providing the
clarifications in this provision at this time will benefit
sources as well as States. Without this provision, sources
might be uncertain during the section 112(1) rule adjustment
process about whether averaging ultimately would be allowed or
not in their State, yet would be given no added time for
compliance. The EPA predicts that because of their complex
nature, many sources will need the full time period allowed
for compliance. %-'-••-;'•-•.t .....-.•-• ;.,_:.' , :';i»-;vi=?v4.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-34) urged" the EPA^ to adopt
emissions averaging with provisions similar to those developed
in the HON. Another commenter (IV-D-57) added that all
10-6
-------
restrictions on averaging included in the HON should be
incorporated into this standard.
In contrast, three commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21, IV-D-44)
maintained that attaching conditions to emissions averaging,
as was done for the HON, would make emissions averaging
>
virtually useless for cost-effective HAP emission reduction.
Response: The emissions averaging program in this rule
includes essentially the same provisions as those featured in
the emissions averaging program in the HON. Similarities
between the two rules include the following: inclusion of all
points except equipment leaks and biotreatment units;
interpollutant trading; no averaging at new sources or between
sources; a limit on the number of points that can be included
in averages; no banking of credits; States discretion to allow
averaging; and risk or hazard consideration in averages. More
similarities between the two rules exist other than those
listed here. The similarities are intentional because the
program designed for the HON addressed most of the same
concerns voiced during this rule proposal. The averaging
programs designed for the HON and for this rule strike the
appropriate balance between allowing sources flexibility to
comply and adequately protecting the environment.
10.2 SCOPE OF EMISSIONS AVERAGING
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-25, IV-D-30)
supported including new sources in emissions averaging. One
commenter (IV-D-25) argued that because new source MACT is
based on the single best-controlled source and is very
stringent, it is inevitable that cost-ineffective controls
will be required for some emission points. The commenter
(IV-D-25) therefore concluded that there is a great need for
new and reconstructed sources to be included in the emissions
averages in order to allow more cost-effective means of
achieving equivalent emission reductions. The commenter
(IV-D-25) also disputed the relevance of the proposal
statement that averaging would not be useful because new
• .-" " "C •' .-^'T- &*-•?*
sources would be required to meet the NSPS," and commented that
10-7
-------
in cases where the NSPS is less stringent than MACT, averaging
would be possible.
On the other hand, three commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-52,
IV-D-55) supported the exclusion of new sources from emissions
averaging. One commenter (IV-D-55) requested that this
provision be included and clearly stated in the final rule and
in the 'preamble.
Response; The EPA agrees with some of the commenters
that it is appropriate that emissions averaging be restricted
to existing sources only. Averaging is a mechanism designed
to provide each source the flexibility to comply with the MACT
standard in a way that is most practical and cost-effective
for the individual source. By employing averaging, a source
is able, for example, to avoid adding controls to an outlying
emission point that would be very expensive to control, or to
avoid replacing expensive control technology that does not
achieve enough emission reduction to meet the standard. These
concerns are applicable to existing sources. A new source can
be designed to avoid expensive outlying emission points, and
retrofitting is obviously not an issue. In addition, when a
new source is constructed, it can be designed to accommodate
the required MACT controls in the most practical and cost-
effective manner, thus reducing the need for the flexibility
of averaging. .
The EPA does not agree with the commenters who argue that
prohibiting averaging at new sources would result in a more
stringent standard. This rule has been drafted to provide
that averaging is no less stringent than the standard without
averaging. Thus, allowing new sources to comply only via use
of the reference control technologies and not via averaging
does not require those sources to meet a more stringent
standard. Instead, it requires them to meet a more specific,
and thus more easily implemented standard. However, even if
prohibiting averaging at new sources would result in new
• ••-•--'f :- - • — -n » • <• -
sources being held to a more stringent standard, such a result
would not be unlawful as the statute clearly provides that new
io-8
-------
source standards may be more stringent than those for existing
sources. .
Comment; Eight commenters (IV-D-lO, IV-D-19, IV-D-20,
IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-42, IV-D-48, IV-D-51) contended that a
facility composed of several source categories should be
allowed to average emissions across the entire facility.
Seven commenters on the proposed marine loading rule
(Docket A-90-44: IV-D-23, IV-D-91, IV-DT92, IV-D-93, IV-D-97,
IV_D_99/ iv-D-101) also supported averaging across source
categories. Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22, IV-D-42)
contended that fugitive emissions, marine vessel loading and
gasoline distribution operations should also be included in
emissions averaging. One commenter (IV-D-19) stated that
averaging should be allowed anywhere and everywhere within the
contiguous boundaries of a major source. Two commenters
(IV-D-19, IV-D-21) cited facilities where marine operations,
refining operations, gasoline distribution operations and/or
pipeline breakout stations are co-located as being a critical
example because promulgation of MACT standards for these fall
within a seven-month window. The commenter (IV-D-19)
suggested that the position to prohibit inter-source category
averaging be reconsidered.
One commenter (IV-D-19) claimed that inter-source
category averaging is not precluded by-law, citing
section 112(a)(1) in which Congress defined a "major source"
as "a contiguous area under common control." Two commenters
(IV-D-19 and IV-F-1) submitted that inter-source averaging is
supported philosophically by the Common Sense Initiative and
Executive Order 12866. ,; s .
One commenter (IV-D-25 and IV-F-1) recommended that
emissions averaging should be broadened to include all
emission points subject to IMACTjcpntrols within a contiguous
major source facility regardless of; ^whether the emission
points are within the same source category. Specifically, the
commenter (IV-D-25 and IV-F-1) would like to include process
units subject to the refineries NESHAP, marine vessel loading
10-9
-------
operations, gasoline distribution systems, and process units
subject to the HON in the same emissions averaging when these
units are co-located at refineries. The commenter (IV-D-25
and IV-F-1) cited more cost-effective emission reductions as
an advantage of a broader averaging program and stated that
without emissions averaging the cost of the marine loading
regulation is over $100,000/Mg of HAP reduction. The
commenter (IV-D-25) attached.a legal analysis to support their
position that the EPA has ample legal authority to allow MACT
compliance by emissions averaging across source categories.
Another commenter (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-91) argued that
emissions averaging will increase flexibility, encourage
innovative control strategies, and result in more cost
effective control and greater HAP emission reduction.
Two commenters (IV-D-51, IV-D-57) recommended that the
earliest compliance date be used for different source
categories with different compliance dates that are included
in an emissions averaging scheme. One commenter (IV-D-25)
suggested that differences in compliance deadlines among
difficult NESHAP should not prevent averaging across source
categories. The commenter (IV-D-25) observed that the
standards for petroleum refineries, marine vessel loading, and
gasoline marketing will be promulgated within a short time
period.- The-commenter -(IVrD-25) suggested that .EPA could
address the issue of different compliance dates by requiring
that any emission debits be offset by credits generated at the
same time as the earlier compliance date.
One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the EPA includes
facilities that are co-located in applicability
determinations; therefore, the same criterion should be used
in emissions averaging provisions. The commenter (ly-D-22)
supported making the refinery MACT rule compatible with the
112 (d) intent to base MACT rules on average emission ";*
limitation instead of best controls for each category of
emissions for the best refineries. One comraenter (IV-D-49)
recommended including as an option emissions averaging across
10-10
-------
all organic source categories co-located at the petroleum
refinery site. f
On the other hand, two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57)
contended that it was inappropriate to allow emissions
averaging between source categories. Three commenters on the
proposed marine loading rule (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-94,
IV-D-98, IV-D-100) opposed averaging emissions between
separate source categories. Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57)
objected to emissions averaging across facilities and source
categories for MACT standards unless the rule allowed
flexibility for State and local agencies to exclude emission
averaging. One commenter (IV-D-57) contended that the EPA
indicated that such an option would be available, but it was
not in the proposed rules. Another commenter (IV-D-12)
expressed concern that emissions averaging in the proposed
rule would allow too many different kinds of emission points
to be averaged. The commenter (IV-D-12) opposed emissions
averaging across divergent processes and operations because it
would augment the already substantial competitive advantages
enjoyed by large refineries without creating any air quality
benefits. The commenter (IV-D-12) contended that unlike small
refineries, large refineries are vertically integrated with a
diverse array of operations allowing them to cut back high
cost reductions in refinery process and offset them with" low
cost reductions in other areas. Therefore, the commenter
(IV-D-12) concluded that emissions averaging should not
include marine loading operations, distribution, or SOCMI
areas.
Response: After studying the arguments presented by the
commenters both for and against a broader averaging approach,
the EPA has decided to retain the narrower approach contained
."'-.'J.~!;" .'.'.,. :.i- :••••- - '• ,- WA
in the proposed rule. .
The EPA agrees with the commenters who argued that the
statute provides broad discretion to define "source," and does
not prohibit averaging in setting standards under
section 112(d) Of the Act. However, the EPA has determined
10-11
-------
that section 112 does provide some limits on the scope of
averaging, and that the broader averaging approach exceeds
those limits.
The statute requires the EPA to consider emissions from
s the entire facility in order to determine whether it is a
major source subject to a given MACT standard. However, the
EPA is also required to develop a list of source categories,
which are to be composed of "sources" that are then subject to
regulation under MACT standards. Both the language of
section 112(d) and the legislative history indicate that
sources in the category can be co-located with a major source,
but are just as likely to be merely a portion of a facility.
Thus, a large facility emitting more than 25 tons of multiple
HAP's will, in most cases, be composed of multiple sources in
different source categories subject to standards on different
dates. It does not follow that, because applicability under
section 112 (i.e., whether a facility emits sufficient HAP's
to be considered a major source) is determined on a facility-
wide basis, compliance with specific standards written for
sources that comprise only a part of a facility should be
permitted on a facility-wide basis. The most that can be
inferred is that the entire facility is the largest entity
that can be defined as a source within any category., but that
the source in a« category can, and- often will-bep smaller than
the entire facility.
In accordance with section 112(i) of the Act, all sources
in the category for which a standard is in effect must be in
compliance by a specified date. Commenters1 arguments that
section 112(i) allows compliance with a standard that is set
for a source category to be achieved by a "source" that is
more extensive^han the source in the category (i.e., the
\
entire major source that the source in the category is a
fraction of), is inconsistent with the specific language of
section 112(i). Section 112(i) provides different compliance
requirements for new and existing sources. New sources must
comply with an applicable standard earlier than existing
10-12
-------
sources, which can be given up to three years. to comply.
Moreover, section 112 (i) (3) provides for compliance dates to
be established for "each category or subcategory of existing
sources." This provision clearly applies to compliance by a,
sources in a category rather than compliance with a standard
by any points within an entire major source. Therefore,
section 112 (i) clearly provides for compliance by individual
sources within the relevant category rather than overall
compliance by a major source with a standard applicable to
only part of the major source.
Thus, the EPA is adopting the more limited approach to
averaging that was contained in the proposed rule. All
sources within a given source category must comply
individually with the standard either by application of the
reference control technology or by compliance with an approved
emissions average. Transferring emission reduction
obligations to points outside of the source within the
category would be inconsistent with the requirement of
section 112 (d) of the Act that standards be set for sources in
a listed category, and the requirements of section 112 (i) that
compliance with such standard be achieved by sources in the
category .
The petroleum refineries source category has been
redefined since proposal to include -marine loading and
gasoline distribution operations located at refineries for
reasons described in the response to the next comment. Thus
these operations can be included in emissions averages.
Sources in other source categories, such as SOCMI process
units located at refineries, cannot be included in emissions
averages. The SOCMI is a distinct source category for which a
NESHAP (the HON) was promulgated ^ in April 1994, over a year
ago. The commenters have provided no^bom^ieiling information
or rationale for changing the ^source Category Definition that;
was already established "under"5 the HON^The HON "compliance
date is already established in the April 1994 standards , and
cannot legally be extended beyoiM"naie"^Year period allowed by
10-13
-------
the Act. Detailed implementation plans for HON sources using
emission averaging must be=-submitted by October 1995. Thus,
significant planning and investment has already been made
toward compliance with the HON. Changing the source category
and source definitions and allowing averaging across HON and
refinery process units would be disruptive and of little
practical value. Both the HON and refineries NESHAP provide
significant flexibility, without the added complexity of
averaging across SOCMI and refinery process units.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-21; IV-D-25 and
IV-F-1, IV-D-51) supported averaging of refinery emissions
with -emissions from marine terminals. In response to the
EPA's request for comments, one commenter (IV-D-25) stated
that including marine loading in emissions averaging will not.
appreciably increase the complexity of rule enforcement. The
commenter (IV-D-25) observed that assessment of compliance for
marine loading is no more difficult than for storage vessels,
process vents, or wastewater operations and should not be a
reason to exclude marine loading from emissions averaging.
The commenter (IV-D-25) added that emission factors for marine
loading and other transfer operations are well characterized
and accepted, so credit and debit calculations will be
practical.
- In response to EPA concerns about the equity of. allowing.
emissions averaging for marine loading at refineries, while
other marine loading operations would not have a similar means
of reducing compliance costs, the commenter (IV-D-25)
suggested two solutions. First, commenter (IV-D-25) suggested
expanding averaging outside the source category such that
marine loading operations located at gasoline marketing
terminals or other sources could also use emissions averaging.
Second, commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that the proposed marine
loading rule should be revised to exclude small operations
....rfi* .;. -•' :>.'-.i:ii,,,: i,;;,V
emitting low levels of HAP's., . Another commenter (IV-D-51)
added that marine terminals connected to the refinery
operations by pipeline, 1'ocated near the refinery and
10-14
-------
associated with its operations, or if a marine terminal is
integrally linked with the refinery, should be considered "co-
located." The commenter (IV-D-51) stated that where the
operations of a refinery are dependant on the marine terminal
for, its supply, and the refinery is the main supplier of
commodities going to the marine terminal they should be
considered one facility. The commenter (IV-D-51) recommended
allowing averaging of refining emission sources with those at
marine terminal loading operations because it would reduce
costs and provide flexibility in achieving the required
reductions.
In contrast, four commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48, IV-D-52-r 1
IV-D-57) opposed the inclusion of marine loading emissions in
the emissions averaging scheme. One commenter on the marine
loading rule (Docket'A-90-44: IV-D-98) also opposed including
marine loading in emissions averaging. Two commenters
(IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44: IV-D-98) argued that marine loading
and petroleum refineries are two separate source categories
and that the Act does not permit averaging across source
categories. (See section 3.1 for additional comments on
source category selection.)
Three commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-98) claimed that averaging with marine loading operations
will result in uncontrolled peak emissions. The commenters
(IV-D-46, IV-D-48) pointed out that marine loading generates
significant emissions during loading and little between
loading. The commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48) claimed that
including marine loading operations in emissions averaging
would allow high peak concentrations and augment a facilities
emissions' contribution to peak ozone concentrations,
violating the health standard and limiting the health effects
of the proposed regulation:! brie commenter (IV-D-46) added
that making up for marine loading emission|^y^conjrollipg
other refinery units would be complicated because of the
variability of materials due to changes in market demand. The
commenter (IV-D-46) contended that balancing the emissions
10-15
-------
would be difficult and cumbersome and the owner/operator could
easily be in noncompliance.
Two commenters (IV-D-48, Docket A-90-44: lV-D-98) claimed
that the EPA has not proposed monitoring sufficient to
>reliably determine the amount of emissions allowed or emission
reductions generated for marine loading operations. One
commenter (IV-D-48) also provided that the Amoco Yorktown
study identified marine loading as a cost-effective emission
reduction opportunity. Two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48)
stated that this opportunity should be addressed by the marine
loading rule. One commenter (IV-D-48) disagreed with the
study's conclusion that-rsupported a broader averaging. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that there were many technical
deficiencies in the study. The commenter**(IV-D-48) suggested
that emissions reductions could be achieved by additional
controls on wastewater, which the commenter did not agree are
cost ineffective, as opposed to including marine loading
operations.'
One commenter (IV-D-46) recommended variables to be taken
into consideration in calculating emissions from marine vessel
loading operations, if they are to be included in emissions
averaging. The commenter (IV-D-46) also suggested potential
methods to be used and potential difficulties that may be
.encountered. "• - '"-"--^ -i^- - .'..•.-: .-,•< •A.---j:-,C.i;
One commenter (IV-D-57) providedthe following reasons
for objecting to averaging between refineriefi-and inarihe ":
vessels: (1) the categories are separate because marine
terminals are major sources in their own right:and their
operation is not continuous; (2) SOCMI products are covered
under the Marine Vessel'"category as well as"refinery products;
(3) marine terminals are often separated from the refinery
plant site by a substantial distance; which has significant
impacts on the exposed population/ because there may be two or
more entirely separate exposed"populations;"and* f!) the "**"'
disparate nature of the operations could reasonably result in
10-16
-------
exposure spikes, when batch processes are left .uncontrolled in
exchange for control of continuous emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-52) disagreed with the proposal to
'-•-• '-'•• ' •• ;-' •••'-• -Xjf • ">'? X^'-r fŁŁf*t•**'f"*C-CJ .- -'••'«-' •• ' '•••f>",
include marine vessel loading operations in'^missions
averaging because emissions from marine vessels are so high
• • : ,-t •-•'•.-.• "'• '•k4S%>V ••
that an incidental amount of ovefcohtrbl might allow a
refinery to avoid control of most other HAP ibuirbes, thereby
circumventing the intent of Title III to apply MACT to all HAP
sources. Additional comments for and against" including marine
loading in emissions averages that were submitted to the
marine loading regulation docket (A-90-44) are summarized in
the promulgation. BID for that regulation.
Response; In the final rule, emission points in marine
vessel loading and unloading facilities and bulk gasoline
terminals co-located with a refinery have been included in the
petroleum refinery source category and in the definition of
"source" for the petroleum refineries NESHAP. Under the final
rule, emission points from marine vessel loading and bulk
gasoline terminal transfer racks may be included in an
emissions average with other refinery process unit emission
points. Because marine loading operations and bulk gasoline
transfer operations located at refineries are supplying raw
materials to petroleum refinery process units or transferring
products of the refinery process units, they are logically
s* ••- -. ,--.
considered part of the same source as the petroleum refinery
- - - f --.-.'-,"
process units. (In a similar way, ioadxh«g*6fSOCMI chemical
• '
products into tank trucks and railcafs"was-considered part of
the chemical manufacturing process unit for ^sources subject: to
the HON) . Marine ioadirig and bulk gasoline terminal r
operations at refineries must be operat:epiy feed ^tarid ^ :;-"
^receive products from these units. ^l^caus^^ralie loadir^r and
{; bulk gasoline terminals have.^lSBelft^
. source subject to the petroleum refineries ruiep4^ej_
prohibition against intersource'averaging is not'violated.
. -3d-
10-17
-------
In keeping with the EPA's stated goal of increasing
flexibility in rulemakings, this decision has-been made to
provide more opportunities to average and in so doing "optimize
the opportunities for finding cost-effective emission ;.'ipr*|ge^o^^/"
refineries and marine 'vessels,/shoiild'remain^separate//;|xcept
for the emission averaging'ndeadiii^sT^'Th
suggested that averaging plans -;and^Qo^plianipe/d'eadiines should
be based on promulgation of the regulation *that is promulgated
last.
10-18
-------
Response; Because marine loading and bulk gasoline
terminals located at refineries are now included in the
petroleum refineries source category and are subject to
subpart CC, the compliance date for these operations is the
same as for petroleum refining process units. The EPA has
amended the marine vessel loading and unloading, operations
NESHAP MACT standards schedule to the same schedule as the
petroleum refineries NESHAP. Marine vessel loading operation
sources subject to reasonably available control technology
(RACT) standards, under section 63.560(c), must be in
compliance with the MACT provisions (RACT is equal to MACT) on
and after 2 years after the .promulgation date. :
comment: One commenter (IV-D-19) objected to the
exclusion of fugitive emissions from averaging. One commenter
(IV-D-25) requested that .the EPA reconsider including
equipment leaks in the emissions averaging program. The
commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that emission data they have
previously submitted to the EPA could be used to quantify
emissions for purposes of averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25)
gave specific examples of equipment leak control programs that
could generate credits, such as using lower leak definition
rates than required by the rule or performing LDAR on streams
that would otherwise be excluded.
Response; The EPA acknowledges that methods are
available for quantifying emissions from equipment leaks;
however, this is not at issue in emissions averaging.
Equipment leaks cannot be included in emissions averages for
two reasons. First, a reference control efficiency cannot be
established for the standard for equipment leaks because the
percent reduction achieved by complying with the equipment
leaks provisions of subpart CC will vary depending on the
characteristics of the process and the equipment being
controlled. Second, no method currently exists for
determining allowable emissions for leaks, i.e., residual
emissions from equipment controlled according to subpart CC.
Without a reference control efficiency or the ability to
10-19
-------
assign allowable emissions, debits and .credits cannot be
established for any kind of point. Third, there is no
practical way for enforcement to verify compliance.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-20) requested that the
wording in § 63.650(d) (4)- be revised to say "Wastewater,
whether or not treated in a biological treatment unit, cannot
be used to generate credits or debits." Another commenter
(IV-D-46) who requested that wastewater streams be excluded
from emissions averaging claimed that wastewater emissions are
difficult to quantify due to changing conditions and lack of
calculation techniques. The commenter (IV-D-46) contended
that .the,transitory nature of wastewater is contradictory to
the basis of emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-46)
requested that if wastewater emissions are not excluded, they
be subject to more rigorous monitoring and testing and a more
conservative discount factor, such as three to one, be used.
Response; The EPA considers the estimation of wastewater
emissions on an annual basis to be as reliable as for the
other kinds of points and hence, suitable for inclusion in
emissions averaging.
The EPA has recognized that the testing procedures for
measuring emissions from areas such as surface impoundments
influence the emission mechanisms and would not yield accurate
estimates of actual emissions. Therefore, credits for
wastewater streams, as well as applicability of this rule to
wastewater streams and Group status of streams, are determined
at the stream point of generation. Also, if a wastewater
stream is being controlled as a credit generator, the stream
must comply with the standards for transport and .handling
equipment, which require suppression to eliminate the
influence of factors such as wind speed, and surface
configurations. This ensures that the only emissions that
need to be considered are those from the control device.
As in the case of other emission points, characteristics
such as HAP concentration, temperature, and flow rate remain
relatively constant in wastewater streams so that
10-20
-------
representative values can be used. The rule provides that if
operating conditions change such that previously measured
values are no longer representative, the values must be
redetermined.
The rule specifies that wastewater streams treated in
biological treatment units are not eligible for emissions
averaging. All other types of control are acceptable as long
as their reduction efficiency can be determined. The EPA is
confident that by making biological treatment of wastewater
ineligible for averaging, the potential for underestimation of
wastewater emissions will be minimized.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-48) recommended that
emissions averaging be limited to allow only emission points
that are unfeasible or impractical to control in some
extraordinary way to be included.
Response; Emissions averaging is intended to be used for
just such emission points referred to by the commenter.
However, the source does not have to make any type of
demonstration of feasibility or practicality of controlling an
emission point to include it in an average. As long as
emissions credits and debits can be calculated accurately
through use of the equations in the rule, the kinds of
emission points specified in the rule will be eligible for
inclusion in averages.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-46) supported use of the
HON threshold criteria (hazard or risk equivalency, discount
factor) in the petroleum refinery NESHAP. The commenter
(IV-D-46) did not support including cost as a threshold
criterion for an interpollutant averaging scheme. The
commenter (IV-D-46) contended that extreme cost would be
different for different size refineries and difficult to
define. The commenter (IV-D-46) agreed with using
environment-based criteria, but asserted that using cost-based
criteria is beyond the authority of the EPA.
Response: In the final rule the EPA has maintained the
threshold criteria used at proposal and in the HON (hazard or
10-21
-------
risk equivalency and a discount factor). No additional
threshold criteria was added, including ones based- on cost.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-57, Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-100) asserted that emissions averaging should not be
allowed if a net VOC increase would occur. The commenter
(IV-D-57) stated that HAP decreases should not occur at the
expense of potential ozone increases.
Response; If another State or Federal regulation applies
to an emission point subject to this rule, the more stringent
of the requirements takes precedence. As such, if another
rule requires control more stringent than the reference
control technology -(RCT) established by this rule, the point
cannot be left uncontrolled or undercontrolled as a debit
generator in an emissions average. However, if controls are
installed after 1990 .and achieve more stringent control than
is required by the other State or Federal rule, the emission
point is eligible as a credit generator in an emissions
average, but only for the control above what is required by
the other rule.
Even if the RCT established in this rule is the more
stringent of two requirements, the source must maintain the
control established by the other requirement. If the point
were controlled with the RCT from this rule, both requirements
would be met. However, if the source plans to use the point
as a debit generator, the point must still meet the other
requirement. The emission point can be used as an
undercontrolled (according to this rule) debit generator for
which the difference in control between this rule and the
other requirement is the basis for the debits.
Comment; one commenter (IV-D-57) supported a case-by-
case review of proposals to average, rather than making a
blanket allowance for the category. The commenter (IV-D-57)
supported requiring a source to demonstrate the burden faced
by the source in complying without averaging as well as
enhanced environmental benefits from averaging.
10-22
-------
One commenter (IV-D-46) stated opposition to an option
for compliance allowing case-by case waivers for facilities
meeting certain threshold criteria. The commenter (IV-D-46)
claimed that the system would be too burdensome with a third
option. Additionally, the commenter (IV-D-46) stated that
case-by-case waivers should be administered at the State, not
Federal, level. The commenter (IV-D-46) asserted that if
waivers are allowed, the associated emission points should be
considered in an averaging program.
Response; Emissions averaging is allowed for all sources
except those in States that exercise the discretion to exclude
it fronr. .their implementation of the rule. Including the
program in the rule is preferable to a case-by-case "variance
waiver" approach to allowing or disallowing emissions
averages. Again, the decision to include emissions averaging
was made to increase the flexibility of sources to comply with
the rule as long as equivalent emission reductions to point-
by-point compliance is ensured.
The EPA does not consider it necessary for a source to
submit comparative cost or burden analyses with proposals to
emissions average. As long as the emissions average achieves
equivalent emission reductions to compliance on a point-by-
point basis, the average is suitable. Furthermore,
incorporation of a discount factor in the averaging program
provides some assurance of an enhanced environmental benefit
from the use of averaging.
10.3 INTERPOLLUTANT TRADING AND RISK ANALYSIS
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-48, IV-D-52,
IV-D-55) supported the requirement that sources demonstrate
equivalent risk in their emissions average and that the
methodology chosen to make this assessment will be determined
by the implementing agency. One commenter (IV-D-46) requested
that specific steps for determining equivalent risk be
provided. The commenter (IV-D-46) recommended that the health
risk analysis include carcinogenicity, acute and chronic
impacts, bioaccumulation, and existing chemical background
10-23
-------
levels. The commenter (IV-D-46) also requested that the
effects of dispersion and exposure spikes be addressed. Two
commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-57) supported making risk
demonstrations required for refinery sources as stringent as
those for the HON. One commenter (IV-D-57) stated that the
rule should specify that where the assessment methods
available can not adequately address the potential health
impacts of a proposed averaging scenario, the averaging should
be disallowed. The commenter (IV-D-57) stated that Protocols
must be approved in advance on a case-by-case basis.
In contrast, five commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-19, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25, IV-D-36) opposed the requirement-to demonstrate-
equivalent risk when opting for emissions averaging. Two
commenters on the proposed marine loading rule (Docket A-90-
44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) commented that equivalent risk
demonstration has no place in a technology-based regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-22) concluded that the MACT provisions do
not require risk to be equal across different source
categories and also do not require risk to be equal within a
given source category. One commenter (IV-D-36) stated that
health risk assessment should not be required as it is
expensive and time-consuming.
One commenter (IV-D-25) contended that risk assessments
will be a significant burden•and will discourage emissions
averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25) thought it is unreasonable
and arbitrary to require risk demonstrations without regard to
whether risks are significant or insignificant. The commenter
(IV-D-25) further contended that there is no evidence that
averaging will create unacceptable risks, and that in some
cases averaging may reduce risks. One commenter (IV-D-10)
also added that after installation of MACT controls or
establishment of work practices, health risks would be
significantly reduced. The commenter (IV-D-10) concluded that
addressing health risks now would halt any emissions averaging
program.
10-24
-------
Response: It is appropriate to introduce the
consideration of risk in emissions averaging. The floor and
the RCT's for the rule were determined without any
consideration of risk. On the other hand, averaging
represents an alternative to the technology-based system of
point-by-point compliance, and as an alternative, must be
demonstrated to result in equivalent control. This
demonstration can consider risk without violating the intent
of section 112 (d) of the 'Act.
It is possible that in some cases having to make a risk
equivalency demonstration may so increase the cost of
averaging that it is no longer more cost-effective to average,
but the EPA does not think this is likely in most cases
because of the limited size of most averages. Even though it
is difficult to predict whether averaging would be more likely
to increase or decrease risk, any possibility of increased
risk would represent HAP control that is not completely
equivalent to point-by-point compliance.
The EPA considers risk assessment methodologies and
toxicological information to be developed sufficiently to make
adequate risk and hazard equivalency determinations. The EPA
will not establish a presumptive minimum process for making
determinations; however, an annotated bibliography of hazard
and risk:assessment references is being published by EPA to
assist State and local agencies and the industry in locating
suitable methods for their situation. The provisions of the
final rule are that risk or hazard equivalency demonstrations
are to be made to the satisfaction of the implementing agency.
As such, the process is left entirely at the discretion of the
implementing agencies. They are free to use any methodologies
and procedures they choose.
comment: Three commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-22, IV-D-25)
argued that the proposed risk equivalency demonstration
provisions should be eliminated. Two commenters (IV-D-10,
IV-D-25) claimed that it is inappropriate to address risk
' under section 122(d) of the Act because standards prescribed
10-25
-------
under section 112(d)(2) are to be based on technology, not
risk, and -risk will -be adequately addressed in the future
under section 112(f). One commenter (IV-D-19) cited
section 112(f) of the Act as reserving risk assessments for
eight years after promulgation of a section 112(d) standard.
One commenter (IV-D-25) noted that section 112(d) lists
emission reduction, costs, and other factors to be considered
in setting MACT standards, but does not list risk. The
commenter (IV-D-25) claimed that Congress1 exclusion of risk
from section 112(d) was deliberate, and that Congress intended
EPA to establish technology-based standards first, and then
address remaining residual risks 8 years later. Onefoommenter
(IV-D-10) added that residual health risk is to be addressed
after the installation of MACT controls or the establishment
of work practice standards. The commenter (IV-D-25) contended
that the refinery NESHAP, with averaging, will achieve
substantial emission and risk reductions, and that the '
potential for small remaining health risks should not
compromise the effort to make the NESHAP requirements as
efficient and cost-effective as possible.
Response; The EPA believes it has the authority under
the Act to establish provisions as part of the alternative
averaging system that will assure that there is no increase in
risk or hazard as a result of a source's election of the
averaging compliance option. The fact that section 112(f) of
the Act contemplates that residual risk will be evaluated at a
later time and that other provisions specifically call for the
consideration of risk does not mean that the EPA is precluded
from considering risk or hazard in other contexts.
Consequently, the EPA maintains that it has the authority to
address risk and hazard in the averaging program through a
procedure such as the one adopted in the final rule—the
requirement that sources that elect to use averaging must
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the implementing agency,
that compliance through averaging would not result in greater-
risk or hazard than compliance without averaging.
10-26
-------
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-35, IV-D-48, IV-D-54,
IV-D-55) opposed interpollutant trading.
Two commenters (IV-D-35, IV-D-55) explained that they are
opposed to emissions averaging because they do not believe
that it is possible to determine equitable trades for
chemicals with varying toxicity. Two commenters (IV-D-35,
IV-D-48) asserted that interpollutant trading is legally and
scientifically unsound because not enough data exist for
ranking and a sophisticated methodology that can be used to
accurately rank chemicals has yet to be developed.
One commenter (IV-D-35) maintained that interpollutant
trading would not ensure greater emission reductions than a
direct implementation of MACT. The commenter (IV-D-35)
further claimed that one-directional "equivalence" is
theoretically more feasible than two-directional. The
commenter (IV-D-35) contended that while it is possible to
determine which chemical's emissions should be a high priority
for reduction, it is not possible to determine how much
emissions of a less hazardous chemical must be reduced to
account for increased or continued emissions of a more
hazardous chemical. The commenter (IV-D-35) further explained
the above arguments by providing summary of their comments on
the ranking scheme proposed by section 112(g) of the Act. The
commenter (IV-D^35) also provided the complete comments as an
attachment.
One commenter (IV-D-54) objected to interpollutant
trading on the grounds that interpollutant trading would
increase workplace hazards and increase adverse health effects
to the community. One commenter (IV-D-55) asserted that the
public health risks of interpollutant trading are uncertain
and should be reviewed by experts in public health risk
assessment before being included in any national policy.
One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that trading can be
accomplished without interpollutant trading. The commenter
(IV-D-48) contended that the reasoning for allowing
interpollutant trading in the HON, that there are a large
10-27
-------
number of chemicals and chemical processes in SOCMI
facilities, does not hold true for petroleum refineries. The
commenter (IV-D-48) stated that if the EPA concluded that
trading cannot be accomplished without interpollutant trading,
trading should not be allowed at all.
The commenter (IV-D-48) contended that if interpollutant
trading is allowed by the proposed regulation, the
requirements for evaluating risk should be much stronger than
those required by the HON. The commenter (IV-D-48) suggested
that the EPA require demonstration that the trade reduces
hazard, reduces risk, and provides greater benefit for the
•-environment. The commenter (:IV-D-48) claimed that it is
inappropriate for companies to determine which health risk a
community will be exposed to; the commenter (IV-D-48)
requested that the population a certain distance from the
facility have the right to veto the proposed average.
On the other hand, one commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that
trading HAP's on a pound for pound basis would have little
adverse effect on the surrounding community because in
petroleum refineries HAP's generally exist in low
concentrations. The commenter (IV-D-36) also proposed that a
simplified method of determining toxicity could be used. The
commenter (IV-D-36) offered a weighing factor method developed
by the Bay Area Quality Management District"in California as
an example. The commenter (IV-D-36) suggested that
pound-for-pound or weight-factor tradeoffs be allowed if the
nearest residential area is more than a specified distance
from a facility.
Response; As stated at proposal, the EPA considers it
appropriate to allow interpollutant trading, i.e., to allow
emissions of different HAP's to be included in emissions
averages. To restrict averaging to only points emitting the
same HAP would be excessively restrictive in this industry
where emission streams are mixtures of different HAP's. The
requirement in the final rule of a risk or hazard equivalency
demonstration should help to allay concerns for public health
10-28
-------
and welfare. Worker health and safety continues to be guarded
by other Federal statutes, and allowing averaging of different
HAP's will not compromise that protection.
The EPA is also sensitive to the charges that a HAP-
speciated averaging system would consume additional resources
and increase the administrative burden for both sources and
implementing agencies. However, many States already require
risk or hazard examinations, and so would not consider the
demonstration of risk or hazard equivalency an additional
burden. Moreover, the limit on the number of points that can
be included in averages should minimize any additional burden
and cost.
The EPA agrees with -the claims that sources have no
incentive to propose emissions averages that could increase
risk or hazard, and stated as much at proposal. However, the
EPA was equally persuaded that a source's decision to average
will be based largely on technical and economic criteria, and
so recognized the necessity of elevating risk or hazard as a
consideration in averaging as well. If sources will control
the most hazardous emissions first for the reasons commenters
stated, then they need not fear that a risk or hazard
examination would severely limit their averages.
The EPA acknowledges that limitations in the scientific
understanding.of HAP toxicity exist. However, the EPA.does
not believe the limitations are substantial enough to make
interpollutant trading impossible or to bar implementing
agencies from making adequate risk and hazard evaluations.
The EPA agrees that trades should not result in increased
hazard or risk from any source. In the final rule, the State
or local regulatory agency can prevent any of the situations
described by commenters from occurring by restricting or
rejecting emissions averaging plans that do not demonstrate
hazard or risk equivalency to their satisfaction.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-55, IV-D-35, IV-D-16)
urged that the hazard ranking system developed under
section 112(g) of the Act not be used for emissions averaging
10-29
-------
in this rule, one commenter (IV-D-55) asserted that the
section 112(g) de minimis and hazard ranking scheme were
developed to comply with -specific conditions and are not
applicable to other situations because of the assumptions
used. The commenter (IV-D-55) recommended that the EPA
prepare a memorandum on how the de minimis and hazard ranking
were derived and warn that they not be adapted to other
regulations. The commenter (IV-D-57) added that until the
hazard ranking scheme in section 112(g) has undergone full
peer review and has been tested in practice on similar
sources, it should not be used to determine the acceptability
of a trade. one commenter (IV-D-25) contended that
toxicity-based credit and debit determination would add
complexity and difficulty. The commenter (IV-D-25) also noted
that several compounds, (including 2,2,4-trimethylpentane
[iso-octane], which is a common component of refinery
emissions) are unranked under the proposed section 112(g)
rules.
In contrast, two commenters (IV-D-46, IV-D-48)
recommended that the restrictions on interpollutant trading be
at least as stringent as those in section 112(g). One
commenter (IV-D-46) requested that an offsetting definition of
"less hazardous pollutant" be used instead of "less hazardous
quantity."
Response; The EPA has published an annotated
bibliography of references that represents a collection of
methods for carrying out comparative risk and hazard
determinations. states can select a method from this
bibliography as guidance or they may use their own established
procedures, or review procedures used by plants proposing
averages on a case-by-case basis. A State agency has full
discretion if it so chooses to employ a method similar to ox-
based on the system incorporated into the proposed rule
implementing section 112(g) of the Act. On the other hand, if
a State has an established risk estimation protocol for their
10-30
-------
State air toxics rules, they may choose to use those
procedures.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-57) supported
requiring risk demonstrations for emissions averaging without
requiring a section 112(1) equivalency submittal. One
commenter (IV-D-34) contended that the two most important
provisions to include in this NESHAP and to allow without
requiring a section 112(1") equivalency submittal are: (1) that
States (or local agencies) be allowed to decide when emissions
averaging is appropriate, and (2) that States be allowed to
require a demonstration of no net increase in risk when
"'emissions averaging is used.
Response; The commenters1 concerns have been met because
as stated in section 10.1 of this chapter, States do have the
discretion to exclude emissions averaging from their
implementation of the rule without having to go through the
section 112(1) rule adjustment process. Likewise, a risk or
hazard equivalency determination is required for proposed
emissions averages. Furthermore, the provision allowing
States to avoid the section 112(1) rule adjustment process has
no bearing on the requirement for a risk or hazard
determination.
10.4 NUMBER OF POINTS IN AVERAGES
Comment; Six commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-19, IV-D-22,.
IV-D-25, IV-D-36, IV-D-49) opposed limiting the number of
points that can be included in an average to 20. One
commenter (IV-D-36) stated that regardless of the number of
emission points, the net result will be emissions equal to or
less than without averaging. The commenter (IV-D-36)
contended that the limit is an additional constraint without
corresponding environmental benefit. One commenter (IV-D-10)
stated that the EPA did not provide any factual basis for
limiting the number of points. The commenter (IV-D-10) added
that because the EPA has legal authority to allow emissions
averaging within a major source, the EPA must first show a
10-31
-------
logical and rational basis to limit the number of emission
points before imposing such a limitation.
One commenter (IV-D-25) claimed that the EPA has not
demonstrated that the burden that would result from
eliminating the limitation on the number of emission points
would outweigh the advantages to facilities that would use
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25) contended that
the additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for emissions averaging will reduce the burden of
agency enforcement activities, so a limitation on the number
of emission points is not necessary to address enforcement
concerns. The commenter (.IV-D-25) iŁlso argued that the
limitation on the number of emission points would preclude the
future possibility of equipment leaks being included in
emissions averaging. The commenter (IV-D-25) observed that
averaging may be used to avoid costs of control for numerous
small emission points by over-controlling a few large emission
points, and that a limitation on the number of points would
preclude use of averaging in such a situation.
Two commenters on the marine loading and unloading
operations rule (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) contended
that the limitation on the number of emission points has no
sound basis, and that its elimination will not significantly
increase the .bur-den; on implementing agencies.
In contrast, one commenter (IV-D-55) supported limiting
the number of emissions points in a average. The commenter
(IV-D-55) requested that this provision be included and
clearly stated in the final rule and in the preamble.
Response: The final rule, as at proposal, limits a
source to including no more than 20 Group 1 and Group 2
emission points in an emissions average. Where pollution
prevention measures are used to control emission points to be.
included in an average, no more than 25 points can be
included. For example, if two points to be included in an
average are controlled by the use of a pollution prevention
measure, the source can include up to 22 points in their
10-32
-------
emissions average. However, if six or more points in the
average are controlled by pollution prevention, the source can
include no more than 25 points in their average.
It is anticipated that most sources will not find a large
number of opportunities to generate cost-effective credits.
If so, most averages will involve a limited number of emission
points, and imposing a limit should not affect most sources.
The EPA rejected the choice of a fixed percentage of points at
a source because for larger sources, this could result in
hundreds of emission points in averages, which is unacceptable
from an enforcement perspective.
The limit of S.Or points, 25 if pollution prevention is
used, was chosen because the EPA anticipates that most sources
will rarely want to include more than 20 points in an average.
A higher number of points is allowed where pollution
prevention is used in order to encourage pollution prevention
strategies, and because the same pollution prevention measure
may reduce emissions from multiple points. Otherwise,
allowing much more than 20 to 25 points would make enforcement
increasingly untenable. Thus, the competing interests of
flexibility for sources and enforceability were balanced in
this decision.
There may be situations where overcontroiling a point
could generate enough credits to offset emissions from a
number of smaller debit-generating points, but the limit on
the number of points should not discourage averaging in these
cases. If one credit generator could balance more than
19 debit generators, the limit would ensure that the source
had credits to spare. However, it should be pointed out that
this is not the situation for which emissions averaging was
designed. The more likely situation is where a source finds
it more cost-effective to control some Group 2 points or
overcontrol other Group 1 points than it is to apply the RCT
to a Group 1 point that would otherwise be required. In other
words, averages will probably be constructed by identifying
10-33
-------
debit generators first and then locating enough credit
generators to offset the debit generators1 emissions.
The EPA does not agree that the implementing agency would
not bear much of the burden of averaging. The source's effort
to comply with monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will be matched equally by the agency's oversight
and approval. Nor is future inclusion of equipment leaks in
averages a sufficient reason to not restrict averages. The
limit addresses present concerns. If equipment leaks can be
addressed in averaging at a later date, the limit may be
reexamined at that time.
10.5 GENERATION OF CREDITS AND DEBITS .• •„ .
10.5.1 What Actions are Creditable
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-20, IV-D-22,
IV-D-25) asserted that the EPA should give credit for
shutdowns. One commenter (IV-D-25) contended that shutdowns
are a legitimate means of reducing emissions and should be
useable to generate credits. The commenter (IV-D-25) proposed
that: shutdowns be creditable for a 5-year lifespan, at
20 percent per year; and shutdowns that are part of the Early
Reductions program, pollution prevention program, or
33/50 program should be creditable based on recent actual
emission estimates.
In contrast, two-commenters (IV-D-5 2 )_s opposed including
shutdown credits in the emissions averaging provisions. One
commenter (IV-D-59) requested that the EPA clarify that slow
downs cannot generate credits. The commenter (IV-D-59) stated
that shutdowns are obviously off limits in § 63.650(d)(3).
Response; It is not appropriate to allow credit in
emissions averaging for permanent shutdowns or slowdowns even
if they are part of an Early Reductions commitment under
section 112(i)(5) of the Act. No matter what the motivation
for a shutdown or slowdown, the emission reductions from the
production curtailment are not made permanent if emissions
averaging credit is allowed. If credit were granted for the
emission reduction, the source could then emit an equal amount
10-34
-------
of emissions from its debit generators. This is in contrast
to point-by-point compliance, where if a point is-shut down,
the emissions reduction is permanent. To allow credit in
emissions averaging for permanent shutdowns and slowdowns
results in less stringent compliance and more total emissions
than point-by-point compliance, in which case emissions
averaging does not represent an equivalent compliance
alternative.
comment: One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that allowing
facilities to credit prior reductions lowers emission
reductions to less than the maximum achievable. The commenter
(IV-D--48) stated that EPA-does not have the authority to wllow
facilities to achieve less than the maximum achievable
reduction in emissions. The commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that
facilities that have voluntarily reduced emissions have
already been rewarded by an extension of the facilities MACT
compliance deadline, improved public relations, reduced future
compliance costs. The commenter (IV-D-48) asserted that the
EPA never promised industry that voluntary reduction would be
creditable toward future requirements. The commenter
(IV-D-48) alleged that Congress has determined that early
reductions cannot be used for crediting. The commenter .
(IV-D-48) cited Title One. Cong. Rec. S. 2989 (March 22, 1990)
and rejection of.a Bush.Administration proposal as proof that
Congress does not support allowing the 90 percent early MACT
reductions as a creditable surplus because they were required.
The commenter (IV-D-48) argued that Congress intended sources
to fully comply with MACT standard once the 6-year period of
the alternative emission limitation is over. The commenter
(IV-D-48) claimed that some refineries would be able to exempt
themselves from MACT standards completely due to post-1990
reductions. The commenter (IV-D-48) also claimed that the
credits proposed by the EPA go against congressional intent by
crediting non-enforceable prior reductions. The commenter
contended that Congress intended the Early Reductions program
to offer deadline extensions for enforceable reductions. The
10-35
-------
commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that allowing credits for early
reductions is double-courtting. The commenter (IV-D-48)
provided an example of how a prior emission reduction could be
double-counted. The commenter (IV-D-48) suggested that
double-counting be prohibited.
Response; As at proposal, credit is not allowed in the
final rule for actions taken prior to November 15, 1990, the
date of passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. Emission
reductions from previous actions prior to that date occurred
for reasons unrelated to the Amendments (such as other State
requirements) or this rule and are included in the source's
control on_the baseline date. If the EPA,allowed reductions
from such previous actions to qualify for credits, then the
source would be able to generate more debits and, thus, more
total emissions than would be allowed under point-by-point
compliance.
The provision is necessary to maintain emissions
averaging as an alternative means of compliance, achieving
equal or greater reductions than the rule without averaging.
Credit cannot be allowed for previous actions (taken prior to
November 15, 1990), which enables a source to emit more
pollution than would otherwise be allowed. Also, if a
previous reduction was required by another State or Federal
rule, the control can be used to meet the requirements for
Group 1 points in this rule as long as the control is to the
level that the rule specifies. However, the control cannot be
used to generate emissions averaging credit.
It is possible that because no credit is allowed for
previous actions, some owners and operators may choose to
relocate existing controls from Group 2 points to other points
instead of installing new devices as long as the controls on
the Group 2 points were not required by other State or Federal
rules. However, as long as the higher-emitting Group 1 points
are controlled to the required level or reductions equivalent
to controlling Group 1 points are achieved, the objective of
the rule is realized.
10-36
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-59) maintained that if a
source-wide average is used, the EPA must take emission
reductions achieved through pollution prevention into account
in determining the MACT achievable emission reduction for the
source.
Response: Credit is allowed for reductions achieved by a
pollution prevention measure applied after November 15, 1990
to a Group 2 point or to a Group 1 point if the pollution
prevention measure achieves reductions greater than what could
be achieved using the RCT.
The EPA acknowledges that some of the emission reductions
from a pollution prevention measure will be offset by emission
increases elsewhere in the source if the pollution prevention
measure is used to generate credit for an average. However,
the EPA does not agree that emissions averaging interferes
with the intent of pollution prevention by allowing emissions
to be "shifted" instead of preventing their release
altogether. The intent of pollution prevention is to reduce
emissions in an economical and environmentally sound manner.
Under emissions averaging, it does not matter how emissions
are controlled so long as the level of reduction required by
the rule is achieved.
Pollution prevention is a method to reduce emissions that
is highly desirable because it often results -itr, emission
reductions in several media. The EPA encourages its use to
the fullest extent; this emphasis in encouraging pollution
prevention is one of the reasons for allowing the use of
emissions averaging.
comment: One commenter (IV-D-40) suggested revising the
pollution prevention provisions to include out-of-process
recycling. The commenter (IV-D-40) stated that pollution
prevention is defined too narrowly. The commenter (IV-D-40)
suggested adding preventive maintenance programs to the list
of pollution prevention measxires contained in
§ 63.650(j)(1)(ii)-
10-37
-------
Response: Because in-process recycling is a pollution
prevention measure, it can be used to generate credits.
Credits would be calculated as provided in the rule for any
pollution prevention measure. On the other hand, it has been
determined that emission reductions from out-of-process
recycling, which is not a pollution prevention measure, cannot
be included in emissions averaging because out-of-process
recycling is out of the jurisdiction of this rule. Out-of-
process recycling involves waste management outside of the
source, and thus is not subject to this standard.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) found it acceptable to
exclude credits for greater efficiency for reference control
technologies.
One commenter (IV-D-59) asked the EPA to clarify in
§ 63.650(d)(2) that sources may never claim credit for using
RCT at greater than the efficiency presumed by the EPA; and
only technologies that are fundamentally different from the
reference control technologies and that achieve better results
than the reference control efficiency are allowed credit.
Response; Reference control efficiency ratings for RCT
were established because there is a minimum level of emissions
reduction that can be achieved by each RCT. It is
acknowledged that due to the different characteristics of
emissions-to. be .controlled, RCT can sometimes achieve greater; ••
emission reductions than predicted by the RCT's reference
efficiency rating. However, the EPA still maintains that
providing credits for these instances of better RCT
performance is inappropriate for the same reasons stated in
the proposal preamble.
First, the magnitude of debits, not just credits, is
based on the RCT's reference efficiency ratings. Emission
debits are calculated as the difference between the actual
uncontrolled or undercontroiled emissions and the emissions; if
RCT had been installed. Of course, because debit generators
are uncontrolled or undercontroiled, the actual control
efficiency that would have been achieved by the RCT cannot be
10-38
-------
determined, so a reference control efficiency must be assumed.
It is impractical to require continuous testing of the debit
generator to determine the actual level of control that would
be achieved if RCT were applied.
If it could be determined that the RCT on a debit
generator could achieve greater reductions than its rated
efficiency, the magnitude of debits from the point would be
greater. Thus, to give credit for reductions above an RCT's
rated efficiency and not to increase the magnitude of debits
as well would represent a windfall from averaging. It would
also result in a net increase in emissions over the level that
-would be expected if there were no emissions averaging. The : r
policy of reference control efficiency ratings for RCT is fair
as long as it is applied equally to debit and credit
generators.
Second, to grant credits for the small amount of emission
difference that might occur above a reference efficiency would
lead to significant enforcement problems. It would be very
difficult for a source to ensure that, on a continuous basis,
an RCT achieves an emissions reduction above its reference
efficiency rating. It would be even more difficult, if not
impossible, for sources to prove to inspectors that they are
in fact achieving these higher levels of efficiency. Use of a
reference control efficiency for each RCT allows inspectors to
simply check that the equipment is in place and operating as
planned. Then, the implementing agency can check records to
examine the calculation of debits and credits in order to make
a compliance determination.
Hence, the use of reference efficiency ratings helps
ensure that the emissions averaging system will result in the
same or greater emission -reductions as point-by-point
compliance. In addition, the use of reference efficiency
ratings simplifies the emissions averaging system, thus making
it more easily enforced.
Allowing credits for reductions that go beyond a
benchline standard (i.e., the reference control efficiency) is
10-39
-------
consistent with the concept of MACT. Although reference
efficiencies have been established for the -RCT's, the EPA does
not consider it inconsistent to allow credit for higher
efficiencies achieved by means other than the RCT's. If a
source can achieve a higher control efficiency than a RCT
through use of an alternative technology or pollution
prevention measure, it is achieving more emission reduction
than required by MACT. The source's alternative technology or
pollution prevention measure may not have been established as
MACT because MACT must be set for a source category, and as
such, must be universally available for that source category.
The fact that one source can employ control, technologies that
exceed MACT does not mean all sources can use the same
technologies.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the RCT
for storage tanks should not include fittings. The commenter
stated that if fittings are installed the emissions averaging
provisions should allow credit to be generated for the
fittings.
Response; The RCT for storage tanks does not include
controlled fittings. In -other words, an owner or operator
does not have to apply controlled fittings to a storage tank
for the assigned 95 percent reference control efficiency to
apply. Installing: control-led fittings to a storage tank only
increases the percent emission reduction by about 1 percent.
Because emissions from a storage tank are relatively low, the
amount of credit that would result from applying controlled
fittings is very small. It should be noted that an owner or
operator can request approval for a higher nominal efficiency
for technologies that are^ unique or for situations where the
RCT is used in a unique way. Approval for a higher nominal
efficiency for certain fittings may be possible.
10.5.2 Discount Factors
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-25 and IV-F-1,
IV-D-36, IV-D-38) objected to the 10 percent discount factor
to be applied to emissions savings. One commenter (IV-D-19)
10-40
-------
submitted that a discount factor does not support the purpose
of emissions averaging or Executive Order 12866. Two
commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-36) objected to the discount factor
as a penalty for attempting to be innovative and achieve
compliance cost-effectively. One of the commenters (IV-D-19)
asserted that the purpose of emissions averaging was to
provide options for achieving compliance in a cost-effective
manner without invoking a penalty. Two commenters (IV-D-36,
IV-D-38) asserted that the discount factor reduces the utility
and incentive of using emissions averaging as well as reducing
flexibility. One of the commenters (IV-D-36) argued that the
EPA's justification that the cost- savings should be shared
with the environment was weak and that the environment will
benefit from the regulation without the penalty. Two
commenters on the proposed marine loading and unloading
operations rule (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-92, IV-D-93) argued that
the 10 percent discount unfairly penalizes those who utilize
emissions averaging and will act as a deterrent to use.
Four commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-49, IV-D-51)
opposed using discount factors. One commenter (IV-D-25)
opposed any discounting because discounting will act as a
deterrent to averaging and defeat the cost-effectiveness of
the averaging program. The commenter (IV-D-25) argued that a
discount factor will preserve the competitive disadvantage of
facilities with higher than typical compliance costs. The
commenter (IV-D-25) also "argued that a discount factor will
penalize innovation by requiring innovative compliance methods
to achieve greater emission reduction. One commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that there is no justification for any
discount. The commenter (IV-D-22) contended that a facility
should not be punished because it implements a cost-effective
approach to compliance. Another commenter (IV-D-51) asserted
that any discounting of emission credits is unnecessary and
will act as a disincentive to participating in an averaging
program, ultimately defeating the cost-effectiveness of the
program. However, the commenter (IV-D-51) stated that if a
10-41
-------
discount factor is unavoidable to promulgate an emissions
averaging provision, then it should not exceed more than
10 percent. The commenter (IV-D-51) stated that proposed MACT
and RACT reductions are significant and the flexibility to
meet the standard by emissions averaging should not be
precluded by additional reductions.
In contrast, one commenter (IV-D-55) supported the
inclusion of a. discount factor for emissions averaging. The
commenter (IV-D-55) requested that this provision be included
and clearly stated in the final rule and in the preamble.
Response; A discount factor of 10 percent is required
in calculating credits in the final rule. An exceptipn is
provided for reductions accomplished by the use of pollution
prevention measures. For pollution prevention measures, full
credit with no discounting is allowed.
The EPA acknowledges that a credit discount factor will
make averaging of points with marginal differences in cost
effectiveness unlikely. However, the EPA disagrees with
commenters that a discount factor could completely eliminate
the incentive to achieve compliance through emissions
averaging.
The goal of emissions averaging is not to enable sources
to reduce their overall compliance costs to the industry
average, or to gain a competitive advantage...Rather,=the
purpose of averaging is to allow sources to comply with the
rule in the least costly manner for their site-specific
situation. Sources will definitely realize cost savings using
emissions averaging instead of installing RCT; otherwise, they
will not use emissions averaging. The purpose of a discount
factor, then, is to ensure that the emission points selected
for averages are the ones where truly significant cost savings
can be realized and to share this savings with the
environment.
The EPA accepts the rationale for using a credit discount
factor that the environment should also benefit from cost
savings achieved through emissions averaging. On the other
10-42
-------
hand, the use of a discount factor is not inconsistent with
the Act nor does it represent a "price" or penalty for using
averaging. Emissions averaging is an alternative method for
complying with the MACT standard that offers flexibility and
the opportunity to apply a more cost-effective control option
for compliance. Sources are able to lower their control costs
for the points included in the average below the cost required
to comply on a point-by-point basis. The decision to include
a discount factor recognizes that a portion of the cost
savings could be used to benefit the environment, i.e., to
achieve more emission reductions than is required under point-
by^-point compliance. •' ;
The EPA does not consider sharing a 10 percent portion of
savings with the environment to be so great a disincentive to
dissuade many sources from choosing to use averaging. Sources
will always realize lower control costs under averaging versus
point-by-point compliance. If this were not so or if the
source does not consider the cost savings substantial enough,
the .option of emissions averaging would not be selected.
Credits generated by pollution prevention measures are
not discounted in the final rule. The EPA is not concerned
that a discount factor would discourage the use of pollution
prevention or any other type of control that could achieve
•significant cost savings. --Rather, no.discount factor, is being
applied to pollution prevention to identify it as the
preferred method of achieving emission reductions and thus
encourage its use.
Only measures that qualify as pollution prevention
activities according to the EPA's Pollution Prevention
Strategy are considered pollution prevention measures under
the rule and therefore are not discounted. The emissions
reductions from these measures are fully quantifiable. The
EPA cannot confirm one commenter's suggestion that pollution
prevention measures are less expensive to implement than other
types of controls; the commenter provided no accompanying
data. In fact, these measures can require more planning,
10-43
-------
process redesign, and lead time than add-on measures. The EPA
does not share the concern that the discount factor selected
for the final rule will discourage the development of
innovative control technologies because the value of the
discount factor is small.- The EPA expects that new
technologies that can reduce emissions more than existing
technologies, and do so more cost-effectively, will be
developed and implemented regardless of the application of a
small discount factor.
10.6 AVERAGING COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) supported the proposed
annual average complian&evperiod with quarterly reporting
because it will allow for seasonal and other short-term
variation. The commenter (IV-D-25) opposed any shorter
compliance periods (with or without banking) because shorter
periods do not allow enough flexibility for seasonal variation
in emissions or short-term production variations and would
significantly discourage the use of emissions averaging. The
commenter (IV-D-25) contended that the quarterly excursion
limits and reports will provide sufficient information for
enforcement on a timely basis and prevent excessive short-term
emissions.
Another commenter (IV-D-46) suggested that the compliance
period is adequate if a.violation is considered to have
occurred at the end of the compliance period, when
noncorapliance is reported, as opposed to 'when a device fails.
The commenter (IV-D-46) explained that this allows
administrative action to be taken up to one year after the end
of the compliance period.
On the other hand, one commenter (IV-D-48) opposed the
annual compliance period because peak exposures would be
higher than they would be with a shorter compliance period.
The commenter (IV-D-48) asserted that the EPA recognized this
in its proposed economic incentives rule. Another commenter
(IV-D-48) claimed that th'e annual compliance period may make
administrative enforcement impossible. The commenter
10-44
-------
(IV-D-48) cited administrative enforcement as a
congressionally approved, inexpensive toot that should not be
made unusable. The commenter (IV-D-48) stated that the
quarterly cap permitting administrative enforcement when
sources produce more than 30 percent extra emissions does not
provide an adequate check because administrative enforcement
could not be used if sources stayed within the cap but
violated the annual limit. The commenter (IV-D-48) asserted
that the EPA should not allow exceedances of 5 to 29 percent
to become unenforceable through administrative enforcement
mechanisms.
Response.: The compliance period for-.averaging that was
proposed, an annual period with quarterly checks, has been
maintained for the final rule. Allowing averaging over a
year's time instead of just one quarter provides flexxbxlxty
for sources whose production rates vary over time. It also
factors in the seasonal changes in products of refineries. .
This is an extremely critical factor for this industry. The
additional requirement that debits cannot exceed credits by
more than 30 percent in any one quarter should assure that
wide-ranging fluctuations in HAP emissions will not occur.
A shorter averaging period than annual would preclude the
use of some emission points in averages. An annual perxod
allows inclusion of points that: (1) do not have the same
emission rates during some periods of the year; and (2) must
undergo temporary maintenance shutdowns at different times
during the year. Hence, an annual period provides sources the
necessary latitude to construct the most cost-effectxve
averages. Moreover, the EPA considers it within their
authority under the Act to establish the averaging perxod as
any length that can be demonstrated to be enforceable.
The EPA is satisfied that the annual period will not pose
any significant enforcement and administrative problems. It
is true that the annual averaging period could reduce the
EPA's ability to use administrative enforcement actions.
However, the requirement of a quarterly emissions check
10-45
-------
enables use of the administrative enforcement mechanism and
allows more frequent.enforcement than just once a year.
Judicial proceedings can also be undertaken against sources
violating the annual average or the quarterly check.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that debits
be allowed to exceed credits by 30 percent in any quarterly
reporting period to allow for seasonal variation. However,
the commenter (IV-D-25) also commented that, in some cases,
the alternative quarterly excursion limit based on allowable
emissions in the operating permit may be an improvement over
the percentage-based quarterly limit because the emission
level might be easier to calculate than.the percentage and
would be more consistent with permit requirements.
Response; The commenter is commenting on an option
proposed in the proposed HON. This option was not chosen for
the final HON nor the proposed petroleum refinery NESHAP. The
rationale for not choosing this option follows.
The EPA did not adopt the allowable emissions alternative
for the quarterly emissions check because of concerns about an
absolute emissions limit based on projections. Operating
levels for calculating allowable emissions are based on
representative predictions of realistic operating scenarios.
The use of such a system creates an incentive to "game,"
i.e., to project higher operating rates for credit-generating
points than is representative or realistic. In contrast, the
quarterly check included in the final rule depends on the
actually demonstrated operating rate during the quarter, not
projections.
Under the industry-proposed allowable emissions
alternative, it would make no difference whether the emissions
from a debit generator increase or the emissions from a credit
generator decrease; as long as the total emissions are below
the cap, the facility remains in compliance. However, in
order for a source to be in compliance on an annual basis,
credits from overcontrol must equal or exceed debits from
undercontrolled points in order to result in the same or
10-46
-------
greater emission reductions as would have occurred under
point-by-point compliance. A quarterly limit on the debit-to-
credit ratio is more consistent with this approach. If the
emissions from a debit point increase and/or the emissions
from the credit point decrease significantly, it could impact
whether or not the facility is in compliance. A large
increase of emissions from a debit generator or decrease in
emissions from a credit generator (i.e., a deviation greater
than 30 percent from the emissions that would have occurred
under a point-by-point compliance) is significant. Therefore,
the debit-to-credit ratio limit represents a better check on
potential annual noncompliance. *•.-••.,
In this rule, the source does not need to know what its
total allowable emissions are in any period because the total
emissions are not limited. The source must either maintain
RCT's properly or ensure that debits are balanced by an equal
number of credits with a leeway of 30 percent each quarter.
The EPA maintains that instead of allowing for an easier
compliance determination, a system of assigning credits based
on allowable emissions requires a great deal more scrutiny of
the source's prediction of operating levels. As stated
previously, the entire rule is designed to be consistent with
the operating permit program rule encoded at 40 CFR part 70.
There should be no conflict .between this .rule.and the
operating permit because the quarterly check, as well as the
annual credit/debit balance and the monitoring requirements
will be stipulated as permit conditions.
10.7 BANKING
comment: One commenter (IV-D-46) stated that banking
should not be included as a compliance provision. The
commenter (IV-D-46) claimed that banking with an annual
compliance period is redundant and banking between compliance
periods would make enforcement problematic and not be
beneficial to public health. Another commenter (IV-D-48)
supported quarterly block averaging without banking as the
best compliance period. The commenter (IV-D-48) expressed
10-47
-------
opposition to banking because it increases peak emissions,
allows credits for reduction that would^have happened anyway,
and increases gaming and the administrative burden.
Additionally, the commenter (IV-D-48) found banking to be
inconsistent with maximum achievable reductions.
In contrast, one commenter (IV-D-22) supported banking of
credits. The commenter (IV-D-22) claimed that without
banking, a source will run the risk that unexpected events
will throw off the credit-debit balance during the compliance
period.
Response; Banking of extra credits generated in one
compliance period-;for use in a future complian.ce period is not
allowed. The likelihood of significant administrative burden
resulting from tracking the generation and use of banked
credits was the primary reason for not including banking. With
the goal in mind of keeping the administration of the rule as
simple as possible, credit banking represents a complication
that would affect the source and implementing agency alike.
Another reason for excluding banking from the proposed and
final rule was the possibility that communities near sources
could experience peak HAP exposures if banked credits were
allowed to .offset unexpected increases in emission debits.
Any additional flexibility offered by banking is offset by the
increased administrative -burden and potential for peak
exposures such that little overall advantage can be gained
from allowing credit banking.
10.8 MONITORING
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that EPA
should clarify that if a single monitor is malfunctioning,
then the assumption of minimum credits or maximum debits
applies only to the emission point(s) addressed by the monitor
in question.
Response; The only emission point that is affected by
this provision is the point exhibiting the excursion. If that
point is a credit generator, it will be assumed that the point
generated no credits for the duration of the excursion. No
10-48
-------
other points are affected, and the source will not be doubly
penalized.
Comment: The EPA requested comments on whether exposure
spikes could result if batch emission streams were left
uncontrolled in exchange for control of continuous emission
streams, or vice versa. One commenter (IV-D-51) replied that
if a continuous stream is controlled in exchange for control
of a batch stream, emissions reductions could be estimated
using established emission factors for a defined period of
time for the continuous stream, and emissions from the batch
process could be quantified using emission factors. The
commenter.(IV-D-51) stated that emissions averaging could work
for batch processes if total emissions over a specific period
of time were quantified. - One commenter on the proposed marine
loading and unloading operations rule (Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-92) stated that the concern about potential exposure
spikes is unwarranted, and that there are many factors that
would need to be analyzed before any conclusions could be made
regarding exposure spikes and adverse health effects.
One commenter (Docket A-90-44: IV-D-100) stated that an
intermittent process should be allowed to offset a continuous
process, but that continuous processes should never be allowed
to offset an intermittent process. The commenter contended
that.resulting exposure spikes -from intermittent processes
would likely exceed threshold criteria levels for health and
environment equivalency, and gave an example of an
intermittent process occurring once a month that offsets its
emissions with the daily emissions of a continuous process.
in the commenter's exampl'e, actual excess emissions for the
one-day intermittent process are 30 times the offset during
that one day the process emits. The commenter contended that
this emissions spike would dramatically increase acute
exposure and that unfavorable weather conditions and the
location of the loading operation could increase the risk of
public exposure.
10-49
-------
Response: in the absence of any significant volume of
response to the request for comment on this issue, the EPA
will allow emissions from batch emission streams to be
included in emissions averages and allow marine terminal and
gasoline distribution loading operations to be included in the
average. The quarterly cap on the ratio of debits to credits
is intended to limit the possibility of exposure peaks.
Furthermore, the averaging provisions require that the owner
or operator demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State or
local agency, that the emissions average does not increase
risk or hazard relative to point-by-point compliance. If peak
exposures are a concern, the agency can consider this in
determining whether to approve the average.
Furthermore, there are only a small number of batch vents
at refineries. Coking units are batch processes but the
miscellaneous process vents definition exempts specific vents
from coking units, so these batch vents are not subject to the
standards and would not be included in an average. Thus, it
is expected that few, if 'any batch vents will be included in
averages. It should be recognized that some emission points
such as storage vessels and loading racks are also
characterized by intermittent emissions somewhat similar to
the discontinuous emissions from batch processes. However,
because loading occurs' fairly frequently,fand emissions from
an individual loading event are relatively small compared to
total petroleum refinery emissions, such emissions are not
expected to cause significant exposure peaks. The commenter's
example of once per month is not typical of many operations.
Moreover, no evidence has been presented that emissions
averaging would permit a very different mix of emissions to
occur than would point-by-point compliance. That is, peaks of
exposures from batch streams should be equally likely under
point-by-point compliance as under emissions averaging, so
emissions averaging does not represent a less effective
control strategy on this point.
10-50
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-59) supported the EPA's
proposal to assume that points within an average are out of
compliance during the time when some points exceed operating
parameters. The commenter (IV-D-59) suggested, however, that
the EPA should specify that this non-compliance will extend
for the duration of the compliance period, absent proof that
the emissions average was balanced based on comprehensive
measured emissions data. The commenter (IV-D-59) explained
that if emissions limits were exceeded during a limited period
of time, that provides no justification for assuming, without
proof, that those exceedances were balanced later in the
compliance period. The commenter (IV-D-59) stated that i
temporary exceedances should still be a separate short-term
violation even when the short-term violation is balanced out.
Response; Because of the effect an excursion could have
on a control device's effectiveness, a source that experiences
excursions might be in violation of the standard. Hence, as
specified in the rule, when points in an average experience
excursions outside the established operating parameter ranges,
no credits would be assigned to a credit generator and maximum
debits would be assigned to a debit generator for the period
of the excursion. The presumption is that the excursion is
caused by a significant problem in control device operation
and the device is not achieving;emission reductions. However,
if the source has data indicating that some partial credits or
debits may be warranted, the rule provides that the source can
submit that information to the implementing agency with their
next Periodic Report. Partial credits and debits can be
assigned with the approval of the implementing agency.
The periodic report will show credits and debits for the
entire quarter, including periods of time when there was not
an excursion. When there is no excursion, the credits and
debits are calculated using the previously established control
device efficiencies and the equations in the rule. If a
control device has been rated at, for example, 98 percent,
10-51
-------
that number is used for periods when there is not an
excursion.
The periodic report will show credits and debits for the
entire quarter, including periods of time when there was not
an excursion. When there is no excursion, the credits and
debits are calculated using the previously established control
device efficiencies and the equations in the rule. If a
control device has not been rated at, for example, 98 percent,
that number is used for periods when there is not an
excursion. As long as a source uses the equations specified
in the rule correctly and determines the inputs to the
equations*-according to the stipulated;methods, there is no
reason to doubt the accuracy of the debit and credit
estimations.
An exceedance of a monitored operating parameter would
also be considered a short-term violation if the daily average
value is outside the- range established in the NCS or operating
permit and if the exceedance is not due to a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. This provision is the same as for
Group 1 points that are controlled using point-by-point
compliance rather than emissions averaging.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-59) complained that there
is no basis to verify whether industry estimates of the amount
of the emissions to be debited proves correct in practice,
because the emissions monitoring is inadequate because there
is no monitoring of uncontrolled Group 1 points. The
commenter (IV-D-59) stated that the monitoring of credits is
unreliable, especially for highly variable streams like
wastewater, storage, and loading. The commenter (IV-D-59)
concluded that because the credit is a product of the
percentage reduction and the inlet concentration, a reliable
testing procedure for both numbers on a frequent basis is
necessary to be able to check whether the claimed quantity of
credits is correct. The commenter (IV-D-59) recommended that
the EPA require CEM's where feasible especially for streams
involved in emissions averaging. The commenter maintain that
10-52
-------
in cases where CEM's are not practicable, emissions averaging
should be prohibited. A commenter on the proposed marine
loading and unloading operations rule (Docket A-90-44:
IV-D-98) stated that because the rule does not require real-
time monitoring of marine loading and unloading operations
emissions, there is no basis for reliability checking a
source's estimates of credits and debits. The commenter
(Docket A-90-44: IV-D-98) further stated that the 10 percent
discount factor may compensate for the likely imprecision of
emission estimates.
Response: There are several mechanisms for enforcement
of emissions averaging.* Monthly credits and debits must be
calculated based on measured and recorded values for different
parameters depending on the kind of emission point, such as
HAP concentration, flow rate, and monthly operating hours for
process vents and rack throughputs for transfer operations.
Values for some of these parameters (e.g., concentration and
flow) are determined initially rather than measured
continuously, but the rule requires a re-determination when
process or operating changes are made to a debit or credit
generator that could cause the previously measured values to
be no longer representative. Other values that vary from
month to month, such as opereiting hours for process vents and
throughput for transfer racks, are recorded--for each month,
and the monthly values are used to calculate debits and
credits. These procedures and equations in the rule allow
sufficiently accurate estimation of monthly credits and debits
to determine compliance. If credits do not equal or exceed
debits in a year's time, or if debits exceed credits by more
than 30 percent in any quarter, this is a violation of the
emission standard, and enforcement action can be taken.
Furthermore, the controls applied to most Group 1 and
Group 2 points in an emissions average must be monitored
continuously. It is a violation of the standards if the
monitored average parameter values are outside the established
range, and enforcement actions can be taken. Finally,
10-53
-------
provisions in the rule require conservative estimation of
credits and debits during excursions. These procedures wiri
assure debits are not underestimated and credits are not
overestimated during monitoring excursions.
The EPA considered various means of determining credits
and debits, and concluded that it is not technically feasible
or necessary to use CEM's. To measure emissions continuously/
both CEM's to measure HAP. concentrations and continuous flow
monitors would be needed at every emission point. There are
no CEM's available for measurement of some organic HAP's.
Where CEM's are available, they are generally more costly and
more complex to calibrate and operate than operating parameter
monitors, and may have greater downtime and greater
uncertainty in their measurements. It was determined that the
combination of credit and debit calculations based on
representative operating conditions and records of process
operation such as monthly operating hours and throughputs,
along with continuous monitoring of control device operating
parameters would be a more reliable and efficient means of
enforcing emissions averaging than requiring CEM's.
10.9 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-19) objected strongly to
the requirement for monthly credit and debit calculations,
citing them as unnecessary and unwarranted. The commenter
(IV-D-19) suggested that the requirement should be quarterly
calculations and compliance reporting as required by a
source's part 70 permit. The commenter (IV-D-19) reiterated
opposition to requirements any more demanding than those they
have suggested, arguing that no added value is provided.
Another commenter (IV-D-51) contended that the quarterly
reporting of credits and debits is overly burdensome and
unnecessary. Two commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-51) recommended
annual reporting instead.
Response: The EPA recognizes that some additional
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary for
emissions averaging. For example, credits and debits must be
10-54
-------
calculated monthly and reported quarterly to ensure that the
required emission reductions are achieved, and Group 2 points
being used to generate credits must apply the same control
device monitoring as Group 1 points. Owners or operators
should take the recordkeeping and reporting requirements into
account when deciding whether to utilize emissions averaging.
The EPA considers the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to. be the minimum necessary to
demonstrate compliance. The EPA has considered ways to reduce
the general recordkeeping and reporting burden without
sacrificing enforceability. For example, the rule requires
reporting of monitored parameter values only when they are
outside the established range. The rule also allows case-by-
case requests to use data compression and other alternative
monitoring and recordkeeping systems that may allow continued
use of current or more cost-effective systems at plants.
Another provision allows retention of hourly rather than
15-minute average values of monitored parameters. The goal of
these provisions is to reduce the burden for all plants,
including those that utilize emissions averaging.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-52) contended that the
emissions averaging provisions will be virtually impossible to
enforce and will result in undue administrative burdens for
tracking and recordkeeping.' . ,
Response: The administrative burden of implementing the
emissions averaging program of the rule is one issue voiced by
all concerned parties to which the EPA paid particular
attention. The proposed and final rule were designed with the
express purpose of easing perceived administrative burdens.
However, some provisions are necessary to improve
enforceability or to ensure public health protection, which
may contribute to the administrative burden.
Calculation of emission debits and credits are required
for only the points included in an emissions average, not for
all emission points at a source. An average can contain no
more than 20 points, 25 if pollution prevention is used, so
10-55
-------
the concern over the number of points for which emission
estimates are required-has been addressed. The source need
only calculate two emission values for a debit generator and
two values for the credit generator. For a debit generator,
actual emissions based on the controls in place (if any) and
emissions if the RCT had been applied need to be calculated
and compared. These values can be easily calculated using
estimates of uncontrolled emissions and the reduction
efficiencies of controls that were demonstrated in initial
performance tests, and specific procedures for making
estimates and carrying out performance tests are provided in
the rule. For a credit generator, the emissions that are
allowed under the rule and the actual emissions are calculated
using procedures specified in the rule as well.
The EPA does not consider the estimation methodologies
for averaging to be too complex. Tracking emissions is not
unduly complex either as the points included in averages must
be identified separately in the Implementation Plan or the
operating permit. Debits and credits are calculated monthly
based on limited inputs such as monthly operating hours and
previously measured values. Adjustment of emission
calculations for fluctuations is required only if an excursion
occurs, and specific procedures have been included in the
final rule to address such situations. It was acknowledged
earlier that some additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting is necessary to implement emissions averaging and to
ensure proper operation. But, again, the EPA maintains that
with the limits on averaging, any additional burden has been
limited as well and does not far exceed that associated with
compliance on a point-by-point. If, however, an implementing
agency does realize greater costs in administering averages,
the cost could be addressed by applying a higher permit fee
for the points included in emissions averaging.
10.10 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-46) expressed an interest
in reviewing the calculations and methods used by the EPA to
10-56
-------
determine that emissions averaging between refinery units and
marine loading operations would provide for greater emissions
reductions than reductions achieved without averaging.
Response; The equations and calculations included in the
final rule for estimating emissions from any emission point
included in an average are taken from well-established and
available references. The opportunity for reviewing and
commenting on the use of such equations is during the public
comment period of this and other rules establishing such
equations. The rule is designed to require that emissions
reductions achieved by every emissions average are greater
than or equal to reductions that would be required without
averaging. As required by the rule, the equivalency of
emissions reductions between an emissions average and point-
by-point compliance is demonstrated by calculating the
difference in the emissions under both scenarios for each
emission point in the average to calculate the credit or debit
for each point. The emission credits (for greater reductions
than required by the standards) must outweigh the debits for
the average to be allowed. Thus, if the average does not
achieve equal reductions to point-by-point compliance
(actually, greater reductions for the average because a
discount factor is applied) then the average cannot be
allowed.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-54) stated that if
emissions averaging is not removed from the rule, it needs to
be made more stringent by using emission numbers instead of
percentages to reflect the net result of emissions averaging.
Response; It is assumed that by emission numbers, the
commenter is referring to emission rates in units such as
pounds per hour. Emissions averages are balanced in terms of
actual mass of emissions, not percentages. The equations in
the rule result in emission credits and debits in Mg/yr, and
the credits must outweigh the debits. However, calculating
the mass emissions for emissions averaging also depends on
establishing reference control efficiencies. It is not
10-57
-------
possible in this rule to determine reference control
efficiencies or emission limits in terms of an emissions rate
because of the large diversity and hence variance in emissions
from the same kind of emission point found in petroleum
refineries. Because of the variation in mass emissions, any
single mass limit would be achievable by some sources with no
controls whereas it could not be achieved by other (e.g.,
larger) sources even if the best controls were applied. On
the other hand, a control efficiency can be established for a
kind of emission point regardless of its emission rate.
Because the same percent control efficiencies are applied to
both debit and credit generators, there is no chance of a
discrepancy in comparing emissions between the two.
10-58
-------
11.0 ECONOMICS AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-44, IV-D-07) stated that
the proposed regulation has little environmental benefit while
creating economic hardships for the refining industry. Two
;commenters (IV-D-44, IV-D-14) claimed that"the, costs of the
proposed regulation outweigh the benefits and go against
Executive Order 12866 and the Common Sense Initiative. One
commenter (IV-D-44) suggested that the proposal be withdrawn.
The commenter (IV-D-44) argued that the risk benefit
calculation by the EPA does riot warrant additional, controls.
Response: The final regulation provides for significant
reductions of 48,000 Mg per year of HAP emissions and
252,000 Mg per year of VOC emissions. The refining industry
will as a whole experience a loss of production of less than
one percent of U.S. refining capacity, as estimated in the
economic impact analysis. Between 0 and 7 refineries are
expected to be at risk of closure, -with the estimate likely
being closer to 0 than 7. This was calculated based on
assumptions that likely overestimate the given range.
The monetized benefits, $153.4 million, exceeded the
social costs (equal to the compliance costs plus $16 million
from increased imports beyond exports) by $58.1 million. All
benefits from VOC control were not monetized. Among the
benefits from VOC control not monetized were chronic health
benefits such as reductions in chronic health effects
(e.g., sinusitis, hay fever),reduced materials damage
(corrosion, deterioration), ecosystem effects (decreased
biomass, decline in species richness and diversity, decreased
lifespan for organisms), aesthetics (unpleasant odors,
11-1
-------
visibility), and acute health effects (increased cancer
incidence, genetic damage, reduction in pulmonary function) in
attainment areas.
Thus, there is evidence for additional control and for
not withdrawing the rule. For more information, consult the
regulatory impact analysis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-07) alleged that due to the
fact the current U.S. refining capacity is close to maximum
utilization, if seven refineries are reguired to close because
of the proposed regulation, the nation's dependence on foreign
oil will increase. The commenter (IV-D-07) also cited the
loss of productivity and-.jctos, and greater prices for motor-
fuels as additional negative effects of the proposed
regulation. The commenter (IV-D-07) requested a more cost
effective regulation.
Response: The economic impact analysis estimated a one
percent reduction in net exports (exports-imports), and a less
than one percent reduction in domestic output of affected
petroleum products. Thus, there is a slight increase in the
U.S.'s demand for foreign petroleum products, which may
translate into a slight increase in use of foreign oil for
that purpose. The estimate for the number of refineries at
risk of closure was from between 0 and 7, with the estimate
likely being closer to 0 than -7. However, this was calculated
based on assumptions that likely overestimate the given range.
Estimated job losses are expected to be small, with the
reduction being less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. refinery
workforce as of 1993. The price increase for motor fuels
should also be small, as the price increase for five affected
products, including gasoline, is estimated to be under
0.6 percent.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) claimed that the
proposed regulation will have a major cost impact on
independent producers, who depend on refineries to purchase
wellhead hydrocarbons, but will provide little benefit to the
environment. Commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-29) requested that the
11-2
-------
proposed regulation be re-assessed considering the resultant
consequences from the closure of "small refineries. The
commenter (IV-D-14) alleged that less competition and higher
compliance costs for refiners due to the proposed regulation
will drive wellhead prices down. The commenter (IV-D-14) also
stated that closing of small refineries will increase
transportation costs for independent producers, who will have
to use trucks or railcars as opposed to existing pipelines.
The commenter (IV-D-14) claimed that this increase in cost
could result in severe economic damage to struggling
producers.
Response: The Agency's economic impact analysis focused
on the effects to the refinery industry, the industry most
directly affected by the final regulation. The EPA focuses on
the primary industry (the refinery industry, in this case)
affected by a regulation since the economic impacts to
secondarily affected industries are usually insignificant.
For more explanation of this, refer to the economic impact
analysis in the public docket. For this analysis, EPA
believes the economic impact on secondarily affected
industries are small because there are only small changes in
domestic output for affected products. As to effects on
transportation costs, the estimate for closures of small
refineries is a range, and it is possible no small refiners
may close. If there are any increases in transportation
costs, they should be small and unlikely to result in severe
economic damage to producers. Since the economic analysis
focused on impacts to the refinery industry, EPA did not
estimate effects on transportation costs, and the resulting
impacts.
comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) claimed that the
proposed regulation will "increase emissions due to the
estimated closure of up to 30 small refineries. The commenter
(IV-D-14) explained that independent producers will be
required to use trucks and railcars to get oil to larger
refineries when the small refineries that they had pipelines
11-3
-------
to are shut down. The commenter (IV-D-14) claimed that trucks
and railcars can pollute more than pipelines. The commenter
(IV-D-14) also contended that large refineries in
nonattainment areas will increase production and therefore
emissions to make up for the loss of production from the
shutdown of small refineries.
Response: The estimate of 30 closures comes from the
"Analysis of the Impact of Environmental Compliance on Plant
Operations," developed by the Agency's OPAR, and its estimate
referred to the possibility that between zero and
30 refineries may be at risk of closure, not that up to
30 refineries will close. - The OPAR's analysis examined the
impacts from a number of EPA regulations from a financial
standpoint, and did not compute the closure risk estimate from
a market analysis standpoint, as was done here to arrive at
the 0 to 7 range. The OPAR's analysis looked at the impacts
from a number of EPA regulations, but did not account for this
NESHAP.
Any increase in production from refineries in
nonattainment areas should be small, given the small price
increases on affected products. Therefore, any increase in
emissions should also be "small.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) disagreed with the
EPA's estimate of 0.52 statistical life per.year for the total
cancer risk from benzene and naphthalene. The commenter
(IV-D-44) contended that naphthalene is classified as a
possible carcinogen, not a known carcinogen, by the EPA and
therefore should not be included in the risk analysis. The
commenter (IV-D-44) estimated that the exclusion of
naphthalene produces a lifetime cancer risk for 0.015 per
million persons. The commenter (IV-D-44) asserted that the
Act permits the EPA to delist a source category if no source
in the category emits HAP's in quantities which may cause a
lifetime cancer risk greater than 1.0 per million persons.
The commenter (IV-D-44) also alleged that the HEM-I'used to
11-4
-------
estimate the cancer risks is overly conservative and biases
risk estimates upwards.
Response; The EPA has revised the risk assessment and
benefits analysis and did not include naphthalene as a
carcinogen. Benzene and cresols are the two HAP's identified
as carcinogens in the revised analysis. While the values in
HEM-I are conservative, the benefit analysis attempted to
calculate values that were not conservative. Our analytical
methodology did not presume conservative assumptions for
values other than the annual cancer incidence inputs.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) disagreed with the
EPA's estimate of $148.3 million for health effects benefits
resulting from reduction in VOC emissions. The commenter
(IV-D-44) alleged that there were inaccuracies in the
calculation of emissions from miscellaneous process vent
emissions and equipment leaks and explained these
inaccuracies. The commenter (IV-D-44) estimated the general
human health benefits from refinery MACT to be approximately
$49 million. The commenter (IV-D-44) claimed that the VOC
reductions claimed by this regulation will occur as a result
of State Implementation Plans required by the Act.
Response; The EPA appreciates any data that will assist
the Agency in accurately calculating emissions from sources
that will be covered by our regulations. The benefits
calculated by the EPA are in annual terms since the emission
reductions are in annual terms, thus the $49 million estimate
mentioned by the commenter must also be an annual value;
Controls used to reduce HAP's also reduce VOC in the same
emission streams. Thus, it is appropriate for the Agency to
account for VOC reductions in this rule.
comment; One commenter (IV-D-44) alleged that the
proposed regulation fails to take into account the costs
imposed on the refining industry due to other Federal
regulations.
Response; The costs calculated were not cumulative in
that they did not include capital and annual costs from
11-5
-------
concurrent and other recently promulgated regulatory actions
affecting the refinery industry. However, the regulatory
alternatives chosen were based on requirements from existing
regulations the refinery industry was already familiar with,
and thus will make the industry's effort at compliance less
difficult and less costly. '
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) alleged that the EPA
ignored Congress1 decision not to base standards on
cost-benefit analysis in citing cost benefit analysis as a
rationale for the exemptions in the proposal.
Response; While all MACT rules must control to at least
the MACT flooE for the source categories of concern, the
Agency has discretion in going above the floor based on costs.
The promulgated alternatives meet the MACT floor for each type
of emission point except for equipment leaks, and the
alternative is a choice of control levels that each represent
a more stringent alternative than the floor.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that the
cost-benefits analysis contains serious flaws. The commenter
(IV-D-48) alleged that toxics release data indicate that
pollutants not quantified or discussed in the RIA are emitted
from petroleum refineries in large quantities. The commenter
(IV-D-48) stated that excluding these pollutants caused the
cost to benefit ratio to be overestimated.
Response; The eleven organic HAP's known to be in
equipment leak emissions are listed in the final RIA and are
listed in the final preamble. Information identifying these
HAP's was taken from the TRI database. While the Agency may
have not included some pollutants from refineries, EPA did
attempt to use the most recent emissions data available. The
commenter did not identify or include data on those pollutants
that the Agency is claimed to not have looked at.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that the
cost—benefit analysis is incorrect because non-cancer related
health effects were not characterized or quantified.
11-6
-------
Response; Non-cancer related health effects were
characterized in Chapter 7 of the RIA, and one of those, an
estimate of increases in agricultural yields was quantified
and listed in the promulgation preamble.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) alleged that the
cost-benefit analysis is inadequate under the E.G. on
environmental justice because it did not consider the health
risks from multiple and cumulative exposures from the combined
pollutants of petroleum and non-petroleum sources. The
commenter (IV-D-48) claimed that this analysis cannot be used
as a decision making tool.
Response; The benefit analysis considered all the
available data from affected sources that were relevant to the
necessary calculations. Data for cumulative exposures to
pollutants from petroleum and non-petroleum sources was not
included in the benefit analysis because it was not available.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-29) requested that the
proposed regulation be withdrawn due to a lack of benefits.
The commenter (IV-D-29) claimed that the EPA has shown that
there is no HAP reduction health benefit associated with this
regulation. The commenter (IV-D-29) acknowledged that the
proposed regulation will reduce VOC, but contended that VOC
reduction does not justify the regulation. The commenter
(IV-D-29) claimed that VOC emissions in n'onattainment areas
were already being reduced. Additionally, the commenter
(IV-D-29) alleged that the VOC benefits were overestimated.
Response; There are health benefits from HAP reduction
associated with this regulation. The monetized benefits did
exceed the costs of regulation by $58.1 million, and the
regulatory baseline did account for the latest VOC emission
estimates in ozone nonattainment areas. As to the estimate of
VOC benefits, the estimate does not include VOC benefits for
the following: 1) acute health benefits in ozone attainment
areas, and 2) chronic health effects, such as fewer cases of
sinusitis, hay fever, damage to materials, and ecosystem
11-7
-------
effects. Thus., the estimate may underestimate benefits from
VOC emission reductions.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-30) stated that the
proposed emissions standards will increase costs. The
commenter (IV-D-30) stated that the increased costs include
capital costs for additional control equipment and monitoring
systems as well as significant manpower costs to comply with
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Response; The final standard will increase costs, but
the economic impact analysis determined that the impacts from
these costs were insignificant. Price changes and production
decreases were both estimated at under 0.6 percent-for •' • '-
affected products. Estimated recordkeeping and reporting
costs for the final regulation are one-third less than at
proposal ($20 million instead of $30 million), a significant
reduction. This occurred due to reductions in the level of
monitoring required, and reduction in redundant recordkeeping
and reporting activities.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) claimed that the
economic impact analysis underestimates the portion of the
total refinery MACT compliance costs borne by refiners and
overstates the costs passed on to petroleum product consumers
in the form of price increases.
Response: In estimating these impacts, - EPA1s*analysis .
did include price elasticities of demand for the affected
products in the calculations. The price elasticity of demand
is a measure of the response of consumers to a 1 percent
change in the market price for a product. In the case of the
products modeled, the highest elasticity point estimate was
-0.8 (liquified petroleum gas) to a low of -0.15 (jet fuel).
Since the price elasticities of demand are all less than -1,
the regulatory control costs are more likely to be paid by the
consumers of these products when compared to products with
elastic demand, all other factors equal. Also, price
increases for products with inelastic demand lead to revenue
increases for their producers. Thus, the price increases
11-8
-------
estimated here should lead to higher revenues for the refining
industry, again all other factors being equal.
While a portion of the compliance cost is borne entirely
by the refiners, they should be able to pass on much of the
remaining costs to consumers given the low demand elasticities
they face. In the long-run, given a high level of
competition, all the costs of control can be passed on to
consumers. As to Gulf and East Coast refiners, it is possible
that they face higher elasticities of demand than those used
in the report, and thus perhaps can pass less of their costs
to consumers by increased product prices. No information was
submitted by the commenter on specific elasticities of demand
for Gulf and East Coast refiners. However, since the
elasticities mentioned earlier incorporate the behavior of
consumers of products produced by these refiners also, the
industry impacts calculated should not be a significant
underestimate.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) said the economic
impact analysis should distinguish between refineries in
attainment versus nonattainment areas because the magnitude of
the impact will be different.
Response; The cost analysis calculated costs specific to
each affected refinery, and the data used as input to the
costs analysis distinguished, betwee.n^whether^a refinery was in
an ozone nonattainment area or not. Consequently, the
economic impact analysis reflects the distinction.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-25) suggested that if
contract workers were considered, estimated employment losses
would be 50 percent higher.
Response; It should be noted that the estimate of
employment losses was quite small (slightly more than 100
nationwide), and even if the analysis considered contract
workers, the job losses would not increase much in the
aggregate. In general, control cost estimates tend to
overstate the costs of emissions control. The Agency
questions the basis for a 50 percent increase in the
11-9
-------
employment losses, and hoped that the commenter would provide
more data on how effects on the labor could be better
examined.
Comment: The commenter (IV-D-25) said the assertion that
an increase in petroleum product imports will be accomplished
by a worsening of merchandise trade balance is simplistic arid
not necessarily true.
Response: An increase in petroleum product net imports
will be accompanied by a worsening of the merchandise trade
balance, all other trade factors being equal. It should be
noted that one of the reasons the U.S. merchandise trade
balance 'has been largely-negative for the past several years
has been due to large domestic expenditures on foreign oil, an
increase due to ever-increasing demand for petroleum products.
However, increasing exports of other goods may offset future
increases in petroleum product imports. The statement made
that the "merchandise trade balance is not a simple function
of a change in imports" is correct.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that the EPA's
analysis of the benefits of the proposed MACT rule is
factually and technically flawed. The commenter (IV-D-22)
stated that the EPA used its HEM-I model which is overly
conservative. The commenter (IV-D-22) also asserted that
naphthalene should not have been used in the risk analysis
because it is not classified as a known carcinogen.
Response; The benefits analysis incorporated the best
information available on the species of HAP's known to be in
refinery emission streams, and while the Agency did use the
HEM-I model for its risk assessment, it did not use those
calculations to calculate overly conservative, worst-case
benefits values. Used in the benefit analysis was a
methodology known as "benefits transfer" that takes a range of
monetary benefits per ton VOC emission reduction from a 1989
study (OTA, "Catching our Breath") and transfers it to the
level of VOC reductions from this rule. This methodology is a
standard way of estimating monetary VOC benefits from
11-10
-------
compliance with NESHAP's. Naphthalene will no longer be
classified as a carcinogen in the RIA for promulgation, but
cresols will.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) contended that the
proposed rule grossly underestimates the cost of compliance
with the proposed regulation, perhaps by as much as a factor
of 3. The commenter (IV-D-09) asserted that industry's 5-year
capital cost will approach $600 million as opposed to the
EPA's estimate of $207 million. The commenter (IV-D-09)
extrapolated this estimate based on estimated costs for their
5 refineries and the total capacity of their industry. The
.commenter (IV-D-09) stated that- the EPA has historically
underestimated costs at refineries and cited the BWON as an
example.
Response; The EPA has undertaken its best efforts to
accurately estimate the costs of compliance associated with
the final regulation. In no way did we attempt to provide an
underestimate of the capital costs of the regulation. The
assertion that industry's 5-year capital cost will approach
attempts an extrapolation from a limited number of refineries
that is inappropriate based on the information submitted to
the Agency. The EPA's estimate was based on the best
information available as to what refineries would have to do
to comply, and the $207 million estimate is-based on that
information.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) contended that the
closure of 7 refineries as a result of the rule will effect
competition. The commenter (IV-D-22) added that the loss of
small businesses and the loss of jobs will have a significant
effect on the national economy. Another commenter (IV-D-12)
asserted that the EPA had underestimated the number of small
refinery closures, and also underestimated the regulatory and
economic impact because it underestimated the costs when
compared to industry estimates. Another commenter (IV-D-06)
asserted that the refinery MACT regulation may not result in
refinery closures as this would more likely be due to Title II
11-11 !
-------
requirements. The commenter (IV-D-06)' recommended that the
EPA determine whether any double counting of refinery closures
was included in its analysis.
Response; A range of 0 to 7 refineries that were at risk
of closure was estimated in the economic analysis and further
elaborated on in the regulatory flexibility analysis, an
analysis of the impacts on small businesses from federal
regulations. Due to certain assumptions (e.g., that the firms
with the highest per-unit cost of compliance are the marginal
firms), it is likely that the number of refineries at risk of
closure is closer to 0 than 7. The level of job loss is
expected to be insignificant (less than one-fourth of
1 percent of all refinery jobs), and the regulatory
flexibility analysis shows that the impact on small refineries
and their employees, while higher than for other refineries,
will be low as well.
The estimates of costs are not underestimates of the
costs of compliance. We included as much data from industry
as was deemed possible, particularly cost data.
The comment on possible refinery closures resulting from
compliance with Title II provisions comes from the estimate
provided in the March 1994 EPA report, "Analysis of the Impact
of Environmental Compliance on Plant Operations." It should
.„' be noted that this report, came out before the economic impacts
of this regulation were estimated, and the report did not
account for the refineries affected by this Title III
standard. As far as known, there should be no double counting
of refineries at risk of closure. It should be recognized,
however, that the closure risk estimates given in each case
are in ranges, not point -estimates.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-22) noted that
the EPA's own RIA demonstrated that the total cancer risk of
HAP emissions from refineries is low. Therefore, the
commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-22) contended the rule is
unnecessary, and is an example of one that is in conflict with
the Common Sense Initiative.
11-12
-------
Response; While the total cancer risk is low, there is a
sufficiently high level of risk from exposure to HAP's in some
individual refinery emission streams to conclude that risks to
some exposed to emissions from refineries in ozone
nonattainment areas are reduced significantly as a result of
this standard. Our revised risk assessment has shown that
approximately 4.5 million people exposed to refinery emissions
experience a risk of mortality from'cancer of greater than
1 in 1 million, a level of risk that is the cutpoint between a
source category on the list of HAP's in Title III of the Act.
In addition, the Agency, as it is doing through the Common
Sense Initiative, attempted to enlist industry cooperation at
all points of the rule-making process, and attempted to link
.provisions of the rule to regulations already promulgated,
thus limiting additional paperwork and expenditure.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-12) urged the EPA to
determine the emission reduction benefits of the rule in
non-attainment areas taking into account the HAP reductions
produced by other federal, state, and local rules.
Response: The regulatory baseline took into account HAP
reductions from other rules as much as possible for ozone
nonattainment and attainment areas. For further detail, refer
to the "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Petroleum Refinery
NESHAP" document. This document can be retrieved from the -
docket for the final rule. The docket for the final rule is
available for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays,
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone:
(202) 260-7548.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-42) stated that because the
refinery MACT rule is for controlling HAP emissions, the
justification for any refinery MACT requirements should be
based solely on a cost-benefit analysis of HAP's and not VOC.
However, the commenter (IV-D-42) asserted that the EPA admits
11-13
-------
that it was not possible to identify the speciation of HAP
emission reductions for each type of emission point, so the
EPA reported that the benefits associated with the petroleum
refinery NESHAP were determined to be small. The commenter
(IV-D-42) contended that this was inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act because MACT is a standard from HAP's
not VOC. Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-42) asserted that the
proposed rule is flawed because the stringency of the proposed
refinery MACT rule would not be justified by a cost/benefit
analysis based solely on'the reduction of HAP's. The
commenter (IV-D-42) stated that the EPA should not promulgate
the rule until it has done a cost-benefit analysis based on
HAP's.
Response; While this regulation is meant to control HAP
emissions, the Agency recognizes that control of one type of
pollutant often leads to control of other pollutants at the
same time. The emission streams from refineries are primarily
VOC, with a small fraction of HAP's within. Thus, any
benefits estimated to occur from a rule that controls VOC,
though their control is of secondary importance, should be
included as benefits attributable to the rule unless the
reductions will occur as a result of another rule or program
(certain Title I rules, for example). A benefit-cost
comparison based solely on known HAP's- leads-to'-.negative net.
benefits from the rule, but to exclude the benefits from VOC
reduction would be inappropriate. In addition, there are
benefits to HAP reduction we cannot quantify at present
(e.g., reduction of HAP exposure to concentration levels
before the inhalation reference-dose concentration, and
ecosystem effects).
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) asserted that the EPA's
RIA analysis did not include other Act rulemakings that will
be concurrent with the refinery MACT rule. The commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that the EPA's analysis of impacts of
environmental compliance indicate that in addition to the
11-14
-------
7 refinery closures estimated for the refinery MACT, another
30 would be closed because of other rules.
Response: It should be noted that the risk of closure
estimate given in this economic analysis and the other one are
ranges, with zero being at the bottom of the range. Since the
March 1994 analysis of impacts of environmental compliance dxd
not include the results of the economic analysis for this
rule there should be no double counting. However, the number
of refineries estimated at risk of closure in these analyses
are likely much lower than 37.
comment: Three commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-49)
referred to President Clinton's Executive^Qrder 12866 which
directs federal agencies to choose regulatory approaches where
the benefits outweigh the costs. The commenters (IV-D-27,
IV-D-28) contended that the proposed petroleum refinery NESHAP
does not follow this mandate, and therefore should be re-
evaluated and/or withdrawn completely. [Also see
section 3.2.1 for similar comments about small refineries.]
Five commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-49, IV-F-1)
stated that the costs of the rule ($207 million in capital
costs and $110 million in annual costs) do not outweigh the
benefits (less than one cancer case per year) and contended
that the proposed rule'should be re-evaluated and reproposed
with benefits-that'justify the costs.
Response: The final alternatives for each emission point
are at the MACT floor, which is the minimum level of control.
The only exception is equipment leaks, where a more stringent
alternative (to be more precise, a choice of alternatives)
than the floor was found to be more cost-effective.
Also, the VOC benefits at these alternatives exceeded the
compliance costs by $58.1 million. The .HAP benefits
associated with the regulation are low, but control of VOC
occurs along with HAP control. Consequently, it is proper to
include the benefits of VOC emissions control as part of the
benefits of the rule.
11-15
-------
Comment; Five comirienters (IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-39,
IV-D-49, IV-F-1) were concerned that the EPA has sought to
justify the costs of this regulation based on VOC reductions,
in light of the minimal HAP reductions. One of the coramenters
(IV-D-27) reminded the EPA that the intent of Title III rules
is to minimize the emissions of HAP's. One commenter
(IV-D-27) was under the impression that VOC emissions would be
addressed in the SIP's under Title I of the Act.
Response; The intent of Title III rules is to minimize
emissions of HAP's, but many sources being affected by these
rules have emission streams with high concentrations of VOC.
Thus-, -control of VOC often occurs along with control of HAP's
for the same rules.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-27) encouraged the EPA to
develop a tiered approach in risk assessments, as recommended
by the National Academy of Sciences report "Science and
Judgement in Risk Assessment." The commenter (IV-D-27)
contended that this tiered approach would recognize the
differences between those refineries that pose a risk to
public health versus those that do not.
Response; The Agency is reviewing the National Academy
of Sciences report.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-39) stated that there is
considerable competition in the refining market, that the , r ,-
number.of independent refineries which have historically been
the major oil companies primary competitors, continue a
downward trend. The commenter (IV-D-39) stated that the
t
number of U.S. refineries has declined by over 45 percent
(315 to 172) with small refineries constituting the majority
of those shutdowns and job losses of over 500,000. The
commenter (IV-D-39) stated that many independent and small
refineries occupy geographic market niches which if disrupted,
could result in supply shortages and price spikes in certain
areas of the U.S. • -
Response; While the number of U.S. refineries has
declined considerably over the last fifteen years, the level
11-16
-------
of U.S. refinery output has increased from 14.36 million
barrels per day in 1981 to 16.16 million barrels per day in
1992, an increase of 13 percent. These results are associated
with increases in economies of scale associated with petroleum
refining. While many independent and small refineries occupy
geographic market niches, the results from the economic
analysis show that the Refinery NESHAP should not cause supply
shortages and price spikes in rural locations through most of
the U.S.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-49) contended that the
proposed rule will act as a subsidy for foreign gasoline
imports which is not only unsound public policy, but is in
direct opposition to the Congressional intent of the Act.
Response; Foreign gasoline importers may experience
additional revenues from the imposition of this regulation,
but the increase will be modest, since the projected product
price changes will be under 0.6 percent at the wholesale
level. The rule is not a subsidy for foreign gasoline
imports.
comment: One commenter (IV-F-1) contended that the EPA's
cost-effectiveness estimates and overall cost projections of
the proposed rule are understated since the agency did not
include the input of a single small refinery. The commenter
(IV-F-1) estimated that the compliance costs for-a-small-
refinery would be twice that of a larger facility, on a per
barrel basis. One commenter (IV-D-39) cautioned the EPA that
compliance costs for small refineries as a percentage of sales
are more than twice as high as larger refineries.
Response; The EPA sent ICR's to all facilities in the
industry. The ICR's requested information on HAP emissions,
characteristics of refinery liquids, and control devices at
refinery process units for process vents, storage vessels, and
equipment leaks. No responses were received from refineries
and useable information on all three kinds of emission points
was received from 116 out of 132 refineries. This information
was considered in developing estimates of emissions, emission
11-17
-------
reductions possible from application of controls, and cost of
the rule.
The Agency did include information from small refineries
in the development of the. rule and the analyses associated
with it. As part of EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
compliance costs for small refineries as a percentage of sales
were estimated at more than twice as high as larger
refineries. This was a calculation required under the Federal
Guidelines, for doing Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, and is
consistent with EPA's more recent Guidelines for accomplishing
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses. The economic impacts reflect
this estimate.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50) referred to a report
showing that 91 of 120 petroleum refineries that have shut
down since 1980 were small refineries. The commenter
(IV-D-50) also contended that in the past 14 years, more than
half (56 percent) of all small refineries in the U.S. have
shut down. The commenter (IV-D-50) stated that after the
closures in the early igao's due primarily to the elimination
of government programs, closures have been related to
compliance costs of environmental regulations which have
rendered these facilities uneconomic.
Response; it is uncertain as to whether compliance costs
of environmental regulations are related to increased closures
of small refineries. However, economies of scale for refinery
production have grown, and that may be an alternate
explanation as to why average refinery production capacity has
grown, and the smaller refineries are closing.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the EPA's
economic analysis for the proposed rule fails to consider the
collective costs and impacts of other government requirements
on the petroleum refining industry. The commenter (IV-D-50)
cited a 1993 report contending that the U.S. refining industry
would need to spend $37 billion during this decade to meet
environmental requirements. The commenter (IV-D-50) stated
11-18
-------
that small refineries have limited ability to finance the
requirements contained in the proposed rule.
Response; Results from the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis showed that while there is a possibility that some
small refineries are at risk of closure, most small refineries
will have adequate capital available to finance the purchase
of equipment needed to comply with the requirements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1) reported that the job
loss connected with the 7- refinery closures due to the
proposed rule would be approximately 10,000 jobs. The
commenter (IV-F-1) included details in an appendix to the
comments.
Response: The economic analysis analyzed the direct
impacts of the regulation, arid did not analyze the effects on
nearby communities and other entities. Given that between
0 and 7 refineries are at risk of closure, with the estimate
most likely closer to 0 than 7, the job loss due to indirect
effects should be nowhere close to 10,000. Estimates of job
losses in the analysis are between 0 and 114.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that refineries
with operating capacity ranging between 10,000 and
20,000 barrels-/day experience a high level of competition
among ourselves as well as from other refineries. The
commenter (IV-D-50).cited a report that stated that most of the
markets served by the small refineries tend to be less
populated regions where economic activity within the area can
hardly support large scale refining operations and most of the
products are sold within a 200 mile radius of the refinery.
The commenter (IV-D-50) also stated that most of the small
refineries indicated that about 70 percent of the products
moving within their distribution were marketed by major oil
companies.
Response; What is mentioned here about the markets
served by small refiners is consistent with information
already collected by the Agency. Small refiners tend to serve
niche markets, markets that larger refiners, typically do not
11-19
-------
find profitable to service. There is, however, increasing
competition in regions normally served only by small refiners.
Major refiners are starting to extend pipelines to more rural
areas, and to market their products in areas of the country
that they have traditionally not served.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-27, IV-D-39) stated that
while the EPA estimated in the proposed rule that more than
7 refineries may be forced to close, that number appears too
low. One commenter (IV-D-27) referred to the draft final
report "Analysis of the Impact of Environmental Compliance on
Plant Operations," which has estimated that up to 30 small
refineries (17 percent of U.S. refineries) ,would be closed as
a result of Act requirements. The commenter (IV-D-27)
reminded the EPA that during the Act floor debates it was
stated "MACT is not intended to drive sources to the brink of
shutdown." Commenters stated that the closures of small
refineries will: increase foreign imports of finished
products, permanently damage local economies, as well as
disrupt the chain of local commerce, affecting crude suppliers
and producers, gasoline distributors, independent marketers,
and others.
Two commenters (IV-D-37, IV-D-60) stated that the
proposed rule is likely to force many producers to ship their
oil further ^distances,: thus driving up costs and increasing ,
the risk that some oil will be spilled while in transit,
because the proposed emission controls are based on those in
place on large refineries in nonattainment areas and smaller
refineries are likely to be forced to close.
Three commenters (IV-D-28, IV-D-40, IV-D-50) provided
reasons why smaller refineries will incur higher costs to
reach compliance per unit of output than larger refiners under
the proposed rule: there are diseconomies of scale in
building small facilities; small refineries usually incur
higher capital costs than their larger better financed
competitors; small refineries are predominantly located in
attainment areas where the emission controls are less
11-20
-------
stringent than in non-attainment areas; small refineries tend
to be older and less sophisticated, and therefore have further
to go to reach compliance, and would not be able to recover
the costs of implementing control technology by raising
product prices, since competing refineries in non-attainment
areas would not be as significantly impacted.
Response; The number of refineries at risk of closure
predicted in the economic analysis was from 0 to 7, not 7.
Due to a number of assumptions that likely overstate the level
of impact, this range may be an overestimate. The estimate
provided in the other EPA report was also a range; the number
of refineries at risk .of, .closure was from 0 to 30. Since the
ranges given here are likely overstatements, the effects
mentioned on local economies eind the chain of suppliers should
be minor. While smaller refineries are more likely to be at
risk of closure than others, again the number should be small
enough that effects from possible closures will have an
insignificant impacts on affected products. The reasons given
by commenters as to why smaller refineries incur higher costs
to reach compliance per unit of output are correct; they are
in the economic impact analysis and the associated Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
Comment; One commenter (IV-F-1) stated that
.geographically, small- refineries that produce light ^liquid
products, such as gasoline, are located in attainment areas or
in areas that experience few problems; LDAR programs are
modest or non-existent in such facilities. Small refineries
that are located in ozone nonattainment areas generally
manufacture heavier petroleum products such as lubes or
asphalt, or fuel oil. The commenter (IV-F-1) noted, however,
that LDAR programs focus on leaks from light liquid streams.
The commenter (IV-F-1) stated that the result is an over
regulation of small refineries.
Response; Small refineries typically produce heavy
petroleum products such as lubes, asphalt, or residual fuel as
a greater percentage of their product mix than larger
11-21
-------
refineries. The Agency has looked into the possibility that
many refineries making these products may not be subject to
the applicability criteria in the regulation, and therefore
will not be subject to this rule.
As part of the consideration of issues regarding the
effects of this rule on small refiners, the EPA analyzed the
refinery data bases to see if subcategorization would change
the requirements for small refiners. The EPA explored
subcategorization based on crude charge capacity, by ozone
attainment status, and by refineries containing processes that
are used to produce gasoline (such as catalytic cracking,
coking, and catalytic reforming)J Within each subcategory,
the process vents, storage vessels, and equipment leaks data
bases were sorted from most stringent to least stringent
control.
The MACT floor (average of the top 12 percent of
sources) for each subcategory was identified. The MACT floors
for small refineries are not significantly different from the
industry as a whole. The floor for process vents is the same
for small refiners as for the entire industry. The floor for
storage tanks would increase the materials vapor pressure
cutoff from 10 kPa (1.5 psia) to 11 kPa (1.7 psia), which
would result in a minimal cost savings since there are few
petroleum liquids in this volatility range. -The floor, for .
equipment leaks would reduce the monitoring frequency;
however, small refiners would still incur the cost of setting
up and implementing an LDAR program. This analysis is
documented in the docket for this rule.
Based on the EPA's analysis and the comments received
during the public comment period, a separate subcategory for
small refineries has not been included in the final rule.
This decision was based on there being no clear relationship
between refinery size or design emission potential.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-23, IV-D-24) objected to
the potential for the refinery NESHAP to close seven small
refineries. One commenter (IV-D-24) was concerned that the
11-22
-------
closing of these independent sources of fuel would lessen the
competition in the marketplace and fuel prices will go up.
Response; The results of the economic impact analysis
show that it is likely that reductions in product output will
be small (less than 0.6 percent), and that the number of
refineries at risk of closure is from 0 to 7, with the likely
number of closures between closer to 0 than 7 due to the
assumptions in the economic analysis. Since the estimated
impacts on the refinery industry are small, the chances of
fuel prices (or refinery products prices) increasing are
small,.and there would then be minimal changes in the level of
competition in the marketplace.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that the cost of
complying with refinery NESHAP will be extraordinarily high
for the refinery industry, as reported in the RIA and
specifically for their refinery. In addition, the commenter
(IV-D-23) continued, the refinery NESHAP is only one of many
capital expenditures that increasing regulations demand that
the refinery undertake. Currently, the commenter (IV-D-23)
explained, all of the refinery's available capital is
dedicated to coming into compliance with RCRA rules,
development of reformulated gasoline, low sulfur diesel,
wastewater improvements, and underground storage tank
regulations. The-commenter (IV-D-23) contended that the
current EPA policy has promoted an environment where only the
large mega-refineries can survive and is forcing smaller
refineries out of business.
Response; The EPA, -in compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 and its own Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis Guidelines, attempts to analyze the impacts its rules
have on affected small businesses, not only to determine the
impacts but to find ways of mitigating those impacts if they
are found to be significant,. The Agency has explored
different ways to mitigate the impacts on small businesses
while still promulgating a MACT standard. Those efforts are
underway. The Agency is aware of the rules that refineries
11-23
-------
are having to comply along with this standard, and is
cognizant of considering them as we review this standard prior
to promulgation.
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been completed for
this rule, and its findings were considered in the preparation
of the rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-24) was concerned about the
cost of the rule being passed on to gasoline marketers, chain
retailers, and, ultimately, the American consumer.
Response: The economic impact analysis showed that the
price changes that consumers, whether they be marketers,
retailers, or drivers, will be small. Estimated price changes
to refiners for affected products should be less than
0.6 percent, and consumers will experience a price change less
than that. This is the case because the incidence of impacts
from the compliance costs will be shared by refiners and
consumers.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that there is no
rationale for the proposed regulation: the adjusted cancer-
risk is very low, and the general benefits to human health
resulting from the proposal do not justify the estimated costs
of the program to the refinery industry. The commenter
(IV-D-24) quoted the EPA cost estimates for complying with the
proposed rule of $850 million and $110 million per year for
monitoring, testing, reporting and compliance costs, and the
estimated benefits to improved human health over the next five
years of $49 million, and concluded that the proposal cannot
be justified and must not be finalized.
Response: The capital costs for the proposed rule are
$213 million and the total annual costs are $79 million.
The total annual costs do include a component for capital
recovery, so the capital and annual costs are not additive.
In addition, the estimated benefits from VOC emissions
reductions are $153..4 million annually. Thus, the annvial
benefits, which include benefits from increased agricultural
yields along with those to human health, exceed the annual
11-24
-------
costs. In addition, the monetized benefits are likely to be an
underestimate. Reductions in VOC emissions that lead to
reductions in ozone concentrations may contribute to
reductions in chronic health impacts (e.g., sinusitis, hay
fever), and reduced damage to some materials
(e.g., elastomers). None of these benefits were monetized.
Benefits from compliance in ozone attainment areas were also
not accounted for. The same controls for HAP's also control
VOC, and thus these emission reductions are also credited to
the rule.
11-25
-------
-------
12.0 GENERAL POLICY ISSUES
12.1 COMMON SENSE INITIATIVE
comment; One commenter (IV-D-42) contended that the rule
is in conflict with Executive Order 12866 by not being clearly
understood, and by using excessive reference to other rules.
Five commenters (IV-D-10, IV-D-19,- IV-D-21, IV-D-25,^IV-D-57)
asserted that reading, understanding and complying with the
regulation in the specified compliance periods has been made
more difficult by cross-referencing with provisions in the
SOCMI HON. Three commenters (IV-D-19) (IV-D-21) IV-D-48)
suggested that if a provision of a MACT standard is to be
duplicated, it should be reprinted in the new regulation.
Additionally, one commenter (IV-D-19) pointed out that
amending regulations to which other regulations refer could
prove difficult.
Two commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-25) suggested rewriting the
rule to flow logically without cross-referencing other
sections or other regulations. The"commenters (IV-D-06/
IV-D-25) also suggested use of flow charts to describe
applicability and tables to summarize requirements. The
commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-25) also suggested listing the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements with the sections for
each type of emission point instead of at the end of the
entire rule. One commenter (IV-D-57) recommended providing a
table of RON requirements and those of other incorporated
rules.
Response; The EPA appreciates the commenters1
suggestions for improving the structure of the proposed
regulation. The EPA agrees that efforts should be made to
12-1
-------
ensure that a regulation can be read and understood with
minimal difficulty.
Many changes were made to the final rule to make it
clearer: all recordkeeping and reporting requirements were
included in the rule instead of being referred to in other
rules, a table was provided describing which general provision
requirements pertain, and guidance was given on overlapping
requirements. However, the rule still cross-references other
regulations control requirements. This was done to avoid
inadvertently introducing errors through small changes in
wording and because of the savings in time, paper and printing
costs. The EPA does •-not .consider--the .proposed rule to be in -
conflict with Executive Order 12866.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-57) recommended providing a
table of the HON requirements and those of other incorporated
rules. one commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the format of the
Refinery MACT regulation should be simplified, showing all the
section and sub-section designations on each sub-section, or
by indenting each sub-section further than in the section it
belongs in.
Response: The format for section and subsection
designations is standard for all Federal regulations and
cannot be changed for this rule.
The EPA evaluated, .whether^ the .use of tables or charts
could be used to simplify the regulation and found that the
kind and volume of information that would be required for
provisions not already pr-esented in these formats made it an
impractical option.
Comments received on previous rules (e.g., HON) indicated
a preference for this format and there would be no substantive
difference in the rule by putting recordkeeping and reporting
requirements with each emission point. Therefore, the EPA
maintained recordkeeping and reporting all in one place
instead of with each kind of emission point.
12-2
-------
12.2 PUBLICATION OF REGULATIONS
Comment; Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-19,
IV-D-40, IV-D-38, IV-D-42, IV-D-51) objected to the EPA not
publishing the rule in the federal Register. One commenter
(IV-D-51) stated that without publication of the proposed rule
in the F^r-al Register, it is difficult if not impossible for
the owner or operator of new or modified sources to ensure
exactly its legal and technical changes to the source to
comply with the final rule. The commenter (IV-D-51) also
stated that not printing in the Federal Register undermines
any enforcement action the EPA may wish to take against an
owner or. operator: -The commenter (IV-D-51) contended that
this additional time, given to sources caught in the trap
between the proposal date and the final date of a NESHAP rule,
has been provided explicitly in the Act at section 112(i)(2).
One commenter (IV-D-09) added that not publishing the
rule in the P^^ral Register resulted in confusion and delay
during the comment period. Another commenter (IV-D-42) stated
that those who do not have the computer capability to access
the EPA bulletin board are left out of the comment process.
Two commenters (IV-D-25, IV-D-38) asserted that failure to
publish regulations in the Federal Register impairs the
public's ability to comment on proposals. One commenter
=(IV-D-19) -cited the Administrative Procedures Act and the CAA
as regulations requiring the EPA to publish proposals in the
Register. Another commenter (IV-D-40) stated that the
monetary savings of not including the regulations are minimal
and that they were considering the legality of the EPA's
omission. One commenter (IV-D-10) added that changes and
corrections that may be posted electronically to the bulletin
board at a later data may not provide adequate notice. The
commenter (IV-D-10) stated that electronic dissemination of
information should be done in an organized manner that would
satisfy the public notice requirement of the Administrative
Procedures Act and would serve as an additional method of
dissemination instead of the sole method. The commenter
12-3
-------
(IV-D-10) also stated that software incompatibilities exist
between the EPA and many in the regulated community.
Response; The EPA agrees that publication of the
proposed rule in the Federal Register would have increased
availability of the document and facilitated the comment
process. The EPA elected not to publish the proposed
regulation based on precedents set by previous regulations and
in the interest of conserving resources. The EPA would like
to clarify that the comprehensive summary of the regulation
was provided in the Federal Register. The summary included
all important aspects of the proposed regulation in addition
to relevant information that is not in the regulation^ The
summary provides interested parties sufficient information to
determine whether they require a copy of the entire proposed
regulation. If a copy is required, several options for
obtaining one are available. In addition to the Technology
Transfer Network, the proposed regulation is available in the
Air and Radiation Docket, which is open to the public, and by
either written or telephone request. The EPA contends that
the method used disseminate information regarding the proposed
regulation and the regulation itself was the most efficient
and adequately fulfills the EPA's responsibility to the
public.
12.3 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION . • ,. • .
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-09) objected to not being
allowed to have a full 90 days to comment on the regulation.
One commenter (IV-D-12) requested that the comment period
be extended by 60 days to allow further study of the proposed
regulation so small refineries may provide comments and
supporting data on the EPA requests for information in the
rule, one commenter (IV-D-29) requested an extension. The
commenter (IV-D-29) claimed that additional time was required
to obtain economic impact and health risk data for small
refineries. The commenter (IV-D-29) asserted that small
refineries do not have the manpower or economic data to
respond to the comments. The commenter (IV-D-29) asserted
12-4
-------
that the EPA should be responsible for collecting the data or
not propose the regulation.
Several commenters requested that the 60 day comment
period be extended (IV-G-09) an additional 30 days (IV-D-02,
IV-G-03, IV-G-04, IV-G-05, IV-G-06). Reasons commenters
(IV-G-03, IV-G-04) provided for why an extension was needed
included: (1) significant changes were made to the rule at the
last minute that were not discussed with industry
(specifically, emissions averaging among marine terminals and
other emission points and a requirement that storage tanks
must be in compliance in 3 years), (2) the proposal contained
41 specific requests for "information which is difficult to
obtain in 60 days, (3) legal and technical analyses will need
to be performed by commenters to adequately respond to the EPA
(the regulation has been classified as Tier (1), (4) it took a
while to receive the RIA and the proposed rule from the EPA.
Response; Because of the short amount of time the EPA
had available to review and respond to all comments and then
promulgate the final rule by the court ordered deadline,
additional time was not available to provide for the public
comment period. The EPA did however provide a 60 day comment
period for this rule, which is more than the amount of time
required for Federal Regulations. Furthermore, the EPA has
received and considered comments from interested parties since
the comment period closed. Every effort has been made to
respond to comments submitted during the comment period and
after the comment period was closed.
12.4 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-21) claimed that the total
emissions equation in § 63.642 should be deleted. The
commenter (IV-D-21) submitted that the equation is ambiguous
because some terms are not defined in a way that explains how
to calculate them. The commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the
equation is unnecessary and is not actually used and
calculation is exempted from all situations.
12-5
-------
r
Response; The equation given in § 63.642 of subpart CC
is a representation of the-source regulated by this rule. It
is not necessary to use this equation to calculate values for
complying with the rule. The terms are defined in the final
rule.
12-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-95-015b
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Petroleum Refineries-Background Information for Final .".:.-
Standards,.
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
5. REPORT DATE
July 1995
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental. Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0117
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final --
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) are promulgated
for the petroleum refinery industry under authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
This background information document provides technical information and analyses used
in the development of the final NESHAP and Agency responses to public comments on the
proposed rule.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Hazardous Air Pollutants
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (TIlis Report I
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
365
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page!
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
r
------- |