National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum Refinery Sector, 6064-6087 [2020-01108]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6064
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Board of Directors of Company A, the
Board resolves to sell all the assets of
Company A to Company B. Under the
asset sale agreement with Company B,
Company B will not assume Plan A;
Company A expects to undertake a
standard termination of Plan A.
Company A is required to report a
liquidation event 30 days after the
Board resolved to sell the assets of
Company A.
25. Amend § 4043.31 by revising
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
■
§ 4043.31 Extraordinary dividend or stock
redemption.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) Public company. Notice under this
section is waived if any contributing
sponsor of the plan before the
transaction, or the parent company
within a parent-subsidiary controlled
group of any such contributing sponsor,
is a public company and timely files a
SEC Form 8–K disclosing the event
under an item of the Form 8–K other
than under Item 2.02 (Results of
Operations and Financial Condition) or
in financial statements under Item 9.01
(Financial Statements and Exhibits).
26. Amend § 4043.32 by revising
paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
■
§ 4043.32
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Public company. Notice under this
section is waived if any contributing
sponsor of the plan before the
transaction, or the parent company
within a parent-subsidiary controlled
group of any such contributing sponsor,
is a public company and timely files a
SEC Form 8–K disclosing the event
under an item of the Form 8–K other
than under Item 2.02 (Results of
Operations and Financial Condition) or
in financial statements under Item 9.01
(Financial Statements and Exhibits).
27. Amend § 4043.35 by adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
■
Insolvency or similar settlement.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Liquidation event. Notice under
paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section is
waived if reporting is also required
under § 4043.30 and notice has been
provided timely to PBGC for the same
event under that section.
§ 4043.81
[Amended]
28. Amend § 4043.81 by removing
paragraph (c).
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
29. The authority citation for part
4233 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1413.
Appendix A to Part 4233—[Amended]
30. Amend the two model notices in
appendix A by removing the phone
number ‘‘(202) 326–4000 x6535’’ under
PBGC Contact Information after
‘‘Phone:’’ and adding in its place ‘‘(202)
229–6047’’, and by removing the phone
number ‘‘(202) 326–4488’’ under PBGC
Participant and Plan Sponsor Advocate
Contact Information after ‘‘Phone:’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘(202) 229–4448’’.
■
Issued in Washington, DC.
Gordon Hartogensis,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2020–01628 Filed 2–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682; FRL 10004–55–
OAR]
RIN 2016–AT18
Transfer of benefit liabilities.
*
§ 4043.35
PART 4233—PARTITIONS OF
ELIGIBLE MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum
Refinery Sector
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action sets forth the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) decision on aspects of the
Agency’s proposed reconsideration of
the December 1, 2015, final rule:
Petroleum Refinery Sector Residual Risk
and Technology Review (RTR) and New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
This action also finalizes proposed
amendments to clarify a compliance
issue raised by stakeholders subject to
the rule, to correct referencing errors,
and to correct publication errors
associated with amendments to the final
rule which were published on
November 26, 2018.
DATES: This final action is effective on
February 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
available, (e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet, and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–
1742.
For
questions about this final action, please
contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143–
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–3608; fax number:
(919) 541–0516; email address:
shine.brenda@epa.gov. For information
about the applicability of the national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular
entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 564–7027; fax number:
(202) 564–0050; and email address:
malave.maria@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Acronyms
and abbreviations. A number of
acronyms and abbreviations are used in
this preamble. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes,
the following terms and acronyms are
defined:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCU delayed coking unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning
guideline
FCCU fluid catalytic cracking unit
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
lb/day pounds per day
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
MIR maximum individual risk
MPV miscellaneous process vent
NESHAP national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to
be persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PSM Process Safety Management
PTE potential to emit
RCA/CAA root cause analysis and
corrective action analysis
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
RTR residual risk and technology review
SRU sulfur recovery unit
mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds
°F degrees Fahrenheit
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the
reconsideration action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Final Action
A. Issue 1: Work Practice Standard for
PRDs
B. Issue 2: Work Practice Standard for
Emergency Flaring
C. Issue 3: Assessment of Risk From the
Petroleum Refinery Source Categories
After Implementation of the PRD and
Emergency Flaring Work Practice
Standards
D. Issue 4: Alternative Work Practice
Standards for DCUs Employing the
Water Overflow Design
E. Issue 5: Alternative Sampling Frequency
for Burden Reduction for Fenceline
Monitoring
F. Additional Proposed Clarifying
Amendments
G. Corrections to November 2018 Final
Rule
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy, Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for
the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112, 301, and
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
(42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601, and
7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action are shown in
Table 1 of this preamble.
TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL
ACTION
NESHAP and source
category
NAICS 1 code
Petroleum Refining Industry
1 North
American
Industry
324110
Classification
System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source categories listed.
To determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of these NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final
action regarding the sector rules for the
Petroleum Refinery source category is
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0682.
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this
document will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6065
copy of this final action at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-riskand-technology-review-and-new-source.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical
documents on this same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available
only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by April
6, 2020. Under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this
final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Note, under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce these requirements.
This section also provides a
mechanism for the EPA to reconsider
the rule ‘‘[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after
the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s)
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air
and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
The EPA promulgated NESHAP
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) for petroleum refineries located at
major sources in three separate rules.
These standards are also referred to as
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards. The first
rule, promulgated on August 18, 1995,
and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC (also referred to as Refinery MACT
1), regulates miscellaneous process
vents, storage vessels, wastewater,
equipment leaks, gasoline loading racks,
marine tank vessel loading, and heat
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6066
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
exchange systems. The second rule,
promulgated on April 11, 2002, and
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU
(also referred to as Refinery MACT 2),
regulates process vents on catalytic
cracking units (CCUs, including fluid
catalytic cracking units (FCCUs)),
catalytic reforming units, and sulfur
recovery units (SRUs). The third rule,
promulgated on October 28, 2009,
amended Refinery MACT 1 to include
MACT standards for heat exchange
systems, which were not originally
addressed in Refinery MACT 1. This
same rulemaking included updating
cross-references to the General
Provisions in 40 CFR part 63.
The EPA conducted a residual risk
and technology review (RTR) of
Refinery MACT 1 and 2, publishing
proposed amendments on June 30, 2014
(June 2014 proposal). These proposed
amendments included technical
corrections and clarifications raised in a
2008 industry petition for
reconsideration of NSPS for Petroleum
Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja).
After soliciting, receiving, and
addressing public comments, the EPA
published final amendments on
December 1, 2015. The December 2015
final rule (December 2015 rule)
included a determination pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) that the remaining
risk after promulgation of the revised
NESHAP is acceptable and that the
standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and
prevent an adverse environmental
effect. The December 2015 rule also
finalized changes to Refinery MACT 1
and 2 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3), notably revising the
requirements for flares and pressure
relief devices (PRDs), removing startup,
shutdown, and malfunction exemptions,
and adding requirements for delayed
cokers. Additional amendments were
also promulgated pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) to require a fenceline
monitoring work practice standard as an
advancement in the way fugitive
emissions are managed and mitigated.
The December 2015 rule also finalized
technical corrections and clarifications
to Refinery NSPS subparts J and Ja to
address issues raised by the American
Petroleum Institute (API) in their 2008
petition for reconsideration of the final
NSPS Ja rule that had not been
previously addressed. These included
corrections and clarifications to
provisions for sulfur recovery plants,
performance testing, and control device
operating parameters.
The EPA received three separate
administrative petitions for
reconsideration of the December 2015
rule. Two petitions were jointly filed by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
the API and American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
The first of these petitions was filed on
January 19, 2016, and requested that the
EPA reconsider the maintenance vent
provisions in Refinery MACT 1 for
sources constructed on or before June
30, 2014; the alternate startup,
shutdown, or hot standby standards for
FCCUs constructed on or before June 30,
2014, in Refinery MACT 2; the alternate
startup and shutdown for SRUs
constructed on or before June 30, 2014,
in Refinery MACT 2; and the new CRUs
purging limitations in Refinery MACT 2.
The request pertained to providing and/
or clarifying the compliance time for
these sources. Based on this request and
additional information received, the
EPA issued a proposal on February 9,
2016 (81 FR 6814), and a final rule on
July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45232), fully
responding to the January 19, 2016,
petition for reconsideration.
The second petition from API and
AFPM was filed on February 1, 2016,
and outlined a number of specific issues
related to the work practice standards
for PRDs and flares, and the alternative
water overflow provisions for delayed
coking units (DCUs), as well as a
number of other specific issues on other
aspects of the rule. The third petition
was filed on February 1, 2016, by
Earthjustice on behalf of Air Alliance
Houston, California Communities
Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council,
the Coalition for a Safe Environment,
the Community In-Power &
Development Association, the Del Amo
Action Committee, the Environmental
Integrity Project, the Louisiana Bucket
Brigade, the Sierra Club, the Texas
Environmental Justice Advocacy
Services, and Utah Physicians for a
Healthy Environment. The Earthjustice
petition claimed that several aspects of
the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 were
not proposed, and, thus the public was
precluded from commenting on them
during the public comment period,
including: (1) Work practice standards
for PRDs and flares; (2) alternative water
overflow provisions for DCUs; (3)
reduced monitoring provisions for
fenceline monitoring; and (4)
adjustments to the risk assessment to
account for these new work practice
standards. On June 16, 2016, the EPA
sent letters to petitioners granting
reconsideration on issues where
petitioners claimed they had not been
provided an opportunity to comment.
These petitions and letters granting
reconsideration are available for review
in the rulemaking docket (see Docket ID
Item Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0860, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0891,
and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0892).
On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661),
the EPA proposed for public comment
the issues for which reconsideration
was granted in the June 16, 2016, letters.
The EPA solicited public comment on
five issues in the proposal: (1) The work
practice standards for PRDs; (2) the
work practice standards for emergency
flaring events; (3) the assessment of risk
as modified based on implementation of
these PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standards; (4) the alternative
work practice standards for DCUs
employing the water overflow design;
and (5) the provision allowing refineries
to reduce the frequency of fenceline
monitoring at sampling locations that
consistently record benzene
concentrations below 0.9 micrograms
per cubic meter (mg/m3). In that notice,
the EPA also proposed two minor
clarifying amendments to correct a cross
referencing error and to clarify that
facilities complying with overlapping
equipment leak provisions must still
comply with the PRD work practice
standards in the December 2015 rule.
We received public comments from 17
parties. Copies of all comments
submitted are available at the EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room.
Comments are also available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov/ by searching
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0682.
In section III of this preamble, the
EPA sets forth its final decisions on
each of the five reconsideration items
included in the October 18, 2016 (81 FR
71661), proposed notice of
reconsideration (October 2016 proposed
notice of reconsideration). Additionally,
section III of this preamble summarizes
the history of each of the five
reconsideration items as well as the two
proposed clarifying amendments
included in the proposed notice of
reconsideration, summarizes the public
comments received on the proposed
notice of reconsideration, and presents
the EPA’s responses to these comments.
As described in section III.D of this
preamble, specific to reconsideration
item (4), the alternative work practice
standards for DCUs employing the water
overflow design, the EPA proposed and
finalized amendments to the DCU water
overflow provisions to address
comments on the October 2016
proposed notice of reconsideration. On
April 10, 2018 (April 2018 proposal) (83
FR 15458), the EPA proposed a number
of technical amendments to Refinery
MACT 1 and 2 and the Refinery NSPS,
which included a proposed requirement
to use a vapor disengaging device for
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DCUs using the water overflow
provisions. On November 26, 2018,
(November 2018 rule) (83 FR 60696), the
EPA finalized the technical
amendments from the April 2018
proposal, including requirements for
DCUs using the water overflow
provisions, after considering public
comments received on the April 2018
proposal.
III. Final Action
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
A. Issue 1: Work Practice Standard for
PRDs
1. What is the history of work practice
standards for PRDs?
In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA
proposed to revise Refinery MACT 1 to
establish operating and pressure release
requirements that apply to all PRDs and
to prohibit atmospheric releases of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
PRDs. To ensure compliance, we
proposed to require that sources
monitor PRDs using a system that is
capable of recording the time and
duration of each pressure release and
notifying operators that a pressure
release has occurred. Many commenters
suggested that a prohibition on
atmospheric PRD releases did not reflect
the manner in which the best
performing facilities operate, was
unachievable and/or very costly, and
would have negative environmental
impacts due to additional flares that
would need to be installed and operated
in standby mode to accept the PRD
releases. Some commenters suggested
that we should instead consider as
MACT the rules on PRDs that apply to
refineries in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and
the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD).
The two California district rules are
similar in that they both establish
comprehensive regulatory programs to
address the group or system of PRDs at
refineries by requiring monitoring, root
cause analysis, and corrective action,
and by applying only to those PRD with
the greatest emissions potential through
a combination of applicability
thresholds. Based on these comments,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), we identified the SCAQMD rule as
representing the requirements
applicable to the best performers for
PRDs. Consistent with the requirements
of the SCAQMD rule and considering
additional measures included in the
BAAQMD rule, we established work
practice standards for PRDs in the
December 2015 rule (see 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)) for new and existing
sources. The work practice standard is
a comprehensive set of requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
that apply to PRDs at refineries and
focuses on reducing the size and
frequency of atmospheric releases of
HAP from PRDs, with an emphasis on
prevention, monitoring, correction, and
limitations on the frequency of release
events. For further details on our
analysis of the SCAQMD and BAAQMD
rules and our use of those rules to
establish a work practice standard for
PRDs that is representative of the
requirements that apply at best
performing refineries, refer to the
December 1, 2015, document at 80 FR
75216–18 and the memorandum in the
docket titled ‘‘Pressure Relief Device
Control Option Impacts for Final
Refinery Sector Rule,’’ July 30, 2015
(Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0682–0750).
The work practice standard included
in the December 2015 rule is comprised
of four parts. The first component of the
work practice standard requires that
owners or operators monitor PRDs using
a system that is capable of recording the
time and duration of each pressure
release and notifying operators that a
pressure release has occurred. Second,
the work practice standard requires
refinery owners or operators to establish
preventative measures for each affected
PRD to minimize the likelihood of a
direct release of HAP to the atmosphere
as a result of pressure release events.
Third, in the event of an atmospheric
release, the work practice standard
requires refinery owners or operators to
conduct a root cause analysis to
determine the cause of a PRD release
event. If the root cause was due to
operator error or negligence, then the
release would be a violation of the work
practice standard. A second release due
to the same root cause for the same
equipment in a 3-year period would be
a violation of the work practice
standard. A third release in a 3-year
period would be a violation of the work
practice standard, regardless of the root
cause—although force majeure events,
as defined in the December 2015 rule,
would not count in determining
whether there has been a second or
third event. The fourth component of
the work practice standard is a
requirement for corrective action. For
any event other than a force majeure
event, the owner or operator would be
required to conduct a corrective action
analysis and implement corrective
action. Refiners have 45 days to
complete the root cause analysis and
implement corrective action after the
release event. The results of the root
cause analysis and identification of the
corrective action are required to be
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6067
included in the periodic reports which
are due on a semi-annual basis.
Consistent with the District rules, the
work practice standard does not apply
to the following PRDs that have very
low potential to emit (PTE) based on
their type of service, size, and pressure
(40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)): PRDs that only
release material that is liquid at
standard temperature and pressure and
that is hard-piped to a controlled drain
system, PRDs that do not have a PTE of
72 pounds per day (lbs/day) or more of
volatile organic compounds (VOC),
PRDs with design release pressure of
less than 2.5 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig), PRDs on mobile
equipment, PRDs in heavy liquid
service, and PRDs that are designed
solely to release due to liquid thermal
expansion. These PRDs are subject to
the operating and pressure release
requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) and
(2), which apply to all PRDs, but not the
pressure release management
requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3).
We requested public comment on the
work practice standard for PRDs as
provided in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) and (5)
through (7), including the number and
type of release/event allowances; the
type of PRDs subject to the work
practice standard; and the definition of
‘‘force majeure event’’ in 40 CFR 63.641.
We also requested public comment on
the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the work
practice standard in 40 CFR
63.655(g)(10)(iii) and (i)(11).
The following is a summary of the
comments received in response to our
October 2016 proposed notice of
reconsideration and our responses to
these comments.
2. What comments were received on the
work practice standards for PRDs?
Comment A.1: Some commenters
were generally supportive of the final
work practice standards for PRDs while
other commenters disagreed with
numerous aspects of the final work
practice standards. The commenters
who did not support the work practice
standards claimed that they are
unlawful because they do not provide
for standards that are continuous and
that apply at all times, pursuant to
section 112 of the CAA as construed by
the Court in the 2008 vacatur of the
malfunction exemptions in the MACT
General Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019, 1027–28 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
(‘‘Congress has required that there must
be continuous section 112-compliant
standards.’’). The commenter also noted
that Congress in H.R. Rep. No. 95–294,
at 92 (1977), reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1170 also provided
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6068
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
that the term ‘‘continuous’’ emission
standard requirement does not allow
merely ‘‘temporary, periodic, or limited
systems of control.’’ The commenters
believe that because the work practice
standards do not limit emissions to an
amount certain during a PRD release
event, there is effectively no emission
limitation that applies during these
times. Additionally, commenters do not
believe that the work practice standards
are justified under CAA section 112(h)
because they believe the EPA erred in
determining that the application of
measurement methodology was not
feasible in the case of PRDs and cited
available wireless technology or
monitoring of PRD releases.
Response A.1: We disagree that the
standards do not apply at all times. The
work practice standards for PRDs
require a number of preventative
measures that operators must undertake
to prevent PRD release events, and the
installation and operation of continuous
monitoring device(s) to identify when a
PRD release has occurred. These
measures must be complied with at all
times. The monitoring technology
suggested by the commenters is in fact
best suited to this application and is one
of the acceptable methods that facility
owners or operators may use to comply
with the continuous monitoring
requirement. Although that technology
is adequate for identifying PRD releases,
we disagree that it is adequate for
accurately measuring emissions for
purposes of determining compliance
with a numeric emission standard. The
technology cited is a wireless monitor
that provides an indication that the PRD
released, but it does not provide
information on release quantity or
composition. PRD release events are
characterized by short, high pressure
non-steady state conditions which make
such releases difficult to quantitatively
measure. As detailed in the preamble to
the December 2015 rule (80 FR 75218),
we specifically considered the issues
related to constructing a conveyance
and quantitatively measuring PRD
releases and concluded that these
measures were not practicable. Refinery
operators can estimate emissions based
on vessel operating conditions
(temperature and pressure) and vessel
contents when a release occurs, but
these estimates do not constitute a
measurement of emissions or emission
rate within the meaning of CAA section
112(h). As such, we maintain our
position that the application of a work
practice standard is appropriate for
PRDs.
Comment A.2: Commenters indicated
that another reason they believe that the
PRD work practice standard is illegal is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
that PRDs are not independent emission
points and instead function in venting
emissions from other emission points
during a malfunction. For example,
commenters pointed out that some
equipment that vents to the atmosphere
and, therefore, must meet the
miscellaneous process vent standard,
may also contain PRDs that vent HAP
emissions to the atmosphere, bypassing
the requirements established for
miscellaneous process vents. The
commenters believe that the EPA has
simply created an exemption allowing
equipment connected to PRDs to violate
their emission standards without
triggering a violation or potential
enforcement and penalty liability.
Finally, the commenters indicated that
the EPA should retain the work practice
standards for PRD on top of the existing
emission standards for connected
equipment to assure compliance and
attempt to prevent fugitive emissions.
Response A.2: The commenters
incorrectly suggest that the PRD work
practice standard replaces the existing
emission standards for ‘‘connected
equipment.’’ The amendments to the
NESHAP addressing PRDs do not affect
requirements in the NESHAP that apply
to equipment associated with the PRD.
For example, compliance with the PRD
requirements apply in addition to
requirements for miscellaneous process
vents for the same equipment, which
addresses the commenter’s suggestion.
We disagree that PRDs are simply
bypasses for emissions that are subject
to emission limits and controls and that
they, thus, allow for uncontrolled
emissions without violation or penalty.
The PRDs are generally safety devices
that are used to prevent equipment
failures that could pose a danger to the
facility and facility workers. The PRD
releases are triggered by equipment or
process malfunction. As such, they do
not occur frequently or routinely and do
not have the same emissions or release
characteristics that routine emission
sources have, even if the PRD and the
vent are on the same equipment. This is
because conditions during a PRD release
(temperature, pressure, and vessel
contents) differ from those that occur
that result in routine emissions as
miscellaneous process vents. In
contrast, emissions from miscellaneous
process vents are predictable and must
be characterized for emission potential
and applicable control requirements
prior to operation in the facility’s
notification of compliance status report.
In addition, PRDs must operate in a
closed position and, as discussed
earlier, must be continuously monitored
to identify when releases have occurred.
If an affected pressure relief device
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
releases to the atmosphere, the owner
and operator is required to perform root
cause analysis and corrective action
analysis (RCA/CAA) as well as
implement corrective actions and
comply with the specified reporting
requirements. The work practice
standard also includes criteria for
releases from affected PRD which would
result in a violation at 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(v).
Comment A.3: Commenters indicated
that, even if the work practice standards
for PRDs are justified, the work practice
standards do not comply with the CAA
requirements to assure both the average
limitation achieved by the relevant bestperforming sources and the maximum
degree of emission reduction that is
achievable. The commenters asserted
that there is no discussion in the record
or analysis that allowing 1–2
uncontrolled releases every 3 years
reflects, at minimum, the average of the
best performers’ reductions and
indicated that the EPA cannot simply
replicate rules in place that specify PRD
requirements. The commenters
indicated that the EPA should have
reviewed data, such as the 2007
SCAQMD Staff Report (Docket ID Item
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869–0024)
which shows releases from Los Angeles
area refineries ranged from 0.4–0.89
tons of VOC per year, to establish that
no source has done better or cannot do
better than those rules allow. The
commenters also asserted that the EPA’s
promulgated work practice standards for
PRDs are not as stringent as the
SCAQMD and BAAQMD requirements
that they are modelled after.
Response A.3: Section 112 of the CAA
requires MACT for existing sources to
be no less stringent than ‘‘the average
emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing
sources (for which the Administrator
has emissions information). . .’’ [(CAA
section 112(d)(3)(A)]. ‘‘Emission
limitation’’ is defined in the CAA as
‘‘. . . a requirement established by the
State or Administrator which limits the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a
continuous basis, including any
requirement relating to operation or
maintenance of a source to assure
continuous emission reduction, and any
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard promulgated under
this chapter’’ [CAA section 302(k)]. The
EPA specifically considers existing rules
from state and local authorities in
identifying the ‘‘emission limitations’’
for a given source. We then identify the
best performers to identify the MACT
floor (the no less stringent than level)
for that source. The EPA identified the
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
SCAQMD rule requirements as the
MACT floor because it represented the
requirements applicable to the best
performing sources. The commenters
appear to suggest that the EPA should
identify an emissions level achieved in
practice through implementation of the
work practices in the two California
rules and that the EPA is obligated to
require sources to meet that emissions
level. However, this is contrary to the
predicate for the EPA establishing work
practice standards. Work practice
standards are established in place of a
numeric limit where it is not feasible to
establish such limits. Thus, in a case
such as this, where the EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to
establish work practice standards
(because it is infeasible to establish
numeric limits), it was reasonable for
the EPA to identify the work practice
standards that impose the most stringent
requirements and, thus, represent what
applies to the best performers and then
to require those work practice standards
as MACT.
We recognize that the final standards
for PRDs do not exactly mirror the
SCAQMD provisions, but this is
because, having established the MACT
floor, we consider options for going
beyond the MACT floor. As noted in the
memorandum in the docket titled
‘‘Pressure Relief Device Control Option
Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule,’’
July 30, 2015 (Docket ID Item No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0750), we looked
at the BAAQMD standard as a more
stringent work practice standard, and
while we did not directly adopt the
BAAQMD rule requirements, we did
adopt several aspects of that rule.
Specifically, we adopted the three
prevention measures requirements in
the BAAQMD with limited
modifications. We also did not include
a provision similar to that in the
SCAQMD rule that excludes releases
less than 500 lbs/day from the
requirement to perform a root cause
analysis; that provision in the SCAQMD
rule does not include any other
obligation to reduce the number of these
events. Rather than allowing unlimited
releases less than 500 lbs/day, we
require a root cause analysis for releases
of any size. We considered these to be
reasonable and cost-effective
enhancements to the SCAQMD rule.
However, because we count small
releases that the SCAQMD rule does not
regulate at all, we considered it
reasonable to provide a higher number
of releases prior to considering the
owner or operator to be in violation of
the work practice standard. After
considering the PRD release event limits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
in both the SCAQMD and BAAQMD
rules, we determined it was reasonable
and appropriate to establish PRD
requirements consistent with those
provisions in the SCAQMD and
BAAQMD rules that provide flare work
practice standards. Therefore, the final
requirements provide that three events
from the same PRD in a 3-calendar-year
period is a violation of the work practice
standard. We also note that a facility
cannot simply choose to release
pollutants from a PRD; any release that
is caused willfully or caused by
negligence or operator error is
considered a violation. Additionally, a
second PRD release event in a 3calendar-year period for the same root
cause is a violation.
With the implementation of the three
prevention measures and the
elimination of the 500 lbs/day
applicability threshold, we specifically
evaluated and adopted requirements
beyond the MACT floor (i.e., more
stringent than the SCAQMD rule) and
established requirements that we
deemed to be cost effective and that we
determined would achieve emission
reductions equivalent to or better than
the SCAQMD requirements.
The EPA further notes that the
reported emissions the commenters
claim the EPA should rely on are not
actually measured emissions but rather
engineering calculations of release
quantities. As such, even if it were
possible to establish a numeric
emissions limit, there would be
concerns about relying on the
information cited by the commenters.
Finally, we note that the commenter’s
summary of PRD release data from the
2007 SCAQMD Staff Report (Docket ID
Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0869–
0024) suggests that the SCAQMD PRD
requirements appear to be effective at
reducing PRD emissions compared to
states that do not have similar work
practice standards.
In summary, the work practice
standard we finalized provides a
comprehensive program to manage
entire populations of PRDs and includes
prevention measures, continuous
monitoring, root cause analysis, and
corrective actions, and addresses the
potential for violations for multiple
releases over a 3-year period. We
followed the requirements of section
112 of the CAA, including CAA section
112(h), in establishing what work
practice constituted the MACT floor; we
then identified certain additional
provisions which were more stringent
than the MACT floor requirements that
we determined were cost effective, and
we finalized the work practice
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6069
standards, as enhanced by those
additional provisions, as MACT.
Comment A.4: Commenters claimed
that the EPA’s malfunction exemptions
are arbitrary and capricious under the
CAA because the EPA did not finalize
the prohibition on atmospheric releases
from PRDs, as included in the June 2014
proposal. The commenters noted that
the EPA finalized similar provisions
prohibiting PRD releases in MACT
standards for Group IV Polymers and
Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient
Manufacturing, and Polyether Polyols
Production. The commenters further
stated that the Court recently upheld
this type of prohibition [Mexichem
Specialty Resins, Inc. v EPA, 787 F.3d
544, 560–61 (D.C. Cir. 2015)] and urged
the EPA to finalize the standards for
PRD as proposed. The commenters also
suggested that the EPA’s justification for
not finalizing a prohibition on
atmospheric PRDs was based on
environmental disbenefits of having
additional flare capacity on standby to
control these unpredictable and
infrequent events. According to the
commenters, flares can be operated with
spark ignition systems that would only
operate when triggered by a flare event,
and, therefore, the commenters
suggested that the EPA overestimated
the environmental disbenefits.
Response A.4: During the comment
period on the June 2014 proposal,
comments both from industry and
environmental advocacy groups
suggested we consider requiring the
work practice standards established in
regulations adopted by the BAAQMD
and SCAQMD rules for PRD releases. In
light of those comments and the
statutory requirement that the EPA
evaluate the best performing facilities in
determining the appropriate MACT
standard, the Agency considered
whether the work practice standards
established in the SCAQMD and
BAAQMD rules represented what was
achieved by the best performers. The
BAAQMD and SCAQMD rules are the
only rules we are aware of that have
been established to address the
infrequent and unpredictable nature of
PRD releases for petroleum refineries.
As noted in the previous response, the
EPA established a MACT standard
based on the SCAQMD rule and
incorporated several of the key elements
of the BAAQMD standard into the PRD
requirements promulgated for new and
existing sources in the December 2015
rule.
After determining a standard based on
the best performing sources, we
examined whether to establish a more
stringent standard (requiring all PRD
releases to be routed to a control
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6070
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
device). We rejected such an approach
based on the economic impacts. We
estimated that requiring control of all
atmospheric PRDs would cost
approximately 41 million dollars per
year (annually) compared to the
estimated economic impact of the work
practice standards of 3.3 million dollars
per year. (Cost is not a consideration in
setting the MACT floor, but it is relevant
to our determination whether to
establish additional requirements more
stringent than that floor.) We also
estimated that secondary emissions for
additional flaring in the event all PRDs
were routed to a control device would
increase greenhouse gas emissions by
104,000 megagrams of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year and increase
nitrogen oxide emissions by 85 tons per
year (see memorandum in the docket
titled ‘‘Pressure Relief Device Control
Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector
Rule,’’ July 30, 2015, Docket ID Item No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0750).
Regarding the comment that flares
could be equipped with spark ignition
systems, we note that such systems are
not compliant with the long-standing
requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11
or the new requirements in 40 CFR
63.670 that flares be operated with a
pilot present at all times. The EPA has
previously rejected the use of spark
ignition systems because these systems
may not reliably ignite on demand
which would result in an atmospheric
release of the pollutants routed to the
flare.
Comment A.5: Commenters stated
that the EPA’s malfunction exemption
for force majeure events in the PRD
work practice standard is arbitrary and
capricious under CAA section 112
because it creates periods of time when
no emissions standard applies. Further,
commenters added that force majeure is
a term defined by contracts law to
provide a defense to avoid meeting a
party’s responsibility under a contract
and applies only where a party has
specifically negotiated and agreed to its
use. As such, commenters claimed that
the concept of force majeure does not
exist or belong in the context of
compliance with a non-contractual
federal law, such as the CAA. Refineries
should not be able to decide when to
comply with the CAA requirements.
Commenters stated that it is unlawful
and arbitrary to promulgate a definition
of force majeure that does not codify
criteria for determining whether a force
majeure event or a violation has
occurred (i.e., the determination is left
to the Administrator). The commenters
added that the EPA does not have the
authority to decide when such an event
has occurred, rather the Court must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
decide whether a violation warranting a
penalty has occurred with the burden of
proof resting on the refinery.
Response A.5: The PRD work practice
standard requires redundant prevention
measures, which are designed to limit
the duration and quantity of releases
from all atmospheric PRDs regardless of
the cause. These requirements apply at
all times; thus, the final work practice
standards do have requirements that
apply to PRDs at all times and they are
not contrary to the CAA requirements in
CAA section 112. We also note that
facilities are also required to initiate a
root cause analysis to assess the cause
of the release, including releases
determined to be caused by a force
majeure event.
We disagree that because force
majeure is a term typically used in
contract law that it cannot or should not
be used in the context of regulations
establishing standards under the CAA.
We have determined that a force
majeure provision is part of the MACT
floor for regulating PRDs at refineries
and, as such, should be included as part
of the MACT standard. The definition of
force majeure event in the December
2015 final rule is based specifically on
a clause included in the SCAQMD rule,
which served as the basis for the MACT
standard. Rather than repeating this
clause at each instance, we determined
that is was preferential to use and define
the term force majeure event. We find
that the December 2015 final rule’s
definition of force majeure event has
adequate specificity to allow
determination of whether a PRD release
event was caused by a force majeure
event. The definition specifies events
that are beyond the control of the
operator, including natural disasters,
acts of war or terrorism, external power
curtailments (excluding curtailments
due to interruptible service agreements),
and fire or explosions originating at near
or adjoining facilities outside of the
refinery owner or operator’s control that
impact the refinery’s ability to operate.
The commenters suggest that criteria are
needed for determining whether a force
majeure event has occurred. We
disagree; the examples provided in the
definition provide sufficient specificity
to help guide a decisionmaker in
deciding whether to pursue an
enforcement action because they believe
a violation has occurred that was not
caused by a force majeure event and for
a court or other arbiter to rule on any
claim. Regarding the comment that the
Court, not the Administrator, should
determine when a force majeure event
has occurred, we note that the
regulations do not specify that the
Administrator would make a binding
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determination of whether a force
majeure event has occurred, and the
issue could be argued and resolved by
the Court in the context of a citizen suit.
Comment A.6: One commenter
supported the work practices for PRD
and emergency flaring with the
exception of the additional backstop
measures in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(iv) and
(v) and 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7)(iv),
respectively. The commenter explained
that these backstops arbitrarily limit the
number of release events for PRD and
emergency flaring events and are not
needed to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the work practice
standards.
Response A.6: For PRDs, these are the
applicable standards that were
determined to be MACT and are
modeled after the backstop within the
SCAQMD rule. With respect to the flare
work practice requirements, our goal is
to ensure continuous compliance with
the emission limits applicable to the gas
streams that are discharged to the flare.
We determined that optimal HAP
destruction occurs under specific
conditions, which include limited
periods of visible emissions. Therefore,
we established these requirements in
parallel with the PRD requirements to
help limit the size and duration of these
emergency flaring events and optimize
flare performance. We consider these
backstop measures for PRD and
emergency flaring to be critical to
ensure that the prevention measures
implemented are effective, that the rootcause analyses conducted are thorough,
and that the corrective action measures
implemented are effective.
Comment A.7: Commenters stated the
final rule provided criteria for releases
that will be considered a violation of the
pressure release management work
practices in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(v)(B) and
(C) based on a ‘‘3 calendar year period,’’
but the Agency did not explain how this
time period runs nor how it will be
assessed or reported to the EPA and to
the public. The commenter noted that
the EPA stated in the preamble (80 FR
75212) relative to the flare work practice
provisions, the violation criteria is
based on a ‘‘rolling 3-year period,’’ but
a rolling 3-year period is not in the
regulatory text for either the flare or
PRD work practice.
Response A.7: The regulatory text at
40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(B) and (C) clearly
states that the time period is based on
a 3-calendar-year period. We consider
2020 to be one calendar year. A 3calendar-year period in 2020 would
include events that occurred in 2018,
2019, and 2020. It is a rolling average to
the extent that, in 2021, one would
consider events that occurred in 2019,
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
2020, and 2021. As indicated in 40 CFR
63.655(g)(10)(iii), each pressure release
to the atmosphere, including the
duration of the release, the estimated
quantity of each organic HAP released,
and the results of the RCA/CAA
completed during the reporting period
must be included as part of the
reporting obligation.
Comment A.8: Commenters stated
that the EPA should add to the reporting
requirements for the PRD and flare work
practice standards by requiring an
initial report to the EPA, state, and local
regulators within 1 hour of the start of
a release event or within 1 hour of the
operator reasonably knowing of its
occurrence. They maintained that the
initial report should include the process
unit the flare or PRD is associated with
and initial identification of the cause of
the event. The initial report should be
followed by a report containing the
contents of 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10) and
(11) within 30 days after the event and
additionally include whether the PRD or
flare has had an emissions release or
smoking event in the past 3 years,
including references or copies of
previously submitted reports.
Commenters added that this would be
consistent with the Agency’s attempt to
match the SCAQMD requirements for
PRDs. Finally, commenters suggested
that the EPA should require all
malfunction reports be made publicly
available online at the same time they
are submitted to the EPA.
Response A.8: The SCAQMD rule has
notification and reporting requirements
for atmospheric PRD releases in excess
of the reportable quantity limits in 40
CFR part 117, part 302, and part 355,
including releases in excess of 100
pounds of VOC (Rule 1173(i)(3)). The
notification must occur within 1 hour of
the release or within 1 hour of the time
a person should have reasonably known
of its occurrence. A written report must
be submitted within 30 days of the
atmospheric release. These
requirements closely mirror those under
other EPA programs, such as the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act 313 (SARA 313).
We note that refinery owners or
operators are already required to report
emissions events through various state
and federal requirements, including
immediate notifications of releases
exceeding reportable quantities under
SARA 313, and while we acknowledge
that these reports would be submitted to
a different branch within the EPA, we
believe any additional reporting
requirements would be redundant,
unnecessary, and inefficient. Therefore,
we are not revising the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
December 2015 rule as requested by the
commenter.
Comment A.9: Commenters stated
that the exemptions for specific types of
pressure relief devices are unlawful and
arbitrary. Commenters contended that
the only justification the EPA has made
for providing these PRD exemptions is
that the emissions are expected to be
small. Commenters asserted that there is
no de minimis threshold for regulating
emission points within a source
category and, thus, the EPA’s attempt to
exempt certain types of PRDs is illegal.
Response A.9: We modeled the
applicability of the PRD provisions after
the SCAQMD rule, based on a MACT
floor analysis and considering the
appropriate requirements for these types
of PRDs. It is likely that the SCAQMD
rule did not apply the PRD-specific
requirements to certain PRDs due to
their low emissions release potential. As
part of our ‘‘beyond the floor’’ analysis,
we determined that it was not cost
effective to include control of these
PRDs as part of the work practice
standard for PRDs. However, these PRDs
are regulated under other provisions of
the MACT. We note that, if the PRD is
in gas or vapor service, refinery owners
and operators are still required to
monitor the PRD after the release to
verify the device is operating with an
instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million. Liquid PRDs are still
subject to repair if a leak is found during
visual inspection.
3. What is the EPA’s final decision on
the work practice standards for PRDs?
The PRD work practice standards
were developed in accordance with the
CAA, establishing a MACT floor based
on consideration of the SCAQMD and
BAAQMD work practice standards. The
sources complying with these
requirements are the best performing
sources. It was necessary to establish
these requirements as work practice
standards under CAA section 112(h)
because quantitative measurement of
flow rates during PRD release events is
not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations with measuring
highly transient flows. The inclusion of
force majeure event allowances and
restrictions of the applicability of the
pressure release management
requirements to specified types of PRDs
are consistent with the MACT floor and
are necessary components of the work
practice standards. We consider a
complete prohibition of atmospheric
PRD to be ‘‘beyond the MACT floor’’
and we are declining to set a ‘‘beyond
the floor’’ requirement on the basis of
cost and environmental disbenefits. We
have not been presented with any
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6071
comments and/or information received
in response to the October 2016
proposed notice of reconsideration
relative to the PRD work practice
standards which will result in any
changes to the December 2015 rule.
B. Issue 2: Work Practice Standard for
Emergency Flaring
1. What is the history of work practice
standards for emergency flaring?
In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA
proposed to amend the operating and
monitoring requirements for petroleum
refinery flares. As discussed in the
proposal at 79 FR 36904, we determined
that the requirements for flares in the
General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.18 were
not adequate to ensure compliance with
the Refinery MACT standards. In
general, at the time the MACT standards
were promulgated, flares used as air
pollution control devices were expected
to achieve a 98-percent HAP destruction
efficiency. However, because flows of
waste gases to the flares had diminished
based on reductions achieved by the
increased use of flare gas recovery
systems, there have been times when
the waste gas to the flare contained
insufficient heat content to adequately
combust and, thus, a 98-percent HAP
destruction efficiency was not being
achieved. In addition, the practice of
applying assist media to the flare
(particularly steam to prevent smoking
of the flare tip) had led to a decrease in
the combustion efficiency of flares.
To ensure that a 98-percent HAP
destruction efficiency was being met, as
contemplated at the time the MACT
standard was promulgated, we proposed
revisions to Refinery MACT 1 that
required flares to operate with a
continuously-lit pilot flame at all times
when gases are sent to the flare, with no
visible emissions except for periods not
to exceed 5 minutes during any 2
consecutive hours, and to meet flare tip
velocity limits and combustion zone
operating limits at all times when gases
are flared.
During the comment period on the
June 2014 proposal, we received
comments that the EPA’s concern over
insufficient heat content of the waste
gas or over-assisting flares is less
problematic in attaining a high level of
destruction efficiency at the flare in
emergency situations, where the flow in
the flare exceeds the smokeless capacity
of the flare. The commenters suggested
that better combustion was assured
closer to the incipient smoke point of
the flare and that flow velocity limits
and limits on visible emissions should
not apply during emergency flaring
events.
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6072
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
In the December 2015 rule, we
determined that it was appropriate to set
different standards for when a flare is
operating below its smokeless capacity
and when it is operating above its
smokeless capacity. We finalized the
proposed requirements (with minor
revisions) to apply when a flare is
operating below its smokeless capacity.
In the December 2015 rule, we
established a work practice standard
that applies to each affected flare with
a potential to exceed its smokeless
capacity. The work practice standard
requires owners or operators to develop
flare management plans to identify the
flare system smokeless capacity and
flare components, waste gas streams that
are flared, monitoring systems and their
locations, procedures that will be
followed to limit discharges to the flare
that cause the flare to exceed its
smokeless capacity, and prevention
measures implemented for PRDs that
discharge to the flare header. The work
practice standard requires a
continuously-lit pilot flame,
combustion-zone operating limits, and
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements apply at all
times—whether the flare is operating
below, at, or above its smokeless
capacity, including during a force
majeure event. These requirements are
the most critical in ensuring that a 98percent destruction efficiency is being
met during emergency release events.
In addition, where a flare exceeds its
smokeless capacity, a work practice
standard requires refinery owners or
operators to conduct a root cause
analysis and take corrective action for
any flaring event that exceeds the flare’s
smokeless capacity and that also
exceeds the flare tip velocity and/or
visible emissions limit. Refiners have 45
days to complete the root cause analysis
and implement corrective action after an
event. The results of the root cause
analysis and corrective action are due
with the periodic reports on a semiannual basis. If the root cause analysis
indicates that the exceedance of the
flare tip velocity and/or the visible
emissions limit is caused by operator
error or poor maintenance, the
exceedance is a violation of the work
practice standard. A second event
causing an exceedance of either the flare
tip velocity or the visible emissions
limit within a rolling 3-year period from
the same root cause on the same
equipment is a violation of the standard.
A third exceedance of the velocity or
visible emissions limit occurring from
the same flare in a rolling 3-year period
is a violation of the work practice
standard, regardless of the root cause.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
However, force majeure events are
excluded from the event count.
We requested public comment on the
above smokeless capacity work practice
standard in 40 CFR 63.670(o), including
the requirements to maintain records of
prevention measures in 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) and (iv); the
requirement to establish a single
smokeless design capacity in 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(iii)(B); the number and type
of releases/events that constitute a
violation; the phrase ‘‘. . . and the flare
vent gas flow rate is less than the
smokeless design capacity of the flare’’
in 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (d); the
proposed correction to paragraph 40
CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B); and other
provisions in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(3)
through (7). We also requested public
comment on the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with
these work practice standards in 40 CFR
63.655(g)(11)(iv) and (i)(9)(x) through
(xii).
In reviewing the regulatory text for
this proposed action, we also
determined that 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) contains an incorrect
reference to pressure relief devices for
which preventative measures must be
implemented. The correct reference is
paragraph 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(ii), not 40
CFR 63.648(j)(5). We proposed to correct
this referencing error.
2. What comments were received on the
work practice standards for emergency
flaring?
Comment B.1: Some commenters
were generally supportive of the final
work practice standards for emergency
flares, while other commenters
disagreed with numerous aspects of the
final work practice standards. The
commenters who disagree indicated that
establishing these work practice
standards for emergency flaring is
unlawful because they do not provide
for standards that are continuous and
that apply at all times, as directed by
section 112 of the CAA and as upheld
by the Court in the 2008 vacatur of the
malfunction exemptions in the MACT
General Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019, 1027–28 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(‘‘Congress has required that there must
be continuous section 112-compliant
standards.’’); see also H.R. Rep. No. 95–
294, at 92 (1977), reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1170 (‘‘continuous’’
emission standard requirement does not
allow merely ‘‘temporary, periodic, or
limited systems of control’’). The
commenters state that because the work
practice standards do not limit
emissions to any certain amount during
an emergency flaring event, there is
effectively no emission limitation that
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
applies during these times.
Additionally, the commenters do not
believe that the work practice standards
are justified under CAA section 112(h)
for emergency flaring because
measurement technology is available to
measure what is sent to the flare.
Response B.1: We disagree that the
standards do not apply at all times. The
work practice combustion efficiency
standards (specifically limits on the net
heating value in combustion zone)
apply at all times, including during
periods of emergency flaring. With
respect to setting work practice
standards under CAA section 112(h), we
note that the combustion efficiency
standards were established as work
practice standards. In the case of flaring,
emissions are not conveyed through a
stack and are difficult to measure. The
EPA’s practice has been to establish
work practice standards for regulating
flares (see, e.g., General Provisions in 40
CFR parts 60 and 63, the combustion
efficiency requirements in this rule, and
flaring work practice standards in the
Petroleum Refinery NSPS, subpart Ja).
These work practice standards do take
advantage of upstream measurement
systems, but we do not agree that
upstream measurement systems are the
same as measuring emissions from the
flare following combustion nor are they,
standing alone, a sufficient emissions
limitation or standard.
Comment B.2: Commenters stated
that, even if the work practice standards
for flares operating above the smokeless
capacity are justified, the work practice
standards do not comply with the CAA
requirements that the emissions
limitation is as stringent as the average
emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing sources, and the
maximum degree of emission reduction
that is achievable. Commenters
explained that the EPA provided an
allowance for up to two smoking flare
events per flare in a 3-year period based
on API-supplied information reporting
that the average refinery flare
experiences an event every 4.4 years
and an assumption that the best
performing flares have one smoking
event every 6 years. The commenters
contended that these figures are based
on unverified data submitted in an API/
AFPM survey and its use is arbitrary
and capricious. The commenters
maintained that instead of using the
API/AFPM survey data, the EPA should
have reviewed data including emissions
data from their own studies as well as
emissions data available from Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), SCAQMD, or BAAQMD when
developing these standards. The
commenters suggested that the EPA
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
establish standards based on the
duration and amount of gas routed to a
flare during a malfunction event that
causes the flare to operate above its
smokeless capacity, in addition to the
cap on the number of exceptions.
Response B.2: First, one must
recognize that the flare is not a specific
emission source within Refinery MACT
1 standards and, thus, we did not seek
to establish a MACT floor for flares at
the time that we promulgated Refinery
MACT 1. Rather, we identified flares as
an acceptable means for meeting
otherwise applicable requirements and
we established flare operational
standards that we believed would
achieve a 98-percent destruction
efficiency on a continual basis.
Recognizing that flares were not
achieving the 98-percent reduction
efficiency in practice, we proposed
additional requirements in the June
2014 proposal to ensure that flares
operate as intended at the time we
promulgated Refinery MACT 1.
Regarding the operational standards
for flares operating above the smokeless
capacity, we note that these flare
emissions are emissions due to a sudden
increase in waste gas entering the flare,
typically resulting from a malfunction
or an emergency shutdown at one or
more pieces of equipment that vents
emissions to the flare. The commenter’s
suggestion that the EPA should establish
standards on the duration and amount
of gas discharged to a flare during
malfunction events misses the mark.
Flares are associated with a wide variety
of process equipment and the emissions
routed to a flare during a malfunction
can vary widely based on the cause of
the malfunction and the type of
associated equipment. Thus, it is not
feasible to establish a one-size-fits-all
standard on the amount of gas allowed
to be routed to flares during a
malfunction. Moreover, we note that
routing emissions to the flare will result
in less pollution than the other
alternative, which would be to emit
directly to the atmosphere. We note that
we do not set similar limits for thermal
oxidizers, baghouses, or other control
devices that we desire to remain
operational during malfunction events
to limit pollutant emissions to the
extent practicable. However, we did
establish work practice standards that
we believe will be effective in reducing
the size and duration of flaring events
that exceed the smokeless capacity of
the flare to improve overall flare
performance. We are establishing these
work practice standards for flares in
order to ensure 98-percent destruction
of HAP discharged to the flare (as
contemplated at the time Refinery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
MACT 1 was promulgated) during both
normal operating conditions when the
flare is used solely as a control device
and malfunction releases where the flare
acts both as a safety device and a control
device.
Comment B.3: Commenters stated that
the EPA’s malfunction exemption for
force majeure events for emergency
flaring is arbitrary and capricious under
CAA section 112 because it creates
periods of time when no emissions
standard applies.
Response B.3: As noted in Response
A.5 to similar comments regarding PRD
release events, it is very difficult to
guard perfectly against acts of God and
acts of terrorism. The EPA does not
believe it can develop measures that
would effectively limit emissions during
all such acts. Regardless, we disagree
that force majeure events are exempt
from regulation. Several of the work
practice standards apply during these
events. Specifically, flares are required
to comply with the requirements for a
continuously lit pilot flame and
combustion efficiency standards (i.e.,
limits on the net heating value in
combustion zone) at all times, including
during periods of emergency flaring
caused by a force majeure event.
Comment B.4: Commenters requested
that the EPA delete from the rule the
requirements at 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) and (o)(1)(iv),
claiming the requirements are highly
burdensome. These requirements
require an owner or operator to include
as part of the flare management plan
(FMP) records of prevention measures
and design and operating details for
PRDs that are routed to flares.
Alternatively, commenters
recommended that the rule only require
this information be included in the FMP
for those PRDs (i.e., a single PRD or a
single set of PRDs which protect a single
piece of equipment) whose potential for
release is great enough to exceed the
smokeless capacity of the flare.
Response B.4: Because PRDs are
expected to be the primary source of a
release that might cause a flaring event
that could exceed the smokeless
capacity of the flare, we determined that
the identification of the PRDs that are
vented to the flare is a critical
component of the FMP. We also
recognize that consideration of
prevention measures for PRDs that can
discharge to a flare will help to reduce
the number of flaring events that exceed
the smokeless capacity of the flare.
Consequently, we include consideration
of prevention measures for PRDs as one
of three critical items, listed in 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(ii)(A) through (C), that each
owner or operator of a flare must
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6073
consider within the flare minimization
assessment requirement of the FMP.
While submission of the FMP is
primarily a one-time event, we expect
that these prevention measures for PRDs
discharged to the flare will be an active
and growing list as owners and
operators implement corrective actions
after a release event exceeding the
smokeless capacity of the flare and
exceeding the visible emissions limit
and/or the flare tip velocity limit. As
noted in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(2)(ii), the
plan must be updated periodically to
account for changes in the operation of
the flare, but we do not consider new
prevention measures implemented for
PRDs that discharge to the flare to
constitute a change in the operation of
the flare. Thus, this updated listing can
be in an electronic database and it is not
required to be updated in the FMP
unless the FMP is otherwise required to
be updated or re-submitted according to
the provisions in 40 CFR
63.670(o)(2)(ii). We do not consider this
effort to be a significant burden beyond
what is already required for hazards
analysis and the commenter did not
provide any data to quantify or
substantiate the claims that this effort is
‘‘highly burdensome.’’
We considered the suggestion to limit
this requirement to PRDs with high
potential release rates. However, many
flares may receive discharges from
dozens of PRDs across multiple process
units. In an emergency event, it is
possible that several of these PRDs
associated with different equipment can
relieve at the same time. While any one
PRD may not exceed the flare’s
smokeless capacity, the combination of
PRD releases may. Thus, we determined
that it is appropriate to require all PRDs
discharged to the flare to be identified
and applicable prevention measures
should be evaluated regardless of the
release potential of an individual PRD.
3. What is the EPA’s final decision on
the work practice standards for
emergency flaring?
The emergency flaring work practice
standards were developed to ensure that
flares achieve the 98-percent reduction
assumed at the time MACT 1 was
promulgated. In determining the means
to ensure that flares achieve the 98percent reduction, the EPA considered
available data for best performing flare
sources. The inclusion of the force
majeure provisions in the work practice
standard do not alter the work practice
requirements for a continuously lit pilot
flame and combustion efficiency
standards, which apply at all times. The
flare requirements in Refinery MACT 1
were established as work practice
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
6074
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
standards and the operational standards
established in the December 2015 final
rule and affirmed in this action are also
work practice standards under CAA
section 112(h). Work practice standards
are appropriate for flares because
pollutants emitted from the flare cannot
be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture such pollutants. We have not
been presented with any comments and/
or information received in response to
the proposed notice of reconsideration
relative to the emergency flaring work
practice standards which will result in
any changes to these requirements as
promulgated in the December 2015 rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
C. Issue 3: Assessment of Risk From the
Petroleum Refinery Source Categories
After Implementation of the PRD and
Emergency Flaring Work Practice
Standards
1. What is the history of the assessment
of risk from the Petroleum Refinery
source categories after implementation
of the PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standards?
The results of our residual risk review
for the Petroleum Refinery source
categories were published in the June
2014 proposal (79 FR 36934 through
36942), and included assessment of
chronic and acute inhalation risk, as
well as multipathway and
environmental risk, to inform our
decisions regarding acceptability and
ample margin of safety. The results
indicated that the cancer risk to the
individual most exposed (maximum
individual risk or ‘‘MIR’’) based on
allowable HAP emissions is no greater
than approximately 100-in-1 million,
which is the presumptive limit of risk
acceptability, and that the MIR based on
actual HAP emissions is no greater than
60-in-1 million, but may be closer to 40in-1 million. In addition, the maximum
chronic noncancer target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI) due to inhalation
exposures was less than 1. The
evaluation of acute noncancer risks,
which was conservative, showed the
potential for adverse health effects from
acute exposures is unlikely. Based on
the results of a refined site-specific
multipathway analysis, we also
concluded that the cancer risk to the
individual most exposed through
ingestion is considerably less than 100in-1 million.
In the December 2015 rule, we
established work practice standards for
PRD releases and emergency flaring
events, which under the June 2014
proposal would not have been allowed.
Because we did not consider such nonroutine emissions under our risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
assessment for the June 2014 proposal,
we performed a screening level analysis
of risk associated with these emissions
for the December 2015 rule as discussed
in detail in ‘‘Final Residual Risk
Assessment for the Petroleum Refining
Source Sector’’ in Docket ID Item No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0800. Our
analysis showed that HAP emissions
could increase the MIR based on actual
emissions by as much as 2-in-1 million,
which is not substantially different than
the level of risk estimated at proposal.
We also estimated that chronic
noncancer TOSHIs attributable to the
additional exposures from non-routine
flaring and PRD HAP emissions are well
below 1. When the additional chronic
noncancer TOSHI from the screening
analysis are added to the TOSHI
estimated in the June 2014 proposal, all
chronic noncancer TOSHIs remain
below 1. Further, our screening analysis
also projected that maximum acute
exposure to non-routine PRD and flare
emissions would result in a maximum
hazard quotient (HQ) of 14 from
benzene emissions based on a reference
exposure level (REL). An exceedance of
an REL value does not necessarily
indicate that an adverse health effect
will occur. Because of the infrequent
occurrence of such events and the
probability that someone would be at
the exact most highly impacted
exposure locations at the time of the
elevated ambient levels, the EPA risk
assessors believe there is a very low
probability of any adverse exposure.
Based on the risk analysis performed for
the June 2014 proposal and the
screening assessment to consider how
conclusions from that analysis would be
affected by the additional non-routine
flare and PRD emissions allowed under
the December 2015 rule, we determined
that the risk posed after implementation
of the revisions to the MACT standards
is acceptable and that the standards as
promulgated provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health.
We requested public comment on the
screening analysis and the conclusions
reached based on that analysis in
conjunction with the risk analysis
performed for the June 2014 proposal.
2. What comments were received on the
assessment of risk from the Petroleum
Refinery source categories after
implementation of the PRD and
emergency flaring work practice
standards?
Comment C.1: Commenters explained
that the EPA performed a screening
level risk assessment to account for the
additional risk from the PRD and
emergency flare work practice standards
based on ‘‘approximately 430 records of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PRD and flare HAP pollutant release
events’’ from 25 facilities, as reported in
response to the detailed Petroleum
Refinery information collection request
(ICR), and that this assessment resulted
in an additional 2-in-1 million lifetime
cancer risk and an acute risk that is 14
times higher than what the Agency
considers safe. The commenters
contended that these risks were based
on biased-low industry-estimated
emissions data when they should have
been based on a true maximum
additional cancer or acute risk from a
serious fire, explosion, or force majeure
event, or even from one of the largest
historical leaks or emergency flaring
events. Commenters referenced
numerous malfunction events which
they asserted demonstrate the long
history of these types of releases from
refineries that could have been
prevented by advanced planning,
inspections, upgrades, and maintenance
and claimed these events could have
been used for the purpose of estimating
additional risks from PRD releases and
smoking flare events. In addition to not
basing the risks on a worst-case
scenario, the commenters said the EPA
did not explain how the risk model
predicted worst case 1-hour and annual
average concentrations for PRDs and
flares or whether the concentrations
presented in the final risk assessment
were total HAP or benzene. In any case,
the commenters asserted that these
concentrations are higher than what the
California EPA has deemed health
protective for acute and chronic
exposure, and while they are lower than
the EPA’s 2003 Integrated Risk
Information System values, the EPA
should consider that these exposures
occur in combination with other
emissions from refineries.
Response C.1: The December 2015
rule established work practice standards
that require advanced planning,
inspections, upgrades, and maintenance
of equipment through the
implementation of prevention measures,
root cause analysis, and corrective
action. Under CAA section 112(f)(2), the
EPA is required to estimate the risk
remaining after the implementation of
the MACT, which for this emissions
source is the promulgated work practice
standards. This approach is consistent
with the way that EPA has performed its
risk analysis for all previously
promulgated risk reviews under CAA
section 112(f)(2). In the screening
analysis, we used release information
collected under the authority of CAA
section 114 which represents annual
releases occurring prior to the
implementation of these work practice
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
standards and the data and assumptions
used as inputs to the screening analysis
are a reasonable representation of the
worst-case releases allowed under the
promulgated standard and that may be
expected subsequent to the
implementation of the work practice
standards.
In response to the commenters’
statement that the EPA did not explain
how the risk model predicted worst case
1-hour and annual average
concentrations for PRDs and flares or
whether the concentrations presented in
the final risk assessment were total HAP
or benzene, as noted in the risk report
(appendix 13 of Docket ID Item No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682–0800), the
EPA estimated concentrations using a
conservative (health protective)
screening dispersion modeling
approach. Further, the risks were
estimated based on all reported
emissions (i.e., not only benzene). Acute
risks (HQs) are estimated on a pollutantby-pollutant basis.
With regard to the comment that the
EPA should consider the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment health benchmarks, in May
2018, based on examination of the
California EPA’s acute (1-hour) REL for
benzene, and taking into account
aspects of the methodology used in the
derivation of the value and how this
assessment stands in comparison to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry’s toxicological
assessment, EPA toxicologists decided it
is not appropriate to use the benzene
REL value to support the EPA’s RTR
rules. In lieu of using the REL in RTR
risk assessments, the EPA is now
evaluating acute benzene risks by
comparing potential exposure levels to
the emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG)–1 values. In this case,
the acute HQ value from non-routine
PRD and flare emissions is 0.07 when
comparing ambient levels to the ERPG–
1.
Comment C.2: Commenters asserted
that the EPA’s risk assessment and
determinations are unlawful and are
arbitrary and capricious because the
EPA has not followed its own policy
and guidelines in summing cancer risk
and treating a lifetime cancer risk above
100-in-1 million as showing the need for
section CAA section 112(f) standards.
The commenters stated that the EPA
found an inhalation-based cancer risk of
100-in-1 million from routine emissions,
an additional cancer risk of 2-in-1
million from non-routine PRD and flare
emissions, and an additional cancer risk
of 4-in-1 million from non-inhalation or
multipathway emissions. The sum of
these risks is 106-in-1 million, and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
therefore, above the presumptive
acceptability threshold of 100-in-1
million, yet the EPA has continued to
maintain that risks are acceptable. The
commenters also contended that in
addition to never adding these risks, the
EPA has not provided a reasoned
justification in the record for not doing
so. The commenters added that the EPA
recognized risks were unacceptable for
a similar set of risks (e.g., lead smelting
and ferroalloys) as those in the
Petroleum Refinery RTR, and, thus, the
risk for the Petroleum Refinery RTR
should also be found unacceptable.
Further, the commenters noted that
the EPA’s refined multipathway risk
assessment for one refinery, for which
the EPA indicates that the sum of the
multipathway and inhalation risks for
that facility is less than 100-in-1
million, conflicts with the fact that the
inhalation risk alone is at least 100-in1 million; it is unclear how combined
risks would not exceed 100-in-1 million.
Finally, the commenters stated that the
EPA has not supported the conclusion
based on data in the record that after
performing a refined risk assessment on
one refinery that cancer risk for all
facilities can be discounted.
Response C.2: As an initial matter, it
is important to note that a risk level of
100-in-1 million is a presumptive limit
of acceptability, not a threshold for
acceptability or regulatory action. As
stated in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR
38044, 38061, September 14, 1989), in
determining the need for residual risk
standards, we strive to limit to no higher
than approximately 100-in-1 million the
estimated cancer risk that a person
living near a plant would have if he or
she were exposed to the maximum
pollutant concentrations for 70 years
and, in the ample margin of safety
decision, to protect the greatest number
of persons possible to an individual
lifetime risk level of no higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million. In
determining whether risk is acceptable
under CAA section 112(f), these levels
are not rigid lines, and we weigh the
cancer risk values with a series of other
health measures and factors, including
the specific uncertainties of the
emissions, health effects, and risk
information for the relevant source
category, in both the decision regarding
risk acceptability and in the ample
margin of safety determination. The
source category-specific decision of
what constitutes an acceptable level of
risk and whether it is necessary to
promulgate more stringent standards to
provide an ample margin of safety is a
holistic one; that is, the EPA considers
all potential health impacts—chronic
and acute, cancer and noncancer, and
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6075
multipathway—along with their
uncertainties.
With regard to the analysis performed
for the refinery standards at issue here,
the estimated risk of 100-in-1 million is
based on a risk analysis using the
MACT-allowable HAP emissions from a
model plant, while the estimated risk
based on actual HAP emissions from
refineries is no greater than
approximately 60-in-1 million and may
be closer to 40-in-1 million based on
updated data received during the
comment period. The model plant
screening approach used to assess
MACT-allowable HAP emissions used
several health protective assumptions
including co-locating all sources at a
refinery at a single location. The
screening analysis used to estimate risk
from non-routine PRD and flare
emissions is also based on several
health protective assumptions. Because
of the conservative nature of these
screening analyses, the EPA does not
typically add their results (i.e., risk
estimates from the model plant nonroutine PRD and flare emissions to risk
estimates from model plant allowable
emissions). Further, we do not add the
multipathway (non-inhalation) risks to
inhalation risks because it is highly
unlikely that the person exposed to the
highest inhalation risk is the same
person exposed to the highest refined
multipathway (ingestion) risks. Overall
risk results are presented to one
significant digit, thus, even if we were
to add the non-inhalation risk of 4-in-1
million to the 100-in-1 million risk from
inhalation, we would still assess the
total risk based on allowable emissions
as 100-in-1 million.
Regarding the refined multipathway
analysis performed on a single facility,
as stated in the risk report, the EPA
performed the refined analysis to gain a
better understanding of the uncertainty
associated with the multipathway Tier I
and II screening analyses. The site,
Marathon Ashland Petroleum facility
(NEI6087) near Garyville in St. John the
Baptist Parish, Louisiana, was among
those that exceeded the Tier I screen for
any HAP known to be persistent and
bio-accumulative in the environment
(PB–HAP), and it was among the
refineries that had the greatest
exceedance of a Tier II threshold for any
PB–HAP. It also was selected based on
the feasibility, with respect to the
modeling framework, of obtaining
model parameters for the region
surrounding the refinery. The exposure
estimates (and the risks calculated for
those exposures) are anticipated to be
among the highest that might be
encountered for this source category
because of the proximity of waterbodies
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6076
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
as well as agricultural lands. We note
that many of the refineries did not
exceed the Tier I screen, and for those
that did, the levels of the exceedances
were generally less than the level of
exceedance exhibited by the facility
selected for the refined assessment.
Because the other facilities had a similar
or lower exceedance of the screening
level, the results of the refined
assessment for this facility led us to
conclude that if refined analyses were
performed for other sites, the risk
estimates would similarly be reduced
from their Tier II estimates.
Comment C.3: A commenter stated
that the EPA acknowledged that people
of color and those with low incomes are
disproportionately exposed to risk from
refinery emissions. The commenter
asserted that the EPA has not provided
a rational explanation why the unfair
distribution of this risk does not lead to
an unacceptable risk finding or at least
require additional protections to assure
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health for all exposed persons.
Response C.3: Following the analysis
that CAA section 112(f)(2) requires, the
EPA determined that the risk posed by
emissions from the Petroleum Refinery
source category were acceptable. After
considering whether additional
standards were required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health, including the health of people of
color and those with low income, the
EPA established additional control
requirements for storage vessels. The
December 2015 rule reduces risk for
millions of people living near petroleum
refineries and provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. The
NESHAP accordingly provides an ample
margin of safety for all proximate
populations, including people of color
and those with low incomes.
Comment C.4: A commenter stated
that the EPA’s risk assessment and
determination are unlawful and are
arbitrary and capricious because they
are based on internally contradictory
findings that, although acute risk is high
(citing an HQ of 14 due to benzene from
non-routine PRD and flare emissions),
exposure to these non-routine emissions
will rarely occur. The commenter
asserted that the EPA’s own record
shows that non-routine emissions occur
frequently: Every 4.4 to 6 years at all
refineries, 16.7 percent probability of
having an event in any given year, and
that over a long period of time, such as
20 years, half of the best performers
would have two events in a 3-year
period. The commenter added that the
December 2015 rule will allow these
non-routine emissions events to happen
even more frequently. The commenter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
further asserted that the EPA’s
justification to discount this high acute
risk was by stating that it could have
used the acute exposure guideline level
(AEGL) or ERPG level to develop a
lower acute risk value than the value
developed for the published risk
assessment which was based on the
REL. The commenter stated that the
AEGL and ERPG level are designed to be
used in a true emergency and not to set
health protective standards that will
generally apply at all times, adding that
the AEGL, unlike the REL, does not
incorporate consideration of
vulnerability, such as for children, or
community exposure over time. The
commenter stated that the use of the
AEGL and ERPG numbers would be
expected to substantially underestimate
risk and using them as justification to
discount the high acute risk is arbitrary
and capricious.
Response C.4: As an initial matter, we
disagree with the characterization that
the work practice standards in the
December 2015 rule for flares and PRDs
will allow non-routine events to occur
more frequently than they do now. Prior
to promulgation of the flare
requirements and the PRD provisions,
the MACT did not include any specific
regulatory requirements that applied to
these events. As noted in sections III.A
and B above, the final work practice
standards include requirements that are
designed to reduce the number and
magnitude of these types of releases.
The commenters have not explained
why the new requirements would
increase the frequency and/or
magnitude of these events.
In May 2018, based on examination of
California EPA’s acute (1-hour) REL for
benzene, and considering aspects of the
methodology used in the derivation of
the value and how this assessment
stands in comparison to the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s
toxicological assessment, EPA
toxicologists decided it is not
appropriate to use the benzene REL
value to support the EPA’s RTR rules. In
lieu of using the REL in RTR risk
assessments, the EPA is now evaluating
acute benzene risks by comparing
potential exposure levels to the ERPG–
1 values. In this case, the acute HQ
value from non-routine PRD and flare
emissions is 0.07 when comparing
ambient levels to the ERPG–1. To better
characterize the potential health risks
associated with estimated worst-case
acute exposures to HAP, and in
response to a key recommendation from
the Science Advisory Board’s peer
review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment
methodologies, we now examine a
wider range of available acute health
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
metrics than we do for our chronic risk
assessments. This is in
acknowledgement that there are
generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values
than there are in chronic reference
values. The acute REL represents a
health-protective level of exposure, with
effects not anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures.
Although the potential for effects
increases as exposure concentration
increases above the acute REL, the level
of exposure greater than the REL that
would cause health effects is not
specifically known. Therefore, when an
REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or
ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at
which mild, reversible effects are
anticipated in the general public for a
single exposure), we typically use them
as an additional comparative measure,
as they provide an upper bound for
exposure levels above which exposed
individuals could experience effects.
The worst-case maximum estimated 1hour exposure to benzene outside the
facility fence line is less than the AEGL–
1 or ERPG–1 levels.
3. What is the EPA’s final decision on
the risk assessment?
As supported by the screening
analysis published with the December
2015 rule, the additional risk from the
PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standards did not significantly
alter the risk estimates in the EPA’s
2014 analysis. In response to the current
proposal, we did not receive any new
information or other basis that would
support a change to the risk analysis
and the determination that the risk from
the source category is acceptable and
that, as modified by the December 2015
rule, the MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
D. Issue 4: Alternative Work Practice
Standards for DCUs Employing the
Water Overflow Design
1. What is the history of the alternative
work practice standards for DCUs
employing the water overflow design?
In the December 2015 rule, we
finalized MACT standards for DCU
decoking operations. The rule provided
that existing DCU-affected sources must
comply with a 2 psig or 220 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) limit in the drum
overhead line determined on a rolling
60-event basis prior to venting to the
atmosphere, draining, or deheading the
coke drum. New DCU-affected sources
must comply with a 2.0 psig or 218 °F
limit in the drum overhead line on a
per-event, not-to-exceed basis. In the
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
December 2015 rule, we also finalized
an alternative requirement that we did
not propose to address DCU with water
overflow design, where pressure
monitoring would not be appropriate.
As part of these provisions, we included
a new requirement in the December
2015 rule for DCU with water overflow
design to hard-pipe the overflow drain
water to the receiving tank via a
submerged fill pipe (pipe below the
existing liquid level) whenever the
overflow water exceeds 220 °F.
We requested public comment on the
alternative work practice standard for
delayed coking units employing a water
overflow design provided in 40 CFR
63.657(e).
In response to the comments received
on the October 2016 proposed notice of
reconsideration regarding the alternative
work practice standards for DCU
employing the water overflow design,
we proposed amendments on April 10,
2018 (April 2018 proposal) (see 83 FR
15458), to the water overflow
requirements in 40 CFR 63.657(e). The
EPA has issued a final rule which was
promulgated on November 26, 2018
(November 2018 rule) fully addressing
this issue and responding to all of the
comments on the proposal for this rule
as well as the April 2018 proposal.
E. Issue 5: Alternative Sampling
Frequency for Burden Reduction for
Fenceline Monitoring
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
1. What is the history of the alternative
sampling frequency for burden
reduction for fenceline monitoring?
In the December 2015 rule, we revised
Refinery MACT 1 to establish a work
practice standard requiring refinery
owners to monitor benzene
concentrations around the fenceline or
perimeter of the refinery. We
promulgated new EPA Methods 325A
and B which specify monitor siting and
quantitative sample analysis
procedures. The work practice is
designed to improve the management of
fugitive emissions at petroleum
refineries through the use of passive
monitors by requiring sources to
implement corrective measures if the
benzene concentration in air attributable
to emissions from the refinery exceeds
a fenceline benzene concentration
action level. The work practice requires
refinery owners to maintain fenceline
benzene concentrations at or below the
concentration action level of 9 mg/m3. In
the December 2015 rule, we included
provisions that were not proposed that
would allow for reduced monitoring
frequency (after 2 years of continual
monitoring) at monitoring locations that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
record concentrations below 0.9 mg/m3
[see 40 CFR 63.658(e)(3)].
We requested public comment on the
provision allowing refineries to reduce
the frequency of fenceline monitoring at
monitoring locations that consistently
record benzene concentrations below
0.9 mg/m3.
2. What comments were received on the
alternative sampling frequency for
fenceline monitoring?
Comment E.1: Commenters asserted
that setting the threshold for reducing
the frequency of fenceline monitoring at
0.9 mg/m3 is arbitrary and capricious.
The commenters stated that the EPA’s
modeling predicted that more than half
(81 of 142) of the refineries modeled
would have fenceline concentrations
equal to or less than 0.4 mg/m3, and,
thus, it is unlikely these facilities will
have any monitors register
concentrations in excess of the
threshold. Therefore, these refineries
will likely qualify for reduced
monitoring, although they could have
malfunctioning equipment causing
benzene levels to be double the EPA’s
modeled amount.
The commenter added that while the
fenceline concentrations modeled by the
EPA do not include background ambient
concentrations of benzene which will
contribute to the benzene concentration
measured at each monitor, it is still
likely that the eligibility threshold for
reduced frequency monitoring is too
high and will allow operators to reduce
the monitoring frequency at downwind
monitors. The commenter supported
this statement by referencing the API
Corrected Fenceline Monitoring Results,
Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0682–0752, which showed that at
least 25 percent of facilities would be
eligible for reduced monitoring at more
than half of the monitoring sites based
on the 0.9 mg/m3 threshold.
Response E.1: We disagree that entire
refineries will be able to qualify for
reduced monitoring frequency. As the
commenters themselves noted, the
Agency’s modeled concentrations
provide only the impact of refinery
emissions on the ambient air
concentration (the DC) and do not
include background concentrations. The
modeling does not allow us to evaluate
the total (refinery plus background)
concentration level at any one location.
Second, we note that the API study was
a 3-month study that occurred primarily
in the winter months when fugitive
emissions are expected to be at their
lowest. We also considered the Corpus
Christi year-long study and a
comparison of the concentrations
observed throughout the year. That
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6077
study showed that benzene
concentrations at the fenceline are
higher during warmer weather because
most fugitive emission sources, such as
storage tanks and wastewater, have a
significant temperature dependency.
The reduced monitoring provisions
require 2 full years (52 consecutive 2week samples) where the highest single
value, not the average concentration at
that location, is less than 0.9 mg/m3.
Based on the data we have available, we
consider that only a few monitoring
locations will qualify for reduced
frequency monitoring based on this 2year requirement that all sample
concentrations at the location are less
than 0.9 mg/m3.
In addition, we selected this value to
be consistent with the minimum
detection limit we required for an
alternative monitoring method. It
seemed incongruous to allow an
alternative monitoring method with a
detection limit of 0.9 mg/m3 to be used
to comply with the rule but then
establish a burden reduction alternative
that used a lower concentration level.
Ultimately, we are confident that only a
limited number of sampling locations at
any petroleum refinery will meet the
burden reduction criteria. We
considered it reasonable to provide
incentives for refinery owners or
operators to achieve even greater
reductions than are required by the 9
mg/m3 DC action level, and the final
burden reduction provisions provide
such an incentive without
compromising the overall objectives of
the program.
Comment E.2: One commenter stated
that the provisions allowing refineries to
reduce the frequency of fenceline
monitoring are unlawful and are
arbitrary and capricious. To support this
statement, the commenter stated that a
reduction in burden to the fenceline
monitoring program will not allow the
program to serve its intended purpose:
To enable operators to identify leaks or
operating problems at equipment that
cannot practically be monitored, tested,
or evaluated for compliance on a
frequent basis. In further support of
their argument, the commenters
explained that the risk findings for the
December 2015 rule hinge on the
frequency of the fenceline monitoring
cycle. The commenter stated that the
EPA is on record stating that if the
emission inventories or risk assessment
do understate actual emissions, as some
commenters have alleged, the fenceline
monitoring and corrective action
requirements will ensure refineries
reduce their actual emissions to levels
comparable to their emissions
inventories, and that in doing so, will
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6078
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ensure communities surrounding
petroleum refineries would be protected
to acceptable risk levels. Therefore, the
commenter asserted that it is imperative
for the EPA to maintain the 2-week
monitoring cycle to ensure operators are
quickly identifying malfunctioning
equipment and to close the gap between
actual and reported emissions.
On the other hand, some commenters
stated that the alternative monitoring
provisions did not go far enough at
reducing burden. Some commenters
suggested that after 2 years of
demonstrating a background-corrected
maximum fenceline annual average
concentration (DC) below the action
level, monitoring frequency be reduced
to a 2-week period every quarter for all
monitoring locations. If the backgroundcorrected annual average benzene
concentration based on the quarterly
monitoring exceeds the action level, a
return to more frequent monitoring
could be required RCA/CAA
requirement. The reduced monitoring
frequency could be available again after
1 year of meeting the action level.
Another commenter recommended that
the reduced monitoring provision be
removed in favor of a one-time
demonstration that the annual fenceline
benzene DC concentration is less than
50 percent of the action level during
normal operations.
Response E.2: With respect to the
commenter’s opposition to the
alternative sampling frequency, it is
important to understand that the
alternative sampling frequency
provision in the December 2015 rule
does not reduce the frequency by which
the DC values must be determined. This
is because the reduced sampling
frequency provision will impact only
selected locations that have monitored
benzene concentrations below 0.9 mg/m3
based on 2 full years of data. Refineries
will still collect samples at all other
locations during each 2-week period
and will still determine the DC value for
each sampling interval and include the
DC for the sampling interval in the
annual average DC value calculation.
Therefore, we still expect the fenceline
monitoring program as included in the
December 2015 rule to achieve its
purpose of more timely detection and
correction of issues that can lead to high
fugitive emissions.
The burden reduction alternatives
suggested by some commenters would
significantly limit the effectiveness of
the fenceline monitoring program to
identify issues early. A one-time
determination completely defeats this
purpose and could not possibly be done
in a manner representative of the variety
of circumstances that can occur
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
throughout the year or the lifetime of a
facility. The purpose of the fenceline
monitoring program is to allow for
detection and correction of issues that
may cause abnormally high emissions,
such as large leaks in valves, tears in
rim seals of floating roof storage vessels,
and other unexpected, difficult to
predict events. A one-time
determination does not allow the
fenceline monitoring program to timely
and effectively identify these issues on
an on-going basis.
While quarterly determinations would
be more effective than a one-time
determination for on-going fugitive
management, quarterly determinations
are less effective in improving fugitive
emissions management than continual
2-week sampling. First, for large leak
events, the emissions may continue for
months prior to being detected under
quarterly monitoring versus being
detected in a week or two under
continual 2-week sampling. Thus, the
emission reduction achieved by the
quarterly monitoring would not be as
great as by continual 2-week
monitoring. Second, under the quarterly
monitoring option, there would be large
periods of time when no monitoring
will be performed. The passive diffusive
tubes cannot be deployed over such a
long time period. Thus, we assume that
quarterly monitoring would consist of a
2-week sampling period once every
quarter. As such, for more than 80
percent of the time, no monitoring
would be conducted at the fenceline.
Consequently, quarterly monitoring
would often miss periodic emission
events, such as tank cleaning and/or
filling, which can lead to high shortterm emissions. These short-term events
can contribute significantly to a
facility’s emissions and their
contribution would be captured via the
continual 2-week sampling, but likely
missed under a quarterly monitoring
approach. In order to effectively manage
all fugitive emission sources, including
periodic releases, we determined that
the continual 2-week sampling period
should be maintained for the overall
program. By providing a monitoring
skip period only to locations that do not
exceed 0.9 mg/m3 for any sampling
interval for 2 full years (52 consecutive
2-week sampling periods), we maintain
continual 2-week sampling at all
locations that may contribute to an
exceedance of the action level and
ensure on-going enhanced management
of fugitive emissions.
Comment E.3: Commenters stated that
the rule does not include provisions for
re-instating the monitoring frequency
for those monitors which may at one
time qualify for reduced monitoring.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Response E.3: We disagree. Section
63.658(e)(v) of the final rule provides
that any location with a value above 0.9
mg/m3 while reduced monitoring is
being implemented will subject the
owner or operator to a 3-month
‘‘probationary period’’ where samples
must be collected every 2 weeks at that
location. If the concentrations during
the probationary period are all at or
below 0.9 mg/m3, the owner or operator
may continue with the monitoring
frequency prior to the excursion. If any
other sample during the probationary
period exceeds 0.9 mg/m3, then the
owner or operator must comply with the
more stringent monitoring requirements
and would not be eligible for reduced
monitoring frequency until completion
of a new 2-year period at that more
stringent monitoring frequency.
Comment E.4: A commenter stated
that despite the EPA’s claims that it is
allowing less frequent monitoring to
reduce burden, there is no quantified or
otherwise evaluated data available in
the record related to the actual burden
reduction.
Response E.4: We did not specifically
develop burden reduction estimates
associated with this provision for
several reasons. First, fenceline
monitoring must be performed for a full
2 years prior to the burden reduction
provisions applying to any monitoring
location, so estimating the burden of the
fenceline monitoring provisions without
consideration of the burden reduction
provisions provides an accurate
estimate of the annual burden for the
first 2 years. Second, we were uncertain
how many monitoring locations would
qualify for the burden reduction
provision. Third, with respect to the
burden estimate for the December 2015
rule as provided in the Supporting
Statement for the Office of Management
and Budget’s (OMB’s) ICR, we estimated
the costs of the on-going fenceline
monitoring program assuming all
samples would continue to be collected
during the 3-year period covered by the
ICR.
Based on the burden estimate detail
provided in the attachments to the
memorandum, ‘‘Fenceline Monitoring
Impact Estimates for Final Rule’’ (see
Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0682–0749), we estimate that each
time a sample does not need to be
collected at a specific location there will
be a burden reduction of 0.3 technical
hours (0.25 hours reduced during
sample collection and 0.05 hours
reduced during sample analyses).
Considering management and clerical
hours, the total burden reduction per
sample skipped would be 0.35 hours
and approximately $29. As an example
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of potential burden reduction, if a
facility could use the monthly reduced
monitoring provisions for two locations
in a given year (26 skipped samples, 13
at each site), the burden reduction for
that facility would be 9 hours and $745
each year.
Comment E.5: One commenter
recommended that the EPA reduce
burden by providing a mechanism to
use existing HAP ambient monitoring
programs as an acceptable alternative to
the EPA fenceline monitoring program.
Response E.5: We provided a
mechanism and criteria by which a
refinery owner or operator may submit
a request for an alternative test method
to the passive diffusive tube fenceline
monitoring methods (EPA Methods
325A and 325B). These provisions are
included at 40 CFR 63.658(k) of the final
rule.
3. What is EPA’s final decision on the
alternative sampling frequency for
fenceline monitoring?
For fenceline monitoring
requirements, the alternative sampling
frequency requirements will not alter
the effectiveness of the program as the
requirements do not change the facilitylevel procedures and frequency for
calculating and reporting DC (see
Response E.1). Furthermore, the 0.9 mg/
m3 threshold for reducing the frequency
of fenceline monitoring is appropriate
based on the available data and it is
consistent with the minimum detection
limit required for alternative monitoring
methods. We have not been presented
with any comments and/or information
in response to the October 2016
proposed notice of reconsideration
relative to the alternative sampling
frequency for fenceline monitoring
which will result in any changes to the
December 2015 rule.
F. Additional Proposed Clarifying
Amendments
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
1. What is the history of the proposed
clarifying amendments?
The EPA proposed to amend
provisions related to the overlap
requirements for equipment leaks that
are contained in Refinery MACT 1 and
in the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa). The
Refinery MACT 1 provision at 40 CFR
63.640(p)(2) states that equipment leaks
that are subject to the provisions in the
Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGGa) are only required
to comply with the provisions in the
Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS.
However, the Refinery Equipment Leak
NSPS does not include the new work
practice standards finalized in the final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j)
which apply to releases from PRDs. We
intended that these new work practice
standards would be applicable to all
PRDs at refineries, including those PRDs
subject to the requirements in the
Refinery Equipment Leaks NSPS. In
order to provide clarity and assure that
refiners subject to these provisions fully
understand their compliance
obligations, we proposed to modify the
equipment leak requirement to provide
that PRDs in organic HAP service must
comply with the requirements in
Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j) for
PRDs. We also proposed to amend the
introductory text in 40 CFR 63.648(j) to
reference the Refinery Equipment Leaks
NSPS at 40 CFR 60.482–4a and amend
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii) of
Refinery MACT 1 to correct the existing
reference to 40 CFR 60.485(b), to instead
refer to 40 CFR 60.485(c) and 40 CFR
60.485a(c). As noted in section III.B.1 of
this preamble, we also proposed to
revise the incorrect cross-reference to
PRD prevention measures at 40 CFR
63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) from 40 CFR
63.648(j)(5) to 63.648(j)(3)(ii). However,
we concluded it would be more accurate
to cross-reference 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) rather
than the entirety of 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii). Therefore, in the April
2018 proposal, we proposed this
clarified revision and finalized this
revision as proposed in the November
2018 rule.
2. What comments were received on the
proposed clarifying amendments?
Comment F.1: Commenters asserted
that the EPA’s proposal to modify the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) by
providing that PRDs in organic HAP
service must comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j) is
arbitrary and capricious. Commenters
opposed the proposed revisions
claiming they would enshrine
exemptions from NSPS equipment leak
standards for new and modified PRD or
allow for substitution of NSPS
requirements for the work practice
standards in 40 CFR 63.648(j), which
they believe are exemptions from
malfunction requirements. They added
that these provisions amend the NSPS
for Petroleum Refineries without
satisfying the appropriate procedural
and substantive legal tests required to
do so.
Response F.1: It appears that the
commenter misunderstands the
proposed amendment. When we revised
Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j) to
add PRD requirements, we failed to
recognize that the NSPS overlap
provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) could
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6079
be used as a ‘‘loophole’’ by refinery
owners and operators to not implement
three prevention measures and to not
perform the root cause analysis or
implement corrective actions. This is
because the NSPS subpart GGGa does
not have any pressure release
management requirements. In the
absence of the proposed amendment,
the existing overlap provision states that
‘‘Equipment leaks that are also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGGa, are required to comply
only with the provisions specified in 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.’’ Thus,
PRDs subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa, were inadvertently exempted
from the new PRD pressure release
management requirements. We
understand that the commenter does not
support some of the provisions in the
pressure release management
requirements in the final Refinery
MACT 1 rule, but these requirements
are clearly more stringent than the NSPS
subpart GGGa provisions for PRDs
which only require monitoring of the
PRD after a release, and do not have any
restrictions or requirements to limit PRD
releases. We note that in addition to the
new PRD requirements established in
the December 2015 rule, the Refinery
MACT 1 PRD requirements at 40 CFR
63.648(j)(1) and (2) fully include those
requirements that would apply under 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa. In
reviewing standards covering the same
pieces of equipment, we look to identify
the overlapping standards and require
the owner or operator to comply only
with the most stringent standard. After
the revisions to the PRD requirements in
Refinery MACT 1, we determined that
the equipment leak provisions for PRDs
in Refinery MACT 1 are more stringent
than those in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa. By revising this overlap
provision, we are requiring equipment
leak sources that are subject to both
rules to comply with the 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGGa for most equipment leak
sources but PRDs must comply with the
PRD requirements in Refinery MACT 1.
This revision will require PRDs that are
also subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa, to implement prevention
measures for PRDs, conduct root cause
analyses, and implement corrective
actions to prevent a similar release from
occurring. Because compliance with 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa is not
sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with Refinery MACT 1 PRD provisions,
revision of the existing overlap
provisions was deemed critical to
ensure all Refinery MACT 1 PRDs
comply with the new pressure release
management requirements.
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
6080
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The commenter is also mistaken that
this provision amends the NSPS. Rather,
it defines what sources subject to
Refinery MACT 1 must do to comply
with Refinery MACT 1. Specifically, for
equipment leaks at facilities subject to
both Refinery MACT 1 and 40 CFR part
60, subpart GGGa, owners and operators
must comply with the requirements in
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC) for PRDs associated with
the leaking equipment because the
requirements in Refinery MACT 1 for
PRDs are more stringent than those in
40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa. The
NSPS requirements are not modified by
this change to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC and remain in effect for PRDs
associated with equipment leaks that are
not subject to Refinery MACT 1.
Comment F.2: Commenters supported
the clarification to the overlap
provisions for equipment leaks in 40
CFR 63.640(p)(2), but also request that
a delay of repair provision be included
in 40 CFR 63.648 because other
equipment leak rules (such as 40 CFR
part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa)
potentially applicable to refinery PRDs
include such delay of repair provisions.
The commenters noted that PRDs
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG,
are made subject to 40 CFR 63.648(j) by
40 CFR 63.640(p)(1).
Response F.2: By proposing a
technical correction to 40 CFR
63.640(p)(2), the EPA was not proposing
to re-open the substantive requirements
of 40 CFR 63.640 nor of other
provisions, such as 40 CFR 63.648 that
may be referenced in 40 CFR 63.640. We
also disagree that PRDs are allowed to
comply with delay of repair provisions
in the NSPS (subparts GGG/GGGa or
VV/Vva) beyond taking the equipment
out of VOC service. In any case, we
determined that it was contrary to safety
and good air pollution control practices
to continue to operate a process unit
without a properly functioning PRD as
PRDs are, primarily, safety devices.
3. What is the EPA’s final decision on
the proposed clarifying amendments?
We are finalizing the amendment that
equipment leaks that are subject to the
provisions of the Refinery Equipment
Leak NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR
63.640(p)(2) must comply with the
requirements in Refinery MACT 1 at 40
CFR 63.648(j) for PRDs, as proposed. We
are also finalizing the amendment to the
introductory text in 40 CFR 63.648(j) to
reference Refinery Equipment Leaks
NSPS at 40 CFR 60.482–4a and the
amendment to paragraphs (j)(2)(i)
through (iii) of Refinery MACT 1 to
correct the existing reference to 40 CFR
60.485(b), which should refer to 40 CFR
60.485(c) and 40 CFR 60.485a(c), as
proposed. Finally, as noted in the
history of these clarifying amendments,
we addressed the proposed amendments
at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) in a final
rule issued in November 2018 to more
accurately cross-reference 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) rather
than the entirety of 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii).
G. Corrections to November 2018 Final
Rule
There were a number of publication
errors associated with the November
2018 rule. Several of these errors were
associated with inaccurate amendatory
instructions or editorial errors in the
final amendment package. We are
correcting these errors to finalize the
amendments consistent with the intent
of the preamble to the November 2018
final rule (83 FR 60696). Table 2 of this
preamble provides a summary of the
publication and editorial errors in the
November 2018 rule that we are
correcting in this final action.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 2018 RULE
Provision
Issue
Final revision
Refinery MACT 1
40 CFR 63.641, definition of
‘‘Reference control technology for storage vessels’’.
Incorrect amendatory instructions; the Code of
Federal Regulations could not implement
revisions as instructed.
40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(v) .............
There is a comma after the word ‘‘less.’’ It
should be a period.
Subordinate paragraphs (A) and (B) were inadvertently removed due to incorrect
amendatory instructions.
Subordinate paragraphs (i) through (iii) were
inadvertently removed due to incorrect
amendatory instructions.
The introductory text associated with this
paragraph was missing from the regulatory
text included in the rule as published in the
Federal Register.
Pilot-operated PRDs are not subject to requirements at 40 CFR 63.648(j)(4)(iii) so
the inclusion of ‘‘or (iii)’’ was incorrect.
40 CFR 63.655(f)(1)(iii) .............
40 CFR 63.655(f)(2) ..................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
40 CFR 63.655(h)(10) ...............
40 CFR 63.655(i)(11) ‘‘. . . For
each pilot-operated pressure
relief device subject to the requirements at 40 CFR
63.648(j)(4)(ii) or (iii), . . .’’.
40 CFR 63.660(i)(2)(iii). ‘‘Use a
cap, blind flange, plug, or a
second valve for an openended valves or line . . .’’.
40 CFR 63.670(d)(2) .................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Revise instructions and reprint the entire definition to more
easily implement revisions to the definition of ‘‘Reference
control technology for storage vessels’’ consistent with the
intent of the preamble to the November 2018 final rule.
Amend 40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(v) to replace the comma after
the word ‘‘less’’ with a period.
Amend 40 CFR 63.655(f)(1)(iii) to include subordinate paragraphs (A) and (B) consistent with the intent of the preamble to the November 2018 final rule.
Amend 40 CFR 63.655(f)(2) to include subordinate paragraphs (i) through (iii) consistent with the intent of the preamble to the November 2018 final rule.
Amend 40 CFR 63.655(h)(10) introductory text to read as
‘‘Extensions to electronic reporting deadlines.’’
Amend 40 CFR 63.655(i)(11) introductory text to remove ‘‘or
(iii).’’
Use of the plural in referencing ‘‘. . . an
open-ended valves . . .’’ is incorrect grammar.
Amend 40 CFR 63.660(i)(2)(iii) to read ‘‘Use a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve for an open-ended valve or
line . . .’’
Equation term NHVvg incorrectly references
paragraph (l)(4) and should instead reference (k)(4).
Amend the reference in the equation term NHVvg in 40 CFR
63.670(d)(2) from (l)(4) to (k)(4).
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
6081
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 2018 RULE—Continued
Provision
Issue
Final revision
Refinery MACT 2
Table 4 to Subpart UUU, Item
9.c. ‘‘XRF procedure in appendix A to this subpart
1; . . .’’.
The ‘‘1’’ should be superscripted as it is intended to identify footnote 1.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
As described in section III of this
preamble, the EPA is not revising the
2015 Rule requirements for: (1) The
work practice standards for PRDs; (2)
the work practice standards for
emergency flaring events; (3) the
assessment of risk as modified based on
implementation of these PRD and
emergency flaring work practice
standards; or (4) the provision allowing
refineries to reduce the frequency of
fenceline monitoring at sampling
locations that consistently record
benzene concentrations below 0.9 mg/
m3. In this action, the EPA is finalizing
two clarifying amendments which were
included in the proposed notice of
reconsideration. These amendments are
not expected to have any cost,
environmental, or economic impacts.
Therefore, the burden estimates and
economic impact analysis associated
with the December 2015 rule (available
in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0682) have not been altered as a result
of this action. We note that in the
November 2018 rule, the EPA revised
the requirements for the alternative
water overflow provisions for DCUs. A
discussion of the cost, environmental,
and economic impacts of the
amendments for the water overflow
provisions for DCUs were included in
the April 2018 proposal and the
November 2018 rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to OMB for review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Amend Item 9.c. of Table 4 to Subpart UUU to read. ‘‘XRF
procedure in appendix A to this subpart; 1 . . .’’
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations at
40 CFR part 63, subparts CC and UUU,
and has assigned OMB control numbers
2060–0340 and 2060–0554. The
revisions adopted in this action are
clarifications and technical corrections
that do not affect the estimated burden
of the existing rule. Therefore, we have
not revised the information collection
request for the existing rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The rule
revisions being made through this
action consist of clarifications and
technical corrections which do not
change the expected economic impact
analysis performed for the December
2015 rule. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effect on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action do not present
a disproportionate risk to children. The
actions taken in this rulemaking are
technical clarifications and corrections
and they do not affect risk for any
populations.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
6082
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The actions taken in this rulemaking are
technical clarifications and corrections
and they do not affect the risk for any
populations.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 14, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency is amending 40 CFR part 63 as
follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CC—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Petroleum Refineries
2. Section 63.640 is amended by
revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.640 Applicability and designation of
affected source.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(p) * * *
(2) Equipment leaks that are also
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part
60, subpart GGGa, are required to
comply only with the provisions
specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa, except that pressure relief
devices in organic HAP service must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
only comply with the requirements in
§ 63.648(j).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 63.641 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘Reference
control technology for storage vessels’’
to read as follows:
§ 63.641
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Reference control technology for
storage vessels means either:
(1) For Group 1 storage vessels
complying with § 63.660:
(i) An internal floating roof, including
an external floating roof converted to an
internal floating roof, meeting the
specifications of §§ 63.1063(a)(1)(i),
(a)(2), and (b) and 63.660(b)(2);
(ii) An external floating roof meeting
the specifications of §§ 63.1063(a)(1)(ii),
(a)(2), and (b) and 63.660(b)(2); or
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) A closed-vent system to a control
device that reduces organic HAP
emissions by 95 percent, or to an outlet
concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv).
(v) For purposes of emissions
averaging, these four technologies are
considered equivalent.
(2) For all other storage vessels:
(i) An internal floating roof meeting
the specifications of § 63.119(b) of
subpart G except for § 63.119(b)(5) and
(6);
(ii) An external floating roof meeting
the specifications of § 63.119(c) of
subpart G except for § 63.119(c)(2);
(iii) An external floating roof
converted to an internal floating roof
meeting the specifications of § 63.119(d)
of subpart G except for § 63.119(d)(2); or
(iv) A closed-vent system to a control
device that reduces organic HAP
emissions by 95 percent, or to an outlet
concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume.
(v) For purposes of emissions
averaging, these four technologies are
considered equivalent.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.643 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1)(v) to read as
follows:
§ 63.643 Miscellaneous process vent
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) If, after applying best practices to
isolate and purge equipment served by
a maintenance vent, none of the
applicable criterion in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section can
be met prior to installing or removing a
blind flange or similar equipment blind,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the pressure in the equipment served by
the maintenance vent is reduced to 2
psig or less. Active purging of the
equipment may be used provided the
equipment pressure at the location
where purge gas is introduced remains
at 2 psig or less.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 63.648 is amended by
revising paragraphs (j) introductory text
and (j)(2)(i) through (iii) to read as
follows:
§ 63.648
Equipment leak standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Except as specified in paragraph
(j)(4) of this section, the owner or
operator must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure
relief devices, such as relief valves or
rupture disks, in organic HAP gas or
vapor service instead of the pressure
relief device requirements of § 60.482–4
of this chapter, § 60.482–4a of this
chapter, or § 63.165, as applicable.
Except as specified in paragraphs (j)(4)
and (5) of this section, the owner or
operator must also comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph
(j)(3) of this section for all pressure
relief devices in organic HAP service.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) If the pressure relief device does
not consist of or include a rupture disk,
conduct instrument monitoring, as
specified in § 60.485(c) of this chapter,
§ 60.485a(c) of this chapter, or
§ 63.180(c), as applicable, no later than
5 calendar days after the pressure relief
device returns to organic HAP gas or
vapor service following a pressure
release to verify that the pressure relief
device is operating with an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm.
(ii) If the pressure relief device
includes a rupture disk, either comply
with the requirements in paragraph
(j)(2)(i) of this section (not replacing the
rupture disk) or install a replacement
disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure release.
The owner or operator must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in
§ 60.485(c) of this chapter, § 60.485a(c)
of this chapter or § 63.180(c), as
applicable, no later than 5 calendar days
after the pressure relief device returns to
organic HAP gas or vapor service
following a pressure release to verify
that the pressure relief device is
operating with an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm.
(iii) If the pressure relief device
consists only of a rupture disk, install a
replacement disk as soon as practicable
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
6. Section 63.655 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iii), (f)(2),
adding a paragraph (h)(10) subject
heading, and revising paragraph (i)(11)
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 63.655 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For miscellaneous process vents
controlled by control devices required
to be tested under §§ 63.645 and
63.116(c), performance test results
including the information in paragraphs
(f)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
Results of a performance test conducted
prior to the compliance date of this
subpart can be used provided that the
test was conducted using the methods
specified in § 63.645 and that the test
conditions are representative of current
operating conditions. If the performance
test is submitted electronically through
the EPA’s Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in
accordance with § 63.655(h)(9), the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be
submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status in lieu of the
performance test results. The
performance test results must be
submitted to CEDRI by the date the
Notification of Compliance Status is
submitted.
(A) The percentage of reduction of
organic HAP’s or TOC, or the outlet
concentration of organic HAP’s or TOC
(parts per million by volume on a dry
basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen),
determined as specified in § 63.116(c) of
subpart G of this part; and
(B) The value of the monitored
parameters specified in table 10 of this
subpart, or a site-specific parameter
approved by the permitting authority,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
averaged over the full period of the
performance test.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) If initial performance tests are
required by §§ 63.643 through 63.653,
the Notification of Compliance Status
report shall include one complete test
report for each test method used for a
particular source. On and after February
1, 2016, for data collected using test
methods supported by the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA’s ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test,
you must submit the results in
accordance with § 63.655(h)(9) by the
date that you submit the Notification of
Compliance Status, and you must
include the process unit(s) tested, the
pollutant(s) tested, and the date that
such performance test was conducted in
the Notification of Compliance Status.
All other performance test results must
be reported in the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(i) For additional tests performed
using the same method, the results
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section shall be submitted, but a
complete test report is not required.
(ii) A complete test report shall
include a sampling site description,
description of sampling and analysis
procedures and any modifications to
standard procedures, quality assurance
procedures, record of operating
conditions during the test, record of
preparation of standards, record of
calibrations, raw data sheets for field
sampling, raw data sheets for field and
laboratory analyses, documentation of
calculations, and any other information
required by the test method.
(iii) Performance tests are required
only if specified by §§ 63.643 through
63.653 of this subpart. Initial
performance tests are required for some
kinds of emission points and controls.
Periodic testing of the same emission
point is not required.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(10) Extensions to electronic reporting
deadlines.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(11) For each pressure relief device
subject to the pressure release
management work practice standards in
§ 63.648(j)(3), the owner or operator
shall keep the records specified in
paragraphs (i)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section. For each pilot-operated
pressure relief device subject to the
requirements at § 63.648(j)(4)(ii), the
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
owner or operator shall keep the records
specified in paragraph (i)(11)(iv) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 63.660 is amended by
revising paragraph (i)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.660
Storage vessel provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Use a cap, blind flange, plug, or
a second valve for an open-ended valve
or line following the requirements
specified in § 60.482–6(a)(2), (b), and
(c).
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 63.670 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.670 Requirements for flare control
devices.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Vtip must be less than 400 feet per
second and also less than the maximum
allowed flare tip velocity (Vmax) as
calculated according to the following
equation. The owner or operator shall
monitor Vtip using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (i) and (k) of this
section and monitor gas composition
and determine NHVvg using the
procedures specified in paragraphs (j)
and (l) of this section.
Where:
Vmax = Maximum allowed flare tip velocity,
ft/sec.
NHVvg = Net heating value of flare vent gas,
as determined by paragraph (k)(4) of this
section, Btu/scf.
1,212 = Constant.
850 = Constant.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart UUU—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic
Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming
Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units
9. Revise Table 4 to Subpart UUU of
Part 63 to read as follows:
■
Table 4 to Subpart UUU of Part 63—
Requirements for Performance Tests for
Metal HAP Emissions From Catalytic
Cracking Units
As stated in §§ 63.1564(b)(2) and
63.1571(a)(5), you shall meet each
requirement in the following table that
applies to you.
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
ER04FE20.003</GPH>
after a pressure release, but no later than
5 calendar days after the pressure
release. The owner or operator may not
initiate startup of the equipment served
by the rupture disk until the rupture
disc is replaced. The owner or operator
must conduct instrument monitoring, as
specified in § 60.485(c) of this chapter,
§ 60.485a(c) of this chapter, or
§ 63.180(c), as applicable, no later than
5 calendar days after the pressure relief
device returns to organic HAP gas or
vapor service following a pressure
release to verify that the pressure relief
device is operating with an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm.
*
*
*
*
*
6083
6084
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each new or existing
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . .
1. Any .................................
2. Subject to the NSPS for
PM in 40 CFR 60.102
and not elect § 60.100(e).
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to these
requirements . . .
a. Select sampling
port’s location and
the number of traverse ports.
b. Determine velocity
and volumetric flow
rate.
Method 1 or 1A in appendix A–1 to part 60
of this chapter.
Sampling sites must be located at the outlet
of the control device or the outlet of the
regenerator, as applicable, and prior to
any releases to the atmosphere.
c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis.
d. Measure moisture
content of the stack
gas.
e. If you use an electrostatic precipitator, record the
total number of
fields in the control
system and how
many operated during the applicable
performance test.
f. If you use a wet
scrubber, record
the total amount
(rate) of water (or
scrubbing liquid)
and the amount
(rate) of make-up
liquid to the scrubber during each
test run.
a. Measure PM emissions.
b. Compute coke
burn-off rate and
PM emission rate
(lb/1,000 lb of coke
burn-off).
c. Measure opacity of
emissions.
3. Subject to the NSPS for
a. Measure PM emisPM in 40 CFR
sions.
60.102a(b)(1) or elect
§ 60.100(e), electing the
PM for coke burn-off limit.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
b. Compute coke
burn-off rate and
PM emission rate
(lb/1,000 lb of coke
burn-off).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix
A–1 to part 60 of this chapter, or Method
2G in appendix A–2 to part 60 of this
chapter, as applicable.
Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A–2 to
part 60 of this chapter, as applicable.
Method 4 in appendix A–3 to part 60 of this
chapter.
Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions
and associated moisture content for units
without wet scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions and associated moisture content for unit with wet scrubber.
Equations 1, 2, and 3 of § 63.1564 (if applicable).
You must maintain a sampling rate of at
least 0.15 dry standard cubic meters per
minute (dscm/min) (0.53 dry standard
cubic feet per minute (dscf/min)).
Continuous opacity monitoring system ........
You must collect opacity monitoring data
every 10 seconds during the entire period
of the Method 5, 5B, or 5F performance
test and reduce the data to 6-minute
averages.
You must maintain a sampling rate of at
least 0.15 dscm/min (0.53 dscf/min).
Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions
and associated moisture content for units
without wet scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions and associated moisture content for unit with wet scrubber.
Equations 1, 2, and 3 of § 63.1564 (if applicable).
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each new or existing
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . .
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to these
requirements . . .
c. Establish site-specific limit if you use
a COMS.
Continuous opacity monitoring system ........
4. Subject to the NSPS for
PM in 40 CFR
60.102a(b)(1) or elect
§ 60.100(e).
a. Measure PM emissions.
Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions
and associated moisture content for units
without wet scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) to determine PM emissions and associated moisture content for unit with wet scrubber.
If you elect to comply with the site-specific
opacity limit in § 63.1564(b)(4)(i), you
must collect opacity monitoring data
every 10 seconds during the entire period
of the Method 5, 5B, or 5F performance
test. For site specific opacity monitoring,
reduce the data to 6-minute averages;
determine and record the average opacity
for each test run; and compute the sitespecific opacity limit using Equation 4 of
§ 63.1564.
You must maintain a sampling rate of at
least 0.15 dscm/min (0.53 dscf/min).
5. Option 1a: Elect NSPS
subpart J requirements
for PM per coke burn-off
limit, not subject to the
NSPS for PM in 40 CFR
60.102 or 60.102a(b)(1).
6. Option 1b: Elect NSPS
subpart Ja requirements
for PM per coke burn-off
limit, not subject to the
NSPS for PM in 40 CFR
60.102 or 60.102a(b)(1).
7. Option 1c: Elect NSPS
requirements for PM concentration, not subject to
the NSPS for PM in 40
CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
8. Option 2: PM per coke
burn-off limit, not subject
to the NSPS for PM in 40
CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
9. Option 3: Ni lb/hr limit,
not subject to the NSPS
for PM in 40 CFR 60.102
or 60.102a(b)(1).
See item 2 of this
table.
See item 3 of this
table.
See item 4 of this
table.
See item 3 of this
table.
a. Measure concentration of Ni.
b. Compute Ni emission rate (lb/hr).
c. Determine the
equilibrium catalyst
Ni concentration.
d. If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system, establish your sitespecific Ni operating limit.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6085
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8)
Equation 5 of § 63.1564.
XRF procedure in appendix A to this subpart; 1 or EPA Method 6010B or 6020 or
EPA Method 7520 or 7521 in SW–8462;
or an alternative to the SW–846 method
satisfactory to the Administrator.
You must obtain 1 sample for each of the 3
test runs; determine and record the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration for each
of the 3 samples; and you may adjust the
laboratory results to the maximum value
using Equation 1 of § 63.1571, if applicable.
i. Equations 6 and 7 of § 63.1564 using (1) You must collect opacity monitoring data
data from continuous opacity monitoring
every 10 seconds during the entire period
system, gas flow rate, results of equiof the initial Ni performance test; reduce
librium catalyst Ni concentration analysis,
the data to 6-minute averages; and deterand Ni emission rate from Method 29 test.
mine and record the average opacity
from all the 6-minute averages for each
test run.
(2) You must collect gas flow rate monitoring data every 15 minutes during the
entire period of the initial Ni performance
test; measure the gas flow as near as
practical to the continuous opacity monitoring system; and determine and record
the hourly average actual gas flow rate
for each test run.
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
6086
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each new or existing
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . .
10. Option 4: Ni per coke
burn-off limit, not subject
to the NSPS for PM in 40
CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
Using . . .
a. Measure concentration of Ni.
b. Compute Ni emission rate (lb/1,000
lb of coke burn-off).
c. Determine the
equilibrium catalyst
Ni concentration.
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
8). Equations 1 and 8 of § 63.1564.
d. If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system, establish your sitespecific Ni operating limit.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11. If you elect item 5 Option 1b in Table 1, item 7
Option 2 in Table 1, item
8 Option 3 in Table 1, or
item 9 Option 4 in Table
1 of this subpart and you
use continuous parameter monitoring systems.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
According to these
requirements . . .
You must . . .
e. Record the catalyst
addition rate for
each test and
schedule for the
10-day period prior
to the test.
a. Establish each operating limit in
Table 2 of this subpart that applies to
you.
See item 9.c. of this table ............................
i. Equations 9 and 10 of § 63.1564 with
data from continuous opacity monitoring
system, coke burn-off rate, results of
equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration analysis, and Ni emission rate from Method
29 test.
Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
b. Electrostatic precipitator or wet
scrubber: Gas flow
rate.
i. Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
c. Electrostatic precipitator: Total
power (voltage and
current) and secondary current.
i. Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
18:16 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
You must obtain 1 sample for each of the 3
test runs; determine and record the equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration for each
of the 3 samples; and you may adjust the
laboratory results to the maximum value
using Equation 2 of § 63.1571, if applicable.
(1) You must collect opacity monitoring data
every 10 seconds during the entire period
of the initial Ni performance test; reduce
the data to 6-minute averages; and determine and record the average opacity
from all the 6-minute averages for each
test run.
(2) You must collect gas flow rate monitoring data every 15 minutes during the
entire period of the initial Ni performance
test; measure the gas flow rate as near
as practical to the continuous opacity
monitoring system; and determine and
record the hourly average actual gas flow
rate for each test run.
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(1) You must collect gas flow rate monitoring data every 15 minutes during the
entire period of the initial performance
test; determine and record the average
gas flow rate for each test run.
(2) You must determine and record the 3-hr
average gas flow rate from the test runs.
Alternatively, before August 1, 2017, you
may determine and record the maximum
hourly average gas flow rate from all the
readings.
(1) You must collect voltage, current, and
secondary current monitoring data every
15 minutes during the entire period of the
performance test; and determine and
record the average voltage, current, and
secondary current for each test run. Alternatively, before August 1, 2017, you may
collect voltage and secondary current (or
total power input) monitoring data every
15 minutes during the entire period of the
initial performance test.
(2) You must determine and record the 3-hr
average total power to the system for the
test runs and the 3-hr average secondary
current from the test runs. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017, you may determine and record the minimum hourly average voltage and secondary current (or
total power input) from all the readings.
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
For each new or existing
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator vent . . .
6087
You must . . .
Using . . .
According to these
requirements . . .
d. Electrostatic precipitator or wet
scrubber: Equilibrium catalyst Ni
concentration.
Results of analysis for equilibrium catalyst
Ni concentration.
e. Wet scrubber:
Pressure drop (not
applicable to nonventuri scrubber of
jet ejector design).
i. Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
f. Wet scrubber: Liquid-to-gas ratio.
i. Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
g. Alternative procedure for gas flow
rate.
i. Data from the continuous parameter monitoring systems and applicable performance test methods.
You must determine and record the average equilibrium catalyst Ni concentration
for the 3 runs based on the laboratory results. You may adjust the value using
Equation 1 or 2 of § 63.1571 as applicable.
(1) You must collect pressure drop monitoring data every 15 minutes during the
entire period of the initial performance
test; and determine and record the average pressure drop for each test run.
(2) You must determine and record the 3-hr
average pressure drop from the test runs.
Alternatively, before August 1, 2017, you
may determine and record the minimum
hourly average pressure drop from all the
readings.
(1) You must collect gas flow rate and total
water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate monitoring data every 15 minutes during the
entire period of the initial performance
test; determine and record the average
gas flow rate for each test run; and determine the average total water (or scrubbing liquid) flow for each test run.
(2) You must determine and record the
hourly average liquid-to-gas ratio from the
test runs. Alternatively, before August 1,
2017, you may determine and record the
hourly average gas flow rate and total
water (or scrubbing liquid) flow rate from
all the readings.
(3) You must determine and record the 3-hr
average liquid-to-gas ratio. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017, you may determine and record the minimum liquid-togas ratio.
(1) You must collect air flow rate monitoring
data or determine the air flow rate using
control room instrumentation every 15
minutes during the entire period of the
initial performance test.
(2) You must determine and record the 3-hr
average rate of all the readings from the
test runs. Alternatively, before August 1,
2017, you may determine and record the
hourly average rate of all the readings.
(3) You must determine and record the
maximum gas flow rate using Equation 1
of § 63.1573.
1 Determination
of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).
Method 6010B, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry, EPA Method 6020, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, EPA Method 7520, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration, and EPA Method 7521, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration are
included in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW–
846 and Updates (document number 955–001–00000–1) are available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800; and from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487–4650. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket Center, William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building (Air
Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite
700, Washington, DC.
2 EPA
[FR Doc. 2020–01108 Filed 2–3–20; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:30 Feb 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6064-6087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01108]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682; FRL 10004-55-OAR]
RIN 2016-AT18
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Petroleum Refinery Sector
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action sets forth the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) decision on aspects of the Agency's proposed
reconsideration of the December 1, 2015, final rule: Petroleum Refinery
Sector Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). This action also finalizes proposed
amendments to clarify a compliance issue raised by stakeholders subject
to the rule, to correct referencing errors, and to correct publication
errors associated with amendments to the final rule which were
published on November 26, 2018.
DATES: This final action is effective on February 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, (e.g.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet, and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/,
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room
Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
please contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and abbreviations. A number of
acronyms and abbreviations are used in this preamble. While this list
may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCU delayed coking unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
FCCU fluid catalytic cracking unit
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
lb/day pounds per day
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
MPV miscellaneous process vent
NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
[[Page 6065]]
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PSM Process Safety Management
PTE potential to emit
RCA/CAA root cause analysis and corrective action analysis
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
RTR residual risk and technology review
SRU sulfur recovery unit
[mu]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration
action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Final Action
A. Issue 1: Work Practice Standard for PRDs
B. Issue 2: Work Practice Standard for Emergency Flaring
C. Issue 3: Assessment of Risk From the Petroleum Refinery
Source Categories After Implementation of the PRD and Emergency
Flaring Work Practice Standards
D. Issue 4: Alternative Work Practice Standards for DCUs
Employing the Water Overflow Design
E. Issue 5: Alternative Sampling Frequency for Burden Reduction
for Fenceline Monitoring
F. Additional Proposed Clarifying Amendments
G. Corrections to November 2018 Final Rule
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
112, 301, and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412,
7601, and 7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are
shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refining Industry............................ 324110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final action regarding the sector rules
for the Petroleum Refinery source category is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this document will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents on this same
website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by April 6,
2020. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may
not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider
the rule ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC West Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both
the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
The EPA promulgated NESHAP pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) for petroleum refineries located at major sources in three separate
rules. These standards are also referred to as maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards. The first rule, promulgated on
August 18, 1995, and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (also
referred to as Refinery MACT 1), regulates miscellaneous process vents,
storage vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks, gasoline loading racks,
marine tank vessel loading, and heat
[[Page 6066]]
exchange systems. The second rule, promulgated on April 11, 2002, and
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU (also referred to as Refinery
MACT 2), regulates process vents on catalytic cracking units (CCUs,
including fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs)), catalytic reforming
units, and sulfur recovery units (SRUs). The third rule, promulgated on
October 28, 2009, amended Refinery MACT 1 to include MACT standards for
heat exchange systems, which were not originally addressed in Refinery
MACT 1. This same rulemaking included updating cross-references to the
General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63.
The EPA conducted a residual risk and technology review (RTR) of
Refinery MACT 1 and 2, publishing proposed amendments on June 30, 2014
(June 2014 proposal). These proposed amendments included technical
corrections and clarifications raised in a 2008 industry petition for
reconsideration of NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ja). After soliciting, receiving, and addressing public
comments, the EPA published final amendments on December 1, 2015. The
December 2015 final rule (December 2015 rule) included a determination
pursuant to CAA section 112(f) that the remaining risk after
promulgation of the revised NESHAP is acceptable and that the standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental effect. The December 2015 rule also finalized
changes to Refinery MACT 1 and 2 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), notably revising the requirements for flares and pressure relief
devices (PRDs), removing startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemptions,
and adding requirements for delayed cokers. Additional amendments were
also promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require a
fenceline monitoring work practice standard as an advancement in the
way fugitive emissions are managed and mitigated. The December 2015
rule also finalized technical corrections and clarifications to
Refinery NSPS subparts J and Ja to address issues raised by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) in their 2008 petition for
reconsideration of the final NSPS Ja rule that had not been previously
addressed. These included corrections and clarifications to provisions
for sulfur recovery plants, performance testing, and control device
operating parameters.
The EPA received three separate administrative petitions for
reconsideration of the December 2015 rule. Two petitions were jointly
filed by the API and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
(AFPM). The first of these petitions was filed on January 19, 2016, and
requested that the EPA reconsider the maintenance vent provisions in
Refinery MACT 1 for sources constructed on or before June 30, 2014; the
alternate startup, shutdown, or hot standby standards for FCCUs
constructed on or before June 30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; the
alternate startup and shutdown for SRUs constructed on or before June
30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; and the new CRUs purging limitations in
Refinery MACT 2. The request pertained to providing and/or clarifying
the compliance time for these sources. Based on this request and
additional information received, the EPA issued a proposal on February
9, 2016 (81 FR 6814), and a final rule on July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45232),
fully responding to the January 19, 2016, petition for reconsideration.
The second petition from API and AFPM was filed on February 1,
2016, and outlined a number of specific issues related to the work
practice standards for PRDs and flares, and the alternative water
overflow provisions for delayed coking units (DCUs), as well as a
number of other specific issues on other aspects of the rule. The third
petition was filed on February 1, 2016, by Earthjustice on behalf of
Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean
Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Community In-
Power & Development Association, the Del Amo Action Committee, the
Environmental Integrity Project, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the
Sierra Club, the Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. The Earthjustice petition
claimed that several aspects of the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 were
not proposed, and, thus the public was precluded from commenting on
them during the public comment period, including: (1) Work practice
standards for PRDs and flares; (2) alternative water overflow
provisions for DCUs; (3) reduced monitoring provisions for fenceline
monitoring; and (4) adjustments to the risk assessment to account for
these new work practice standards. On June 16, 2016, the EPA sent
letters to petitioners granting reconsideration on issues where
petitioners claimed they had not been provided an opportunity to
comment. These petitions and letters granting reconsideration are
available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket ID Item Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0860, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0891, and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682-0892).
On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661), the EPA proposed for public
comment the issues for which reconsideration was granted in the June
16, 2016, letters. The EPA solicited public comment on five issues in
the proposal: (1) The work practice standards for PRDs; (2) the work
practice standards for emergency flaring events; (3) the assessment of
risk as modified based on implementation of these PRD and emergency
flaring work practice standards; (4) the alternative work practice
standards for DCUs employing the water overflow design; and (5) the
provision allowing refineries to reduce the frequency of fenceline
monitoring at sampling locations that consistently record benzene
concentrations below 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). In
that notice, the EPA also proposed two minor clarifying amendments to
correct a cross referencing error and to clarify that facilities
complying with overlapping equipment leak provisions must still comply
with the PRD work practice standards in the December 2015 rule. We
received public comments from 17 parties. Copies of all comments
submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room.
Comments are also available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
In section III of this preamble, the EPA sets forth its final
decisions on each of the five reconsideration items included in the
October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661), proposed notice of reconsideration
(October 2016 proposed notice of reconsideration). Additionally,
section III of this preamble summarizes the history of each of the five
reconsideration items as well as the two proposed clarifying amendments
included in the proposed notice of reconsideration, summarizes the
public comments received on the proposed notice of reconsideration, and
presents the EPA's responses to these comments.
As described in section III.D of this preamble, specific to
reconsideration item (4), the alternative work practice standards for
DCUs employing the water overflow design, the EPA proposed and
finalized amendments to the DCU water overflow provisions to address
comments on the October 2016 proposed notice of reconsideration. On
April 10, 2018 (April 2018 proposal) (83 FR 15458), the EPA proposed a
number of technical amendments to Refinery MACT 1 and 2 and the
Refinery NSPS, which included a proposed requirement to use a vapor
disengaging device for
[[Page 6067]]
DCUs using the water overflow provisions. On November 26, 2018,
(November 2018 rule) (83 FR 60696), the EPA finalized the technical
amendments from the April 2018 proposal, including requirements for
DCUs using the water overflow provisions, after considering public
comments received on the April 2018 proposal.
III. Final Action
A. Issue 1: Work Practice Standard for PRDs
1. What is the history of work practice standards for PRDs?
In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed to revise Refinery MACT
1 to establish operating and pressure release requirements that apply
to all PRDs and to prohibit atmospheric releases of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from PRDs. To ensure compliance, we proposed to
require that sources monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of
recording the time and duration of each pressure release and notifying
operators that a pressure release has occurred. Many commenters
suggested that a prohibition on atmospheric PRD releases did not
reflect the manner in which the best performing facilities operate, was
unachievable and/or very costly, and would have negative environmental
impacts due to additional flares that would need to be installed and
operated in standby mode to accept the PRD releases. Some commenters
suggested that we should instead consider as MACT the rules on PRDs
that apply to refineries in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD).
The two California district rules are similar in that they both
establish comprehensive regulatory programs to address the group or
system of PRDs at refineries by requiring monitoring, root cause
analysis, and corrective action, and by applying only to those PRD with
the greatest emissions potential through a combination of applicability
thresholds. Based on these comments, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3), we identified the SCAQMD rule as representing the requirements
applicable to the best performers for PRDs. Consistent with the
requirements of the SCAQMD rule and considering additional measures
included in the BAAQMD rule, we established work practice standards for
PRDs in the December 2015 rule (see 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)) for new and
existing sources. The work practice standard is a comprehensive set of
requirements that apply to PRDs at refineries and focuses on reducing
the size and frequency of atmospheric releases of HAP from PRDs, with
an emphasis on prevention, monitoring, correction, and limitations on
the frequency of release events. For further details on our analysis of
the SCAQMD and BAAQMD rules and our use of those rules to establish a
work practice standard for PRDs that is representative of the
requirements that apply at best performing refineries, refer to the
December 1, 2015, document at 80 FR 75216-18 and the memorandum in the
docket titled ``Pressure Relief Device Control Option Impacts for Final
Refinery Sector Rule,'' July 30, 2015 (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682-0750).
The work practice standard included in the December 2015 rule is
comprised of four parts. The first component of the work practice
standard requires that owners or operators monitor PRDs using a system
that is capable of recording the time and duration of each pressure
release and notifying operators that a pressure release has occurred.
Second, the work practice standard requires refinery owners or
operators to establish preventative measures for each affected PRD to
minimize the likelihood of a direct release of HAP to the atmosphere as
a result of pressure release events. Third, in the event of an
atmospheric release, the work practice standard requires refinery
owners or operators to conduct a root cause analysis to determine the
cause of a PRD release event. If the root cause was due to operator
error or negligence, then the release would be a violation of the work
practice standard. A second release due to the same root cause for the
same equipment in a 3-year period would be a violation of the work
practice standard. A third release in a 3-year period would be a
violation of the work practice standard, regardless of the root cause--
although force majeure events, as defined in the December 2015 rule,
would not count in determining whether there has been a second or third
event. The fourth component of the work practice standard is a
requirement for corrective action. For any event other than a force
majeure event, the owner or operator would be required to conduct a
corrective action analysis and implement corrective action. Refiners
have 45 days to complete the root cause analysis and implement
corrective action after the release event. The results of the root
cause analysis and identification of the corrective action are required
to be included in the periodic reports which are due on a semi-annual
basis.
Consistent with the District rules, the work practice standard does
not apply to the following PRDs that have very low potential to emit
(PTE) based on their type of service, size, and pressure (40 CFR
63.648(j)(5)): PRDs that only release material that is liquid at
standard temperature and pressure and that is hard-piped to a
controlled drain system, PRDs that do not have a PTE of 72 pounds per
day (lbs/day) or more of volatile organic compounds (VOC), PRDs with
design release pressure of less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig), PRDs on mobile equipment, PRDs in heavy liquid service, and
PRDs that are designed solely to release due to liquid thermal
expansion. These PRDs are subject to the operating and pressure release
requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) and (2), which apply to all PRDs,
but not the pressure release management requirements in 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3).
We requested public comment on the work practice standard for PRDs
as provided in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) and (5) through (7), including the
number and type of release/event allowances; the type of PRDs subject
to the work practice standard; and the definition of ``force majeure
event'' in 40 CFR 63.641. We also requested public comment on the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the work
practice standard in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iii) and (i)(11).
The following is a summary of the comments received in response to
our October 2016 proposed notice of reconsideration and our responses
to these comments.
2. What comments were received on the work practice standards for PRDs?
Comment A.1: Some commenters were generally supportive of the final
work practice standards for PRDs while other commenters disagreed with
numerous aspects of the final work practice standards. The commenters
who did not support the work practice standards claimed that they are
unlawful because they do not provide for standards that are continuous
and that apply at all times, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA as
construed by the Court in the 2008 vacatur of the malfunction
exemptions in the MACT General Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019, 1027-28 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (``Congress has required that there
must be continuous section 112-compliant standards.''). The commenter
also noted that Congress in H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 92 (1977),
reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1170 also provided
[[Page 6068]]
that the term ``continuous'' emission standard requirement does not
allow merely ``temporary, periodic, or limited systems of control.''
The commenters believe that because the work practice standards do not
limit emissions to an amount certain during a PRD release event, there
is effectively no emission limitation that applies during these times.
Additionally, commenters do not believe that the work practice
standards are justified under CAA section 112(h) because they believe
the EPA erred in determining that the application of measurement
methodology was not feasible in the case of PRDs and cited available
wireless technology or monitoring of PRD releases.
Response A.1: We disagree that the standards do not apply at all
times. The work practice standards for PRDs require a number of
preventative measures that operators must undertake to prevent PRD
release events, and the installation and operation of continuous
monitoring device(s) to identify when a PRD release has occurred. These
measures must be complied with at all times. The monitoring technology
suggested by the commenters is in fact best suited to this application
and is one of the acceptable methods that facility owners or operators
may use to comply with the continuous monitoring requirement. Although
that technology is adequate for identifying PRD releases, we disagree
that it is adequate for accurately measuring emissions for purposes of
determining compliance with a numeric emission standard. The technology
cited is a wireless monitor that provides an indication that the PRD
released, but it does not provide information on release quantity or
composition. PRD release events are characterized by short, high
pressure non-steady state conditions which make such releases difficult
to quantitatively measure. As detailed in the preamble to the December
2015 rule (80 FR 75218), we specifically considered the issues related
to constructing a conveyance and quantitatively measuring PRD releases
and concluded that these measures were not practicable. Refinery
operators can estimate emissions based on vessel operating conditions
(temperature and pressure) and vessel contents when a release occurs,
but these estimates do not constitute a measurement of emissions or
emission rate within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). As such, we
maintain our position that the application of a work practice standard
is appropriate for PRDs.
Comment A.2: Commenters indicated that another reason they believe
that the PRD work practice standard is illegal is that PRDs are not
independent emission points and instead function in venting emissions
from other emission points during a malfunction. For example,
commenters pointed out that some equipment that vents to the atmosphere
and, therefore, must meet the miscellaneous process vent standard, may
also contain PRDs that vent HAP emissions to the atmosphere, bypassing
the requirements established for miscellaneous process vents. The
commenters believe that the EPA has simply created an exemption
allowing equipment connected to PRDs to violate their emission
standards without triggering a violation or potential enforcement and
penalty liability. Finally, the commenters indicated that the EPA
should retain the work practice standards for PRD on top of the
existing emission standards for connected equipment to assure
compliance and attempt to prevent fugitive emissions.
Response A.2: The commenters incorrectly suggest that the PRD work
practice standard replaces the existing emission standards for
``connected equipment.'' The amendments to the NESHAP addressing PRDs
do not affect requirements in the NESHAP that apply to equipment
associated with the PRD. For example, compliance with the PRD
requirements apply in addition to requirements for miscellaneous
process vents for the same equipment, which addresses the commenter's
suggestion.
We disagree that PRDs are simply bypasses for emissions that are
subject to emission limits and controls and that they, thus, allow for
uncontrolled emissions without violation or penalty. The PRDs are
generally safety devices that are used to prevent equipment failures
that could pose a danger to the facility and facility workers. The PRD
releases are triggered by equipment or process malfunction. As such,
they do not occur frequently or routinely and do not have the same
emissions or release characteristics that routine emission sources
have, even if the PRD and the vent are on the same equipment. This is
because conditions during a PRD release (temperature, pressure, and
vessel contents) differ from those that occur that result in routine
emissions as miscellaneous process vents. In contrast, emissions from
miscellaneous process vents are predictable and must be characterized
for emission potential and applicable control requirements prior to
operation in the facility's notification of compliance status report.
In addition, PRDs must operate in a closed position and, as discussed
earlier, must be continuously monitored to identify when releases have
occurred. If an affected pressure relief device releases to the
atmosphere, the owner and operator is required to perform root cause
analysis and corrective action analysis (RCA/CAA) as well as implement
corrective actions and comply with the specified reporting
requirements. The work practice standard also includes criteria for
releases from affected PRD which would result in a violation at 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(v).
Comment A.3: Commenters indicated that, even if the work practice
standards for PRDs are justified, the work practice standards do not
comply with the CAA requirements to assure both the average limitation
achieved by the relevant best-performing sources and the maximum degree
of emission reduction that is achievable. The commenters asserted that
there is no discussion in the record or analysis that allowing 1-2
uncontrolled releases every 3 years reflects, at minimum, the average
of the best performers' reductions and indicated that the EPA cannot
simply replicate rules in place that specify PRD requirements. The
commenters indicated that the EPA should have reviewed data, such as
the 2007 SCAQMD Staff Report (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869-
0024) which shows releases from Los Angeles area refineries ranged from
0.4-0.89 tons of VOC per year, to establish that no source has done
better or cannot do better than those rules allow. The commenters also
asserted that the EPA's promulgated work practice standards for PRDs
are not as stringent as the SCAQMD and BAAQMD requirements that they
are modelled after.
Response A.3: Section 112 of the CAA requires MACT for existing
sources to be no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for
which the Administrator has emissions information). . .'' [(CAA section
112(d)(3)(A)]. ``Emission limitation'' is defined in the CAA as ``. . .
a requirement established by the State or Administrator which limits
the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on
a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to operation or
maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and
any design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard
promulgated under this chapter'' [CAA section 302(k)]. The EPA
specifically considers existing rules from state and local authorities
in identifying the ``emission limitations'' for a given source. We then
identify the best performers to identify the MACT floor (the no less
stringent than level) for that source. The EPA identified the
[[Page 6069]]
SCAQMD rule requirements as the MACT floor because it represented the
requirements applicable to the best performing sources. The commenters
appear to suggest that the EPA should identify an emissions level
achieved in practice through implementation of the work practices in
the two California rules and that the EPA is obligated to require
sources to meet that emissions level. However, this is contrary to the
predicate for the EPA establishing work practice standards. Work
practice standards are established in place of a numeric limit where it
is not feasible to establish such limits. Thus, in a case such as this,
where the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to establish work
practice standards (because it is infeasible to establish numeric
limits), it was reasonable for the EPA to identify the work practice
standards that impose the most stringent requirements and, thus,
represent what applies to the best performers and then to require those
work practice standards as MACT.
We recognize that the final standards for PRDs do not exactly
mirror the SCAQMD provisions, but this is because, having established
the MACT floor, we consider options for going beyond the MACT floor. As
noted in the memorandum in the docket titled ``Pressure Relief Device
Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule,'' July 30, 2015
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0750), we looked at the BAAQMD
standard as a more stringent work practice standard, and while we did
not directly adopt the BAAQMD rule requirements, we did adopt several
aspects of that rule. Specifically, we adopted the three prevention
measures requirements in the BAAQMD with limited modifications. We also
did not include a provision similar to that in the SCAQMD rule that
excludes releases less than 500 lbs/day from the requirement to perform
a root cause analysis; that provision in the SCAQMD rule does not
include any other obligation to reduce the number of these events.
Rather than allowing unlimited releases less than 500 lbs/day, we
require a root cause analysis for releases of any size. We considered
these to be reasonable and cost-effective enhancements to the SCAQMD
rule. However, because we count small releases that the SCAQMD rule
does not regulate at all, we considered it reasonable to provide a
higher number of releases prior to considering the owner or operator to
be in violation of the work practice standard. After considering the
PRD release event limits in both the SCAQMD and BAAQMD rules, we
determined it was reasonable and appropriate to establish PRD
requirements consistent with those provisions in the SCAQMD and BAAQMD
rules that provide flare work practice standards. Therefore, the final
requirements provide that three events from the same PRD in a 3-
calendar-year period is a violation of the work practice standard. We
also note that a facility cannot simply choose to release pollutants
from a PRD; any release that is caused willfully or caused by
negligence or operator error is considered a violation. Additionally, a
second PRD release event in a 3-calendar-year period for the same root
cause is a violation.
With the implementation of the three prevention measures and the
elimination of the 500 lbs/day applicability threshold, we specifically
evaluated and adopted requirements beyond the MACT floor (i.e., more
stringent than the SCAQMD rule) and established requirements that we
deemed to be cost effective and that we determined would achieve
emission reductions equivalent to or better than the SCAQMD
requirements.
The EPA further notes that the reported emissions the commenters
claim the EPA should rely on are not actually measured emissions but
rather engineering calculations of release quantities. As such, even if
it were possible to establish a numeric emissions limit, there would be
concerns about relying on the information cited by the commenters.
Finally, we note that the commenter's summary of PRD release data from
the 2007 SCAQMD Staff Report (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869-
0024) suggests that the SCAQMD PRD requirements appear to be effective
at reducing PRD emissions compared to states that do not have similar
work practice standards.
In summary, the work practice standard we finalized provides a
comprehensive program to manage entire populations of PRDs and includes
prevention measures, continuous monitoring, root cause analysis, and
corrective actions, and addresses the potential for violations for
multiple releases over a 3-year period. We followed the requirements of
section 112 of the CAA, including CAA section 112(h), in establishing
what work practice constituted the MACT floor; we then identified
certain additional provisions which were more stringent than the MACT
floor requirements that we determined were cost effective, and we
finalized the work practice standards, as enhanced by those additional
provisions, as MACT.
Comment A.4: Commenters claimed that the EPA's malfunction
exemptions are arbitrary and capricious under the CAA because the EPA
did not finalize the prohibition on atmospheric releases from PRDs, as
included in the June 2014 proposal. The commenters noted that the EPA
finalized similar provisions prohibiting PRD releases in MACT standards
for Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient
Manufacturing, and Polyether Polyols Production. The commenters further
stated that the Court recently upheld this type of prohibition
[Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc. v EPA, 787 F.3d 544, 560-61 (D.C. Cir.
2015)] and urged the EPA to finalize the standards for PRD as proposed.
The commenters also suggested that the EPA's justification for not
finalizing a prohibition on atmospheric PRDs was based on environmental
disbenefits of having additional flare capacity on standby to control
these unpredictable and infrequent events. According to the commenters,
flares can be operated with spark ignition systems that would only
operate when triggered by a flare event, and, therefore, the commenters
suggested that the EPA overestimated the environmental disbenefits.
Response A.4: During the comment period on the June 2014 proposal,
comments both from industry and environmental advocacy groups suggested
we consider requiring the work practice standards established in
regulations adopted by the BAAQMD and SCAQMD rules for PRD releases. In
light of those comments and the statutory requirement that the EPA
evaluate the best performing facilities in determining the appropriate
MACT standard, the Agency considered whether the work practice
standards established in the SCAQMD and BAAQMD rules represented what
was achieved by the best performers. The BAAQMD and SCAQMD rules are
the only rules we are aware of that have been established to address
the infrequent and unpredictable nature of PRD releases for petroleum
refineries. As noted in the previous response, the EPA established a
MACT standard based on the SCAQMD rule and incorporated several of the
key elements of the BAAQMD standard into the PRD requirements
promulgated for new and existing sources in the December 2015 rule.
After determining a standard based on the best performing sources,
we examined whether to establish a more stringent standard (requiring
all PRD releases to be routed to a control
[[Page 6070]]
device). We rejected such an approach based on the economic impacts. We
estimated that requiring control of all atmospheric PRDs would cost
approximately 41 million dollars per year (annually) compared to the
estimated economic impact of the work practice standards of 3.3 million
dollars per year. (Cost is not a consideration in setting the MACT
floor, but it is relevant to our determination whether to establish
additional requirements more stringent than that floor.) We also
estimated that secondary emissions for additional flaring in the event
all PRDs were routed to a control device would increase greenhouse gas
emissions by 104,000 megagrams of carbon dioxide equivalents per year
and increase nitrogen oxide emissions by 85 tons per year (see
memorandum in the docket titled ``Pressure Relief Device Control Option
Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule,'' July 30, 2015, Docket ID Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0750).
Regarding the comment that flares could be equipped with spark
ignition systems, we note that such systems are not compliant with the
long-standing requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11 or the new
requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 that flares be operated with a pilot
present at all times. The EPA has previously rejected the use of spark
ignition systems because these systems may not reliably ignite on
demand which would result in an atmospheric release of the pollutants
routed to the flare.
Comment A.5: Commenters stated that the EPA's malfunction exemption
for force majeure events in the PRD work practice standard is arbitrary
and capricious under CAA section 112 because it creates periods of time
when no emissions standard applies. Further, commenters added that
force majeure is a term defined by contracts law to provide a defense
to avoid meeting a party's responsibility under a contract and applies
only where a party has specifically negotiated and agreed to its use.
As such, commenters claimed that the concept of force majeure does not
exist or belong in the context of compliance with a non-contractual
federal law, such as the CAA. Refineries should not be able to decide
when to comply with the CAA requirements.
Commenters stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to promulgate a
definition of force majeure that does not codify criteria for
determining whether a force majeure event or a violation has occurred
(i.e., the determination is left to the Administrator). The commenters
added that the EPA does not have the authority to decide when such an
event has occurred, rather the Court must decide whether a violation
warranting a penalty has occurred with the burden of proof resting on
the refinery.
Response A.5: The PRD work practice standard requires redundant
prevention measures, which are designed to limit the duration and
quantity of releases from all atmospheric PRDs regardless of the cause.
These requirements apply at all times; thus, the final work practice
standards do have requirements that apply to PRDs at all times and they
are not contrary to the CAA requirements in CAA section 112. We also
note that facilities are also required to initiate a root cause
analysis to assess the cause of the release, including releases
determined to be caused by a force majeure event.
We disagree that because force majeure is a term typically used in
contract law that it cannot or should not be used in the context of
regulations establishing standards under the CAA. We have determined
that a force majeure provision is part of the MACT floor for regulating
PRDs at refineries and, as such, should be included as part of the MACT
standard. The definition of force majeure event in the December 2015
final rule is based specifically on a clause included in the SCAQMD
rule, which served as the basis for the MACT standard. Rather than
repeating this clause at each instance, we determined that is was
preferential to use and define the term force majeure event. We find
that the December 2015 final rule's definition of force majeure event
has adequate specificity to allow determination of whether a PRD
release event was caused by a force majeure event. The definition
specifies events that are beyond the control of the operator, including
natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, external power
curtailments (excluding curtailments due to interruptible service
agreements), and fire or explosions originating at near or adjoining
facilities outside of the refinery owner or operator's control that
impact the refinery's ability to operate. The commenters suggest that
criteria are needed for determining whether a force majeure event has
occurred. We disagree; the examples provided in the definition provide
sufficient specificity to help guide a decisionmaker in deciding
whether to pursue an enforcement action because they believe a
violation has occurred that was not caused by a force majeure event and
for a court or other arbiter to rule on any claim. Regarding the
comment that the Court, not the Administrator, should determine when a
force majeure event has occurred, we note that the regulations do not
specify that the Administrator would make a binding determination of
whether a force majeure event has occurred, and the issue could be
argued and resolved by the Court in the context of a citizen suit.
Comment A.6: One commenter supported the work practices for PRD and
emergency flaring with the exception of the additional backstop
measures in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(iv) and (v) and 40 CFR
63.670(o)(7)(iv), respectively. The commenter explained that these
backstops arbitrarily limit the number of release events for PRD and
emergency flaring events and are not needed to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the work practice standards.
Response A.6: For PRDs, these are the applicable standards that
were determined to be MACT and are modeled after the backstop within
the SCAQMD rule. With respect to the flare work practice requirements,
our goal is to ensure continuous compliance with the emission limits
applicable to the gas streams that are discharged to the flare. We
determined that optimal HAP destruction occurs under specific
conditions, which include limited periods of visible emissions.
Therefore, we established these requirements in parallel with the PRD
requirements to help limit the size and duration of these emergency
flaring events and optimize flare performance. We consider these
backstop measures for PRD and emergency flaring to be critical to
ensure that the prevention measures implemented are effective, that the
root-cause analyses conducted are thorough, and that the corrective
action measures implemented are effective.
Comment A.7: Commenters stated the final rule provided criteria for
releases that will be considered a violation of the pressure release
management work practices in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(v)(B) and (C) based on a
``3 calendar year period,'' but the Agency did not explain how this
time period runs nor how it will be assessed or reported to the EPA and
to the public. The commenter noted that the EPA stated in the preamble
(80 FR 75212) relative to the flare work practice provisions, the
violation criteria is based on a ``rolling 3-year period,'' but a
rolling 3-year period is not in the regulatory text for either the
flare or PRD work practice.
Response A.7: The regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(B) and (C)
clearly states that the time period is based on a 3-calendar-year
period. We consider 2020 to be one calendar year. A 3-calendar-year
period in 2020 would include events that occurred in 2018, 2019, and
2020. It is a rolling average to the extent that, in 2021, one would
consider events that occurred in 2019,
[[Page 6071]]
2020, and 2021. As indicated in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iii), each
pressure release to the atmosphere, including the duration of the
release, the estimated quantity of each organic HAP released, and the
results of the RCA/CAA completed during the reporting period must be
included as part of the reporting obligation.
Comment A.8: Commenters stated that the EPA should add to the
reporting requirements for the PRD and flare work practice standards by
requiring an initial report to the EPA, state, and local regulators
within 1 hour of the start of a release event or within 1 hour of the
operator reasonably knowing of its occurrence. They maintained that the
initial report should include the process unit the flare or PRD is
associated with and initial identification of the cause of the event.
The initial report should be followed by a report containing the
contents of 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10) and (11) within 30 days after the
event and additionally include whether the PRD or flare has had an
emissions release or smoking event in the past 3 years, including
references or copies of previously submitted reports. Commenters added
that this would be consistent with the Agency's attempt to match the
SCAQMD requirements for PRDs. Finally, commenters suggested that the
EPA should require all malfunction reports be made publicly available
online at the same time they are submitted to the EPA.
Response A.8: The SCAQMD rule has notification and reporting
requirements for atmospheric PRD releases in excess of the reportable
quantity limits in 40 CFR part 117, part 302, and part 355, including
releases in excess of 100 pounds of VOC (Rule 1173(i)(3)). The
notification must occur within 1 hour of the release or within 1 hour
of the time a person should have reasonably known of its occurrence. A
written report must be submitted within 30 days of the atmospheric
release. These requirements closely mirror those under other EPA
programs, such as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 313
(SARA 313). We note that refinery owners or operators are already
required to report emissions events through various state and federal
requirements, including immediate notifications of releases exceeding
reportable quantities under SARA 313, and while we acknowledge that
these reports would be submitted to a different branch within the EPA,
we believe any additional reporting requirements would be redundant,
unnecessary, and inefficient. Therefore, we are not revising the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the December 2015 rule as
requested by the commenter.
Comment A.9: Commenters stated that the exemptions for specific
types of pressure relief devices are unlawful and arbitrary. Commenters
contended that the only justification the EPA has made for providing
these PRD exemptions is that the emissions are expected to be small.
Commenters asserted that there is no de minimis threshold for
regulating emission points within a source category and, thus, the
EPA's attempt to exempt certain types of PRDs is illegal.
Response A.9: We modeled the applicability of the PRD provisions
after the SCAQMD rule, based on a MACT floor analysis and considering
the appropriate requirements for these types of PRDs. It is likely that
the SCAQMD rule did not apply the PRD-specific requirements to certain
PRDs due to their low emissions release potential. As part of our
``beyond the floor'' analysis, we determined that it was not cost
effective to include control of these PRDs as part of the work practice
standard for PRDs. However, these PRDs are regulated under other
provisions of the MACT. We note that, if the PRD is in gas or vapor
service, refinery owners and operators are still required to monitor
the PRD after the release to verify the device is operating with an
instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million. Liquid PRDs are
still subject to repair if a leak is found during visual inspection.
3. What is the EPA's final decision on the work practice standards for
PRDs?
The PRD work practice standards were developed in accordance with
the CAA, establishing a MACT floor based on consideration of the SCAQMD
and BAAQMD work practice standards. The sources complying with these
requirements are the best performing sources. It was necessary to
establish these requirements as work practice standards under CAA
section 112(h) because quantitative measurement of flow rates during
PRD release events is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations with measuring highly transient flows. The inclusion of
force majeure event allowances and restrictions of the applicability of
the pressure release management requirements to specified types of PRDs
are consistent with the MACT floor and are necessary components of the
work practice standards. We consider a complete prohibition of
atmospheric PRD to be ``beyond the MACT floor'' and we are declining to
set a ``beyond the floor'' requirement on the basis of cost and
environmental disbenefits. We have not been presented with any comments
and/or information received in response to the October 2016 proposed
notice of reconsideration relative to the PRD work practice standards
which will result in any changes to the December 2015 rule.
B. Issue 2: Work Practice Standard for Emergency Flaring
1. What is the history of work practice standards for emergency
flaring?
In the June 2014 proposal, the EPA proposed to amend the operating
and monitoring requirements for petroleum refinery flares. As discussed
in the proposal at 79 FR 36904, we determined that the requirements for
flares in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.18 were not adequate to
ensure compliance with the Refinery MACT standards. In general, at the
time the MACT standards were promulgated, flares used as air pollution
control devices were expected to achieve a 98-percent HAP destruction
efficiency. However, because flows of waste gases to the flares had
diminished based on reductions achieved by the increased use of flare
gas recovery systems, there have been times when the waste gas to the
flare contained insufficient heat content to adequately combust and,
thus, a 98-percent HAP destruction efficiency was not being achieved.
In addition, the practice of applying assist media to the flare
(particularly steam to prevent smoking of the flare tip) had led to a
decrease in the combustion efficiency of flares.
To ensure that a 98-percent HAP destruction efficiency was being
met, as contemplated at the time the MACT standard was promulgated, we
proposed revisions to Refinery MACT 1 that required flares to operate
with a continuously-lit pilot flame at all times when gases are sent to
the flare, with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed 5
minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, and to meet flare tip velocity
limits and combustion zone operating limits at all times when gases are
flared.
During the comment period on the June 2014 proposal, we received
comments that the EPA's concern over insufficient heat content of the
waste gas or over-assisting flares is less problematic in attaining a
high level of destruction efficiency at the flare in emergency
situations, where the flow in the flare exceeds the smokeless capacity
of the flare. The commenters suggested that better combustion was
assured closer to the incipient smoke point of the flare and that flow
velocity limits and limits on visible emissions should not apply during
emergency flaring events.
[[Page 6072]]
In the December 2015 rule, we determined that it was appropriate to
set different standards for when a flare is operating below its
smokeless capacity and when it is operating above its smokeless
capacity. We finalized the proposed requirements (with minor revisions)
to apply when a flare is operating below its smokeless capacity.
In the December 2015 rule, we established a work practice standard
that applies to each affected flare with a potential to exceed its
smokeless capacity. The work practice standard requires owners or
operators to develop flare management plans to identify the flare
system smokeless capacity and flare components, waste gas streams that
are flared, monitoring systems and their locations, procedures that
will be followed to limit discharges to the flare that cause the flare
to exceed its smokeless capacity, and prevention measures implemented
for PRDs that discharge to the flare header. The work practice standard
requires a continuously-lit pilot flame, combustion-zone operating
limits, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
apply at all times--whether the flare is operating below, at, or above
its smokeless capacity, including during a force majeure event. These
requirements are the most critical in ensuring that a 98-percent
destruction efficiency is being met during emergency release events.
In addition, where a flare exceeds its smokeless capacity, a work
practice standard requires refinery owners or operators to conduct a
root cause analysis and take corrective action for any flaring event
that exceeds the flare's smokeless capacity and that also exceeds the
flare tip velocity and/or visible emissions limit. Refiners have 45
days to complete the root cause analysis and implement corrective
action after an event. The results of the root cause analysis and
corrective action are due with the periodic reports on a semi-annual
basis. If the root cause analysis indicates that the exceedance of the
flare tip velocity and/or the visible emissions limit is caused by
operator error or poor maintenance, the exceedance is a violation of
the work practice standard. A second event causing an exceedance of
either the flare tip velocity or the visible emissions limit within a
rolling 3-year period from the same root cause on the same equipment is
a violation of the standard. A third exceedance of the velocity or
visible emissions limit occurring from the same flare in a rolling 3-
year period is a violation of the work practice standard, regardless of
the root cause. However, force majeure events are excluded from the
event count.
We requested public comment on the above smokeless capacity work
practice standard in 40 CFR 63.670(o), including the requirements to
maintain records of prevention measures in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B)
and (iv); the requirement to establish a single smokeless design
capacity in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(iii)(B); the number and type of
releases/events that constitute a violation; the phrase ``. . . and the
flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless design capacity of
the flare'' in 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (d); the proposed correction to
paragraph 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B); and other provisions in 40 CFR
63.670(o)(3) through (7). We also requested public comment on the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with these work
practice standards in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(11)(iv) and (i)(9)(x) through
(xii).
In reviewing the regulatory text for this proposed action, we also
determined that 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) contains an incorrect
reference to pressure relief devices for which preventative measures
must be implemented. The correct reference is paragraph 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii), not 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5). We proposed to correct this
referencing error.
2. What comments were received on the work practice standards for
emergency flaring?
Comment B.1: Some commenters were generally supportive of the final
work practice standards for emergency flares, while other commenters
disagreed with numerous aspects of the final work practice standards.
The commenters who disagree indicated that establishing these work
practice standards for emergency flaring is unlawful because they do
not provide for standards that are continuous and that apply at all
times, as directed by section 112 of the CAA and as upheld by the Court
in the 2008 vacatur of the malfunction exemptions in the MACT General
Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1027-28 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(``Congress has required that there must be continuous section 112-
compliant standards.''); see also H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 92 (1977),
reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1077, 1170 (``continuous'' emission
standard requirement does not allow merely ``temporary, periodic, or
limited systems of control''). The commenters state that because the
work practice standards do not limit emissions to any certain amount
during an emergency flaring event, there is effectively no emission
limitation that applies during these times. Additionally, the
commenters do not believe that the work practice standards are
justified under CAA section 112(h) for emergency flaring because
measurement technology is available to measure what is sent to the
flare.
Response B.1: We disagree that the standards do not apply at all
times. The work practice combustion efficiency standards (specifically
limits on the net heating value in combustion zone) apply at all times,
including during periods of emergency flaring. With respect to setting
work practice standards under CAA section 112(h), we note that the
combustion efficiency standards were established as work practice
standards. In the case of flaring, emissions are not conveyed through a
stack and are difficult to measure. The EPA's practice has been to
establish work practice standards for regulating flares (see, e.g.,
General Provisions in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63, the combustion efficiency
requirements in this rule, and flaring work practice standards in the
Petroleum Refinery NSPS, subpart Ja). These work practice standards do
take advantage of upstream measurement systems, but we do not agree
that upstream measurement systems are the same as measuring emissions
from the flare following combustion nor are they, standing alone, a
sufficient emissions limitation or standard.
Comment B.2: Commenters stated that, even if the work practice
standards for flares operating above the smokeless capacity are
justified, the work practice standards do not comply with the CAA
requirements that the emissions limitation is as stringent as the
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing sources,
and the maximum degree of emission reduction that is achievable.
Commenters explained that the EPA provided an allowance for up to two
smoking flare events per flare in a 3-year period based on API-supplied
information reporting that the average refinery flare experiences an
event every 4.4 years and an assumption that the best performing flares
have one smoking event every 6 years. The commenters contended that
these figures are based on unverified data submitted in an API/AFPM
survey and its use is arbitrary and capricious. The commenters
maintained that instead of using the API/AFPM survey data, the EPA
should have reviewed data including emissions data from their own
studies as well as emissions data available from Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), SCAQMD, or BAAQMD when developing these
standards. The commenters suggested that the EPA
[[Page 6073]]
establish standards based on the duration and amount of gas routed to a
flare during a malfunction event that causes the flare to operate above
its smokeless capacity, in addition to the cap on the number of
exceptions.
Response B.2: First, one must recognize that the flare is not a
specific emission source within Refinery MACT 1 standards and, thus, we
did not seek to establish a MACT floor for flares at the time that we
promulgated Refinery MACT 1. Rather, we identified flares as an
acceptable means for meeting otherwise applicable requirements and we
established flare operational standards that we believed would achieve
a 98-percent destruction efficiency on a continual basis. Recognizing
that flares were not achieving the 98-percent reduction efficiency in
practice, we proposed additional requirements in the June 2014 proposal
to ensure that flares operate as intended at the time we promulgated
Refinery MACT 1.
Regarding the operational standards for flares operating above the
smokeless capacity, we note that these flare emissions are emissions
due to a sudden increase in waste gas entering the flare, typically
resulting from a malfunction or an emergency shutdown at one or more
pieces of equipment that vents emissions to the flare. The commenter's
suggestion that the EPA should establish standards on the duration and
amount of gas discharged to a flare during malfunction events misses
the mark. Flares are associated with a wide variety of process
equipment and the emissions routed to a flare during a malfunction can
vary widely based on the cause of the malfunction and the type of
associated equipment. Thus, it is not feasible to establish a one-size-
fits-all standard on the amount of gas allowed to be routed to flares
during a malfunction. Moreover, we note that routing emissions to the
flare will result in less pollution than the other alternative, which
would be to emit directly to the atmosphere. We note that we do not set
similar limits for thermal oxidizers, baghouses, or other control
devices that we desire to remain operational during malfunction events
to limit pollutant emissions to the extent practicable. However, we did
establish work practice standards that we believe will be effective in
reducing the size and duration of flaring events that exceed the
smokeless capacity of the flare to improve overall flare performance.
We are establishing these work practice standards for flares in order
to ensure 98-percent destruction of HAP discharged to the flare (as
contemplated at the time Refinery MACT 1 was promulgated) during both
normal operating conditions when the flare is used solely as a control
device and malfunction releases where the flare acts both as a safety
device and a control device.
Comment B.3: Commenters stated that the EPA's malfunction exemption
for force majeure events for emergency flaring is arbitrary and
capricious under CAA section 112 because it creates periods of time
when no emissions standard applies.
Response B.3: As noted in Response A.5 to similar comments
regarding PRD release events, it is very difficult to guard perfectly
against acts of God and acts of terrorism. The EPA does not believe it
can develop measures that would effectively limit emissions during all
such acts. Regardless, we disagree that force majeure events are exempt
from regulation. Several of the work practice standards apply during
these events. Specifically, flares are required to comply with the
requirements for a continuously lit pilot flame and combustion
efficiency standards (i.e., limits on the net heating value in
combustion zone) at all times, including during periods of emergency
flaring caused by a force majeure event.
Comment B.4: Commenters requested that the EPA delete from the rule
the requirements at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) and (o)(1)(iv), claiming
the requirements are highly burdensome. These requirements require an
owner or operator to include as part of the flare management plan (FMP)
records of prevention measures and design and operating details for
PRDs that are routed to flares. Alternatively, commenters recommended
that the rule only require this information be included in the FMP for
those PRDs (i.e., a single PRD or a single set of PRDs which protect a
single piece of equipment) whose potential for release is great enough
to exceed the smokeless capacity of the flare.
Response B.4: Because PRDs are expected to be the primary source of
a release that might cause a flaring event that could exceed the
smokeless capacity of the flare, we determined that the identification
of the PRDs that are vented to the flare is a critical component of the
FMP. We also recognize that consideration of prevention measures for
PRDs that can discharge to a flare will help to reduce the number of
flaring events that exceed the smokeless capacity of the flare.
Consequently, we include consideration of prevention measures for PRDs
as one of three critical items, listed in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(A)
through (C), that each owner or operator of a flare must consider
within the flare minimization assessment requirement of the FMP. While
submission of the FMP is primarily a one-time event, we expect that
these prevention measures for PRDs discharged to the flare will be an
active and growing list as owners and operators implement corrective
actions after a release event exceeding the smokeless capacity of the
flare and exceeding the visible emissions limit and/or the flare tip
velocity limit. As noted in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(2)(ii), the plan must be
updated periodically to account for changes in the operation of the
flare, but we do not consider new prevention measures implemented for
PRDs that discharge to the flare to constitute a change in the
operation of the flare. Thus, this updated listing can be in an
electronic database and it is not required to be updated in the FMP
unless the FMP is otherwise required to be updated or re-submitted
according to the provisions in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(2)(ii). We do not
consider this effort to be a significant burden beyond what is already
required for hazards analysis and the commenter did not provide any
data to quantify or substantiate the claims that this effort is
``highly burdensome.''
We considered the suggestion to limit this requirement to PRDs with
high potential release rates. However, many flares may receive
discharges from dozens of PRDs across multiple process units. In an
emergency event, it is possible that several of these PRDs associated
with different equipment can relieve at the same time. While any one
PRD may not exceed the flare's smokeless capacity, the combination of
PRD releases may. Thus, we determined that it is appropriate to require
all PRDs discharged to the flare to be identified and applicable
prevention measures should be evaluated regardless of the release
potential of an individual PRD.
3. What is the EPA's final decision on the work practice standards for
emergency flaring?
The emergency flaring work practice standards were developed to
ensure that flares achieve the 98-percent reduction assumed at the time
MACT 1 was promulgated. In determining the means to ensure that flares
achieve the 98-percent reduction, the EPA considered available data for
best performing flare sources. The inclusion of the force majeure
provisions in the work practice standard do not alter the work practice
requirements for a continuously lit pilot flame and combustion
efficiency standards, which apply at all times. The flare requirements
in Refinery MACT 1 were established as work practice
[[Page 6074]]
standards and the operational standards established in the December
2015 final rule and affirmed in this action are also work practice
standards under CAA section 112(h). Work practice standards are
appropriate for flares because pollutants emitted from the flare cannot
be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or
capture such pollutants. We have not been presented with any comments
and/or information received in response to the proposed notice of
reconsideration relative to the emergency flaring work practice
standards which will result in any changes to these requirements as
promulgated in the December 2015 rule.
C. Issue 3: Assessment of Risk From the Petroleum Refinery Source
Categories After Implementation of the PRD and Emergency Flaring Work
Practice Standards
1. What is the history of the assessment of risk from the Petroleum
Refinery source categories after implementation of the PRD and
emergency flaring work practice standards?
The results of our residual risk review for the Petroleum Refinery
source categories were published in the June 2014 proposal (79 FR 36934
through 36942), and included assessment of chronic and acute inhalation
risk, as well as multipathway and environmental risk, to inform our
decisions regarding acceptability and ample margin of safety. The
results indicated that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed
(maximum individual risk or ``MIR'') based on allowable HAP emissions
is no greater than approximately 100-in-1 million, which is the
presumptive limit of risk acceptability, and that the MIR based on
actual HAP emissions is no greater than 60-in-1 million, but may be
closer to 40-in-1 million. In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures
was less than 1. The evaluation of acute noncancer risks, which was
conservative, showed the potential for adverse health effects from
acute exposures is unlikely. Based on the results of a refined site-
specific multipathway analysis, we also concluded that the cancer risk
to the individual most exposed through ingestion is considerably less
than 100-in-1 million.
In the December 2015 rule, we established work practice standards
for PRD releases and emergency flaring events, which under the June
2014 proposal would not have been allowed. Because we did not consider
such non-routine emissions under our risk assessment for the June 2014
proposal, we performed a screening level analysis of risk associated
with these emissions for the December 2015 rule as discussed in detail
in ``Final Residual Risk Assessment for the Petroleum Refining Source
Sector'' in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0800. Our analysis
showed that HAP emissions could increase the MIR based on actual
emissions by as much as 2-in-1 million, which is not substantially
different than the level of risk estimated at proposal. We also
estimated that chronic noncancer TOSHIs attributable to the additional
exposures from non-routine flaring and PRD HAP emissions are well below
1. When the additional chronic noncancer TOSHI from the screening
analysis are added to the TOSHI estimated in the June 2014 proposal,
all chronic noncancer TOSHIs remain below 1. Further, our screening
analysis also projected that maximum acute exposure to non-routine PRD
and flare emissions would result in a maximum hazard quotient (HQ) of
14 from benzene emissions based on a reference exposure level (REL). An
exceedance of an REL value does not necessarily indicate that an
adverse health effect will occur. Because of the infrequent occurrence
of such events and the probability that someone would be at the exact
most highly impacted exposure locations at the time of the elevated
ambient levels, the EPA risk assessors believe there is a very low
probability of any adverse exposure. Based on the risk analysis
performed for the June 2014 proposal and the screening assessment to
consider how conclusions from that analysis would be affected by the
additional non-routine flare and PRD emissions allowed under the
December 2015 rule, we determined that the risk posed after
implementation of the revisions to the MACT standards is acceptable and
that the standards as promulgated provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
We requested public comment on the screening analysis and the
conclusions reached based on that analysis in conjunction with the risk
analysis performed for the June 2014 proposal.
2. What comments were received on the assessment of risk from the
Petroleum Refinery source categories after implementation of the PRD
and emergency flaring work practice standards?
Comment C.1: Commenters explained that the EPA performed a
screening level risk assessment to account for the additional risk from
the PRD and emergency flare work practice standards based on
``approximately 430 records of PRD and flare HAP pollutant release
events'' from 25 facilities, as reported in response to the detailed
Petroleum Refinery information collection request (ICR), and that this
assessment resulted in an additional 2-in-1 million lifetime cancer
risk and an acute risk that is 14 times higher than what the Agency
considers safe. The commenters contended that these risks were based on
biased-low industry-estimated emissions data when they should have been
based on a true maximum additional cancer or acute risk from a serious
fire, explosion, or force majeure event, or even from one of the
largest historical leaks or emergency flaring events. Commenters
referenced numerous malfunction events which they asserted demonstrate
the long history of these types of releases from refineries that could
have been prevented by advanced planning, inspections, upgrades, and
maintenance and claimed these events could have been used for the
purpose of estimating additional risks from PRD releases and smoking
flare events. In addition to not basing the risks on a worst-case
scenario, the commenters said the EPA did not explain how the risk
model predicted worst case 1-hour and annual average concentrations for
PRDs and flares or whether the concentrations presented in the final
risk assessment were total HAP or benzene. In any case, the commenters
asserted that these concentrations are higher than what the California
EPA has deemed health protective for acute and chronic exposure, and
while they are lower than the EPA's 2003 Integrated Risk Information
System values, the EPA should consider that these exposures occur in
combination with other emissions from refineries.
Response C.1: The December 2015 rule established work practice
standards that require advanced planning, inspections, upgrades, and
maintenance of equipment through the implementation of prevention
measures, root cause analysis, and corrective action. Under CAA section
112(f)(2), the EPA is required to estimate the risk remaining after the
implementation of the MACT, which for this emissions source is the
promulgated work practice standards. This approach is consistent with
the way that EPA has performed its risk analysis for all previously
promulgated risk reviews under CAA section 112(f)(2). In the screening
analysis, we used release information collected under the authority of
CAA section 114 which represents annual releases occurring prior to the
implementation of these work practice
[[Page 6075]]
standards and the data and assumptions used as inputs to the screening
analysis are a reasonable representation of the worst-case releases
allowed under the promulgated standard and that may be expected
subsequent to the implementation of the work practice standards.
In response to the commenters' statement that the EPA did not
explain how the risk model predicted worst case 1-hour and annual
average concentrations for PRDs and flares or whether the
concentrations presented in the final risk assessment were total HAP or
benzene, as noted in the risk report (appendix 13 of Docket ID Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0800), the EPA estimated concentrations using a
conservative (health protective) screening dispersion modeling
approach. Further, the risks were estimated based on all reported
emissions (i.e., not only benzene). Acute risks (HQs) are estimated on
a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.
With regard to the comment that the EPA should consider the
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment health
benchmarks, in May 2018, based on examination of the California EPA's
acute (1-hour) REL for benzene, and taking into account aspects of the
methodology used in the derivation of the value and how this assessment
stands in comparison to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry's toxicological assessment, EPA toxicologists decided it is
not appropriate to use the benzene REL value to support the EPA's RTR
rules. In lieu of using the REL in RTR risk assessments, the EPA is now
evaluating acute benzene risks by comparing potential exposure levels
to the emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG)-1 values. In this
case, the acute HQ value from non-routine PRD and flare emissions is
0.07 when comparing ambient levels to the ERPG-1.
Comment C.2: Commenters asserted that the EPA's risk assessment and
determinations are unlawful and are arbitrary and capricious because
the EPA has not followed its own policy and guidelines in summing
cancer risk and treating a lifetime cancer risk above 100-in-1 million
as showing the need for section CAA section 112(f) standards. The
commenters stated that the EPA found an inhalation-based cancer risk of
100-in-1 million from routine emissions, an additional cancer risk of
2-in-1 million from non-routine PRD and flare emissions, and an
additional cancer risk of 4-in-1 million from non-inhalation or
multipathway emissions. The sum of these risks is 106-in-1 million,
and, therefore, above the presumptive acceptability threshold of 100-
in-1 million, yet the EPA has continued to maintain that risks are
acceptable. The commenters also contended that in addition to never
adding these risks, the EPA has not provided a reasoned justification
in the record for not doing so. The commenters added that the EPA
recognized risks were unacceptable for a similar set of risks (e.g.,
lead smelting and ferroalloys) as those in the Petroleum Refinery RTR,
and, thus, the risk for the Petroleum Refinery RTR should also be found
unacceptable.
Further, the commenters noted that the EPA's refined multipathway
risk assessment for one refinery, for which the EPA indicates that the
sum of the multipathway and inhalation risks for that facility is less
than 100-in-1 million, conflicts with the fact that the inhalation risk
alone is at least 100-in-1 million; it is unclear how combined risks
would not exceed 100-in-1 million. Finally, the commenters stated that
the EPA has not supported the conclusion based on data in the record
that after performing a refined risk assessment on one refinery that
cancer risk for all facilities can be discounted.
Response C.2: As an initial matter, it is important to note that a
risk level of 100-in-1 million is a presumptive limit of acceptability,
not a threshold for acceptability or regulatory action. As stated in
the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 38061, September 14, 1989), in
determining the need for residual risk standards, we strive to limit to
no higher than approximately 100-in-1 million the estimated cancer risk
that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed
to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years and, in the ample
margin of safety decision, to protect the greatest number of persons
possible to an individual lifetime risk level of no higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million. In determining whether risk is acceptable
under CAA section 112(f), these levels are not rigid lines, and we
weigh the cancer risk values with a series of other health measures and
factors, including the specific uncertainties of the emissions, health
effects, and risk information for the relevant source category, in both
the decision regarding risk acceptability and in the ample margin of
safety determination. The source category-specific decision of what
constitutes an acceptable level of risk and whether it is necessary to
promulgate more stringent standards to provide an ample margin of
safety is a holistic one; that is, the EPA considers all potential
health impacts--chronic and acute, cancer and noncancer, and
multipathway--along with their uncertainties.
With regard to the analysis performed for the refinery standards at
issue here, the estimated risk of 100-in-1 million is based on a risk
analysis using the MACT-allowable HAP emissions from a model plant,
while the estimated risk based on actual HAP emissions from refineries
is no greater than approximately 60-in-1 million and may be closer to
40-in-1 million based on updated data received during the comment
period. The model plant screening approach used to assess MACT-
allowable HAP emissions used several health protective assumptions
including co-locating all sources at a refinery at a single location.
The screening analysis used to estimate risk from non-routine PRD and
flare emissions is also based on several health protective assumptions.
Because of the conservative nature of these screening analyses, the EPA
does not typically add their results (i.e., risk estimates from the
model plant non-routine PRD and flare emissions to risk estimates from
model plant allowable emissions). Further, we do not add the
multipathway (non-inhalation) risks to inhalation risks because it is
highly unlikely that the person exposed to the highest inhalation risk
is the same person exposed to the highest refined multipathway
(ingestion) risks. Overall risk results are presented to one
significant digit, thus, even if we were to add the non-inhalation risk
of 4-in-1 million to the 100-in-1 million risk from inhalation, we
would still assess the total risk based on allowable emissions as 100-
in-1 million.
Regarding the refined multipathway analysis performed on a single
facility, as stated in the risk report, the EPA performed the refined
analysis to gain a better understanding of the uncertainty associated
with the multipathway Tier I and II screening analyses. The site,
Marathon Ashland Petroleum facility (NEI6087) near Garyville in St.
John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, was among those that exceeded the
Tier I screen for any HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative
in the environment (PB-HAP), and it was among the refineries that had
the greatest exceedance of a Tier II threshold for any PB-HAP. It also
was selected based on the feasibility, with respect to the modeling
framework, of obtaining model parameters for the region surrounding the
refinery. The exposure estimates (and the risks calculated for those
exposures) are anticipated to be among the highest that might be
encountered for this source category because of the proximity of
waterbodies
[[Page 6076]]
as well as agricultural lands. We note that many of the refineries did
not exceed the Tier I screen, and for those that did, the levels of the
exceedances were generally less than the level of exceedance exhibited
by the facility selected for the refined assessment. Because the other
facilities had a similar or lower exceedance of the screening level,
the results of the refined assessment for this facility led us to
conclude that if refined analyses were performed for other sites, the
risk estimates would similarly be reduced from their Tier II estimates.
Comment C.3: A commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged that
people of color and those with low incomes are disproportionately
exposed to risk from refinery emissions. The commenter asserted that
the EPA has not provided a rational explanation why the unfair
distribution of this risk does not lead to an unacceptable risk finding
or at least require additional protections to assure an ample margin of
safety to protect public health for all exposed persons.
Response C.3: Following the analysis that CAA section 112(f)(2)
requires, the EPA determined that the risk posed by emissions from the
Petroleum Refinery source category were acceptable. After considering
whether additional standards were required to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, including the health of people of
color and those with low income, the EPA established additional control
requirements for storage vessels. The December 2015 rule reduces risk
for millions of people living near petroleum refineries and provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. The NESHAP accordingly
provides an ample margin of safety for all proximate populations,
including people of color and those with low incomes.
Comment C.4: A commenter stated that the EPA's risk assessment and
determination are unlawful and are arbitrary and capricious because
they are based on internally contradictory findings that, although
acute risk is high (citing an HQ of 14 due to benzene from non-routine
PRD and flare emissions), exposure to these non-routine emissions will
rarely occur. The commenter asserted that the EPA's own record shows
that non-routine emissions occur frequently: Every 4.4 to 6 years at
all refineries, 16.7 percent probability of having an event in any
given year, and that over a long period of time, such as 20 years, half
of the best performers would have two events in a 3-year period. The
commenter added that the December 2015 rule will allow these non-
routine emissions events to happen even more frequently. The commenter
further asserted that the EPA's justification to discount this high
acute risk was by stating that it could have used the acute exposure
guideline level (AEGL) or ERPG level to develop a lower acute risk
value than the value developed for the published risk assessment which
was based on the REL. The commenter stated that the AEGL and ERPG level
are designed to be used in a true emergency and not to set health
protective standards that will generally apply at all times, adding
that the AEGL, unlike the REL, does not incorporate consideration of
vulnerability, such as for children, or community exposure over time.
The commenter stated that the use of the AEGL and ERPG numbers would be
expected to substantially underestimate risk and using them as
justification to discount the high acute risk is arbitrary and
capricious.
Response C.4: As an initial matter, we disagree with the
characterization that the work practice standards in the December 2015
rule for flares and PRDs will allow non-routine events to occur more
frequently than they do now. Prior to promulgation of the flare
requirements and the PRD provisions, the MACT did not include any
specific regulatory requirements that applied to these events. As noted
in sections III.A and B above, the final work practice standards
include requirements that are designed to reduce the number and
magnitude of these types of releases. The commenters have not explained
why the new requirements would increase the frequency and/or magnitude
of these events.
In May 2018, based on examination of California EPA's acute (1-
hour) REL for benzene, and considering aspects of the methodology used
in the derivation of the value and how this assessment stands in
comparison to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's
toxicological assessment, EPA toxicologists decided it is not
appropriate to use the benzene REL value to support the EPA's RTR
rules. In lieu of using the REL in RTR risk assessments, the EPA is now
evaluating acute benzene risks by comparing potential exposure levels
to the ERPG-1 values. In this case, the acute HQ value from non-routine
PRD and flare emissions is 0.07 when comparing ambient levels to the
ERPG-1. To better characterize the potential health risks associated
with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a
key recommendation from the Science Advisory Board's peer review of the
EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies, we now examine a wider range
of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk
assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are generally more
data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in
chronic reference values. The acute REL represents a health-protective
level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels,
even for repeated exposures. Although the potential for effects
increases as exposure concentration increases above the acute REL, the
level of exposure greater than the REL that would cause health effects
is not specifically known. Therefore, when an REL is exceeded and an
AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild,
reversible effects are anticipated in the general public for a single
exposure), we typically use them as an additional comparative measure,
as they provide an upper bound for exposure levels above which exposed
individuals could experience effects. The worst-case maximum estimated
1-hour exposure to benzene outside the facility fence line is less than
the AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 levels.
3. What is the EPA's final decision on the risk assessment?
As supported by the screening analysis published with the December
2015 rule, the additional risk from the PRD and emergency flaring work
practice standards did not significantly alter the risk estimates in
the EPA's 2014 analysis. In response to the current proposal, we did
not receive any new information or other basis that would support a
change to the risk analysis and the determination that the risk from
the source category is acceptable and that, as modified by the December
2015 rule, the MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
D. Issue 4: Alternative Work Practice Standards for DCUs Employing the
Water Overflow Design
1. What is the history of the alternative work practice standards for
DCUs employing the water overflow design?
In the December 2015 rule, we finalized MACT standards for DCU
decoking operations. The rule provided that existing DCU-affected
sources must comply with a 2 psig or 220 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)
limit in the drum overhead line determined on a rolling 60-event basis
prior to venting to the atmosphere, draining, or deheading the coke
drum. New DCU-affected sources must comply with a 2.0 psig or 218
[deg]F limit in the drum overhead line on a per-event, not-to-exceed
basis. In the
[[Page 6077]]
December 2015 rule, we also finalized an alternative requirement that
we did not propose to address DCU with water overflow design, where
pressure monitoring would not be appropriate. As part of these
provisions, we included a new requirement in the December 2015 rule for
DCU with water overflow design to hard-pipe the overflow drain water to
the receiving tank via a submerged fill pipe (pipe below the existing
liquid level) whenever the overflow water exceeds 220 [deg]F.
We requested public comment on the alternative work practice
standard for delayed coking units employing a water overflow design
provided in 40 CFR 63.657(e).
In response to the comments received on the October 2016 proposed
notice of reconsideration regarding the alternative work practice
standards for DCU employing the water overflow design, we proposed
amendments on April 10, 2018 (April 2018 proposal) (see 83 FR 15458),
to the water overflow requirements in 40 CFR 63.657(e). The EPA has
issued a final rule which was promulgated on November 26, 2018
(November 2018 rule) fully addressing this issue and responding to all
of the comments on the proposal for this rule as well as the April 2018
proposal.
E. Issue 5: Alternative Sampling Frequency for Burden Reduction for
Fenceline Monitoring
1. What is the history of the alternative sampling frequency for burden
reduction for fenceline monitoring?
In the December 2015 rule, we revised Refinery MACT 1 to establish
a work practice standard requiring refinery owners to monitor benzene
concentrations around the fenceline or perimeter of the refinery. We
promulgated new EPA Methods 325A and B which specify monitor siting and
quantitative sample analysis procedures. The work practice is designed
to improve the management of fugitive emissions at petroleum refineries
through the use of passive monitors by requiring sources to implement
corrective measures if the benzene concentration in air attributable to
emissions from the refinery exceeds a fenceline benzene concentration
action level. The work practice requires refinery owners to maintain
fenceline benzene concentrations at or below the concentration action
level of 9 [mu]g/m\3\. In the December 2015 rule, we included
provisions that were not proposed that would allow for reduced
monitoring frequency (after 2 years of continual monitoring) at
monitoring locations that record concentrations below 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\
[see 40 CFR 63.658(e)(3)].
We requested public comment on the provision allowing refineries to
reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring at monitoring locations
that consistently record benzene concentrations below 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\.
2. What comments were received on the alternative sampling frequency
for fenceline monitoring?
Comment E.1: Commenters asserted that setting the threshold for
reducing the frequency of fenceline monitoring at 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ is
arbitrary and capricious. The commenters stated that the EPA's modeling
predicted that more than half (81 of 142) of the refineries modeled
would have fenceline concentrations equal to or less than 0.4 [mu]g/
m\3\, and, thus, it is unlikely these facilities will have any monitors
register concentrations in excess of the threshold. Therefore, these
refineries will likely qualify for reduced monitoring, although they
could have malfunctioning equipment causing benzene levels to be double
the EPA's modeled amount.
The commenter added that while the fenceline concentrations modeled
by the EPA do not include background ambient concentrations of benzene
which will contribute to the benzene concentration measured at each
monitor, it is still likely that the eligibility threshold for reduced
frequency monitoring is too high and will allow operators to reduce the
monitoring frequency at downwind monitors. The commenter supported this
statement by referencing the API Corrected Fenceline Monitoring
Results, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0752, which showed
that at least 25 percent of facilities would be eligible for reduced
monitoring at more than half of the monitoring sites based on the 0.9
[mu]g/m\3\ threshold.
Response E.1: We disagree that entire refineries will be able to
qualify for reduced monitoring frequency. As the commenters themselves
noted, the Agency's modeled concentrations provide only the impact of
refinery emissions on the ambient air concentration (the [Delta]C) and
do not include background concentrations. The modeling does not allow
us to evaluate the total (refinery plus background) concentration level
at any one location. Second, we note that the API study was a 3-month
study that occurred primarily in the winter months when fugitive
emissions are expected to be at their lowest. We also considered the
Corpus Christi year-long study and a comparison of the concentrations
observed throughout the year. That study showed that benzene
concentrations at the fenceline are higher during warmer weather
because most fugitive emission sources, such as storage tanks and
wastewater, have a significant temperature dependency. The reduced
monitoring provisions require 2 full years (52 consecutive 2-week
samples) where the highest single value, not the average concentration
at that location, is less than 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\. Based on the data we
have available, we consider that only a few monitoring locations will
qualify for reduced frequency monitoring based on this 2-year
requirement that all sample concentrations at the location are less
than 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\.
In addition, we selected this value to be consistent with the
minimum detection limit we required for an alternative monitoring
method. It seemed incongruous to allow an alternative monitoring method
with a detection limit of 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ to be used to comply with the
rule but then establish a burden reduction alternative that used a
lower concentration level. Ultimately, we are confident that only a
limited number of sampling locations at any petroleum refinery will
meet the burden reduction criteria. We considered it reasonable to
provide incentives for refinery owners or operators to achieve even
greater reductions than are required by the 9 [mu]g/m\3\ [Delta]C
action level, and the final burden reduction provisions provide such an
incentive without compromising the overall objectives of the program.
Comment E.2: One commenter stated that the provisions allowing
refineries to reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring are unlawful
and are arbitrary and capricious. To support this statement, the
commenter stated that a reduction in burden to the fenceline monitoring
program will not allow the program to serve its intended purpose: To
enable operators to identify leaks or operating problems at equipment
that cannot practically be monitored, tested, or evaluated for
compliance on a frequent basis. In further support of their argument,
the commenters explained that the risk findings for the December 2015
rule hinge on the frequency of the fenceline monitoring cycle. The
commenter stated that the EPA is on record stating that if the emission
inventories or risk assessment do understate actual emissions, as some
commenters have alleged, the fenceline monitoring and corrective action
requirements will ensure refineries reduce their actual emissions to
levels comparable to their emissions inventories, and that in doing so,
will
[[Page 6078]]
ensure communities surrounding petroleum refineries would be protected
to acceptable risk levels. Therefore, the commenter asserted that it is
imperative for the EPA to maintain the 2-week monitoring cycle to
ensure operators are quickly identifying malfunctioning equipment and
to close the gap between actual and reported emissions.
On the other hand, some commenters stated that the alternative
monitoring provisions did not go far enough at reducing burden. Some
commenters suggested that after 2 years of demonstrating a background-
corrected maximum fenceline annual average concentration ([Delta]C)
below the action level, monitoring frequency be reduced to a 2-week
period every quarter for all monitoring locations. If the background-
corrected annual average benzene concentration based on the quarterly
monitoring exceeds the action level, a return to more frequent
monitoring could be required RCA/CAA requirement. The reduced
monitoring frequency could be available again after 1 year of meeting
the action level. Another commenter recommended that the reduced
monitoring provision be removed in favor of a one-time demonstration
that the annual fenceline benzene [Delta]C concentration is less than
50 percent of the action level during normal operations.
Response E.2: With respect to the commenter's opposition to the
alternative sampling frequency, it is important to understand that the
alternative sampling frequency provision in the December 2015 rule does
not reduce the frequency by which the [Delta]C values must be
determined. This is because the reduced sampling frequency provision
will impact only selected locations that have monitored benzene
concentrations below 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ based on 2 full years of data.
Refineries will still collect samples at all other locations during
each 2-week period and will still determine the [Delta]C value for each
sampling interval and include the [Delta]C for the sampling interval in
the annual average [Delta]C value calculation. Therefore, we still
expect the fenceline monitoring program as included in the December
2015 rule to achieve its purpose of more timely detection and
correction of issues that can lead to high fugitive emissions.
The burden reduction alternatives suggested by some commenters
would significantly limit the effectiveness of the fenceline monitoring
program to identify issues early. A one-time determination completely
defeats this purpose and could not possibly be done in a manner
representative of the variety of circumstances that can occur
throughout the year or the lifetime of a facility. The purpose of the
fenceline monitoring program is to allow for detection and correction
of issues that may cause abnormally high emissions, such as large leaks
in valves, tears in rim seals of floating roof storage vessels, and
other unexpected, difficult to predict events. A one-time determination
does not allow the fenceline monitoring program to timely and
effectively identify these issues on an on-going basis.
While quarterly determinations would be more effective than a one-
time determination for on-going fugitive management, quarterly
determinations are less effective in improving fugitive emissions
management than continual 2-week sampling. First, for large leak
events, the emissions may continue for months prior to being detected
under quarterly monitoring versus being detected in a week or two under
continual 2-week sampling. Thus, the emission reduction achieved by the
quarterly monitoring would not be as great as by continual 2-week
monitoring. Second, under the quarterly monitoring option, there would
be large periods of time when no monitoring will be performed. The
passive diffusive tubes cannot be deployed over such a long time
period. Thus, we assume that quarterly monitoring would consist of a 2-
week sampling period once every quarter. As such, for more than 80
percent of the time, no monitoring would be conducted at the fenceline.
Consequently, quarterly monitoring would often miss periodic emission
events, such as tank cleaning and/or filling, which can lead to high
short-term emissions. These short-term events can contribute
significantly to a facility's emissions and their contribution would be
captured via the continual 2-week sampling, but likely missed under a
quarterly monitoring approach. In order to effectively manage all
fugitive emission sources, including periodic releases, we determined
that the continual 2-week sampling period should be maintained for the
overall program. By providing a monitoring skip period only to
locations that do not exceed 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for any sampling interval
for 2 full years (52 consecutive 2-week sampling periods), we maintain
continual 2-week sampling at all locations that may contribute to an
exceedance of the action level and ensure on-going enhanced management
of fugitive emissions.
Comment E.3: Commenters stated that the rule does not include
provisions for re-instating the monitoring frequency for those monitors
which may at one time qualify for reduced monitoring.
Response E.3: We disagree. Section 63.658(e)(v) of the final rule
provides that any location with a value above 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ while
reduced monitoring is being implemented will subject the owner or
operator to a 3-month ``probationary period'' where samples must be
collected every 2 weeks at that location. If the concentrations during
the probationary period are all at or below 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\, the owner
or operator may continue with the monitoring frequency prior to the
excursion. If any other sample during the probationary period exceeds
0.9 [mu]g/m\3\, then the owner or operator must comply with the more
stringent monitoring requirements and would not be eligible for reduced
monitoring frequency until completion of a new 2-year period at that
more stringent monitoring frequency.
Comment E.4: A commenter stated that despite the EPA's claims that
it is allowing less frequent monitoring to reduce burden, there is no
quantified or otherwise evaluated data available in the record related
to the actual burden reduction.
Response E.4: We did not specifically develop burden reduction
estimates associated with this provision for several reasons. First,
fenceline monitoring must be performed for a full 2 years prior to the
burden reduction provisions applying to any monitoring location, so
estimating the burden of the fenceline monitoring provisions without
consideration of the burden reduction provisions provides an accurate
estimate of the annual burden for the first 2 years. Second, we were
uncertain how many monitoring locations would qualify for the burden
reduction provision. Third, with respect to the burden estimate for the
December 2015 rule as provided in the Supporting Statement for the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) ICR, we estimated the costs
of the on-going fenceline monitoring program assuming all samples would
continue to be collected during the 3-year period covered by the ICR.
Based on the burden estimate detail provided in the attachments to
the memorandum, ``Fenceline Monitoring Impact Estimates for Final
Rule'' (see Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0749), we estimate
that each time a sample does not need to be collected at a specific
location there will be a burden reduction of 0.3 technical hours (0.25
hours reduced during sample collection and 0.05 hours reduced during
sample analyses). Considering management and clerical hours, the total
burden reduction per sample skipped would be 0.35 hours and
approximately $29. As an example
[[Page 6079]]
of potential burden reduction, if a facility could use the monthly
reduced monitoring provisions for two locations in a given year (26
skipped samples, 13 at each site), the burden reduction for that
facility would be 9 hours and $745 each year.
Comment E.5: One commenter recommended that the EPA reduce burden
by providing a mechanism to use existing HAP ambient monitoring
programs as an acceptable alternative to the EPA fenceline monitoring
program.
Response E.5: We provided a mechanism and criteria by which a
refinery owner or operator may submit a request for an alternative test
method to the passive diffusive tube fenceline monitoring methods (EPA
Methods 325A and 325B). These provisions are included at 40 CFR
63.658(k) of the final rule.
3. What is EPA's final decision on the alternative sampling frequency
for fenceline monitoring?
For fenceline monitoring requirements, the alternative sampling
frequency requirements will not alter the effectiveness of the program
as the requirements do not change the facility-level procedures and
frequency for calculating and reporting [Delta]C (see Response E.1).
Furthermore, the 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold for reducing the frequency of
fenceline monitoring is appropriate based on the available data and it
is consistent with the minimum detection limit required for alternative
monitoring methods. We have not been presented with any comments and/or
information in response to the October 2016 proposed notice of
reconsideration relative to the alternative sampling frequency for
fenceline monitoring which will result in any changes to the December
2015 rule.
F. Additional Proposed Clarifying Amendments
1. What is the history of the proposed clarifying amendments?
The EPA proposed to amend provisions related to the overlap
requirements for equipment leaks that are contained in Refinery MACT 1
and in the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa).
The Refinery MACT 1 provision at 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) states that
equipment leaks that are subject to the provisions in the Refinery
Equipment Leak NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa) are only required to
comply with the provisions in the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS.
However, the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS does not include the new work
practice standards finalized in the final Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR
63.648(j) which apply to releases from PRDs. We intended that these new
work practice standards would be applicable to all PRDs at refineries,
including those PRDs subject to the requirements in the Refinery
Equipment Leaks NSPS. In order to provide clarity and assure that
refiners subject to these provisions fully understand their compliance
obligations, we proposed to modify the equipment leak requirement to
provide that PRDs in organic HAP service must comply with the
requirements in Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j) for PRDs. We also
proposed to amend the introductory text in 40 CFR 63.648(j) to
reference the Refinery Equipment Leaks NSPS at 40 CFR 60.482-4a and
amend paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii) of Refinery MACT 1 to correct
the existing reference to 40 CFR 60.485(b), to instead refer to 40 CFR
60.485(c) and 40 CFR 60.485a(c). As noted in section III.B.1 of this
preamble, we also proposed to revise the incorrect cross-reference to
PRD prevention measures at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) from 40 CFR
63.648(j)(5) to 63.648(j)(3)(ii). However, we concluded it would be
more accurate to cross-reference 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A) through (E)
rather than the entirety of 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(ii). Therefore, in the
April 2018 proposal, we proposed this clarified revision and finalized
this revision as proposed in the November 2018 rule.
2. What comments were received on the proposed clarifying amendments?
Comment F.1: Commenters asserted that the EPA's proposal to modify
the provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) by providing that PRDs in organic
HAP service must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j) is
arbitrary and capricious. Commenters opposed the proposed revisions
claiming they would enshrine exemptions from NSPS equipment leak
standards for new and modified PRD or allow for substitution of NSPS
requirements for the work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.648(j), which
they believe are exemptions from malfunction requirements. They added
that these provisions amend the NSPS for Petroleum Refineries without
satisfying the appropriate procedural and substantive legal tests
required to do so.
Response F.1: It appears that the commenter misunderstands the
proposed amendment. When we revised Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j)
to add PRD requirements, we failed to recognize that the NSPS overlap
provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) could be used as a ``loophole'' by
refinery owners and operators to not implement three prevention
measures and to not perform the root cause analysis or implement
corrective actions. This is because the NSPS subpart GGGa does not have
any pressure release management requirements. In the absence of the
proposed amendment, the existing overlap provision states that
``Equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGGa, are required to comply only with the provisions
specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.'' Thus, PRDs subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, were inadvertently exempted from the new PRD
pressure release management requirements. We understand that the
commenter does not support some of the provisions in the pressure
release management requirements in the final Refinery MACT 1 rule, but
these requirements are clearly more stringent than the NSPS subpart
GGGa provisions for PRDs which only require monitoring of the PRD after
a release, and do not have any restrictions or requirements to limit
PRD releases. We note that in addition to the new PRD requirements
established in the December 2015 rule, the Refinery MACT 1 PRD
requirements at 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) and (2) fully include those
requirements that would apply under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa. In
reviewing standards covering the same pieces of equipment, we look to
identify the overlapping standards and require the owner or operator to
comply only with the most stringent standard. After the revisions to
the PRD requirements in Refinery MACT 1, we determined that the
equipment leak provisions for PRDs in Refinery MACT 1 are more
stringent than those in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa. By revising this
overlap provision, we are requiring equipment leak sources that are
subject to both rules to comply with the 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa
for most equipment leak sources but PRDs must comply with the PRD
requirements in Refinery MACT 1. This revision will require PRDs that
are also subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, to implement
prevention measures for PRDs, conduct root cause analyses, and
implement corrective actions to prevent a similar release from
occurring. Because compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa is not
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Refinery MACT 1 PRD
provisions, revision of the existing overlap provisions was deemed
critical to ensure all Refinery MACT 1 PRDs comply with the new
pressure release management requirements.
[[Page 6080]]
The commenter is also mistaken that this provision amends the NSPS.
Rather, it defines what sources subject to Refinery MACT 1 must do to
comply with Refinery MACT 1. Specifically, for equipment leaks at
facilities subject to both Refinery MACT 1 and 40 CFR part 60, subpart
GGGa, owners and operators must comply with the requirements in
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) for PRDs associated with
the leaking equipment because the requirements in Refinery MACT 1 for
PRDs are more stringent than those in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa. The
NSPS requirements are not modified by this change to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC and remain in effect for PRDs associated with equipment
leaks that are not subject to Refinery MACT 1.
Comment F.2: Commenters supported the clarification to the overlap
provisions for equipment leaks in 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2), but also request
that a delay of repair provision be included in 40 CFR 63.648 because
other equipment leak rules (such as 40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and
GGGa) potentially applicable to refinery PRDs include such delay of
repair provisions. The commenters noted that PRDs subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGG, are made subject to 40 CFR 63.648(j) by 40 CFR
63.640(p)(1).
Response F.2: By proposing a technical correction to 40 CFR
63.640(p)(2), the EPA was not proposing to re-open the substantive
requirements of 40 CFR 63.640 nor of other provisions, such as 40 CFR
63.648 that may be referenced in 40 CFR 63.640. We also disagree that
PRDs are allowed to comply with delay of repair provisions in the NSPS
(subparts GGG/GGGa or VV/Vva) beyond taking the equipment out of VOC
service. In any case, we determined that it was contrary to safety and
good air pollution control practices to continue to operate a process
unit without a properly functioning PRD as PRDs are, primarily, safety
devices.
3. What is the EPA's final decision on the proposed clarifying
amendments?
We are finalizing the amendment that equipment leaks that are
subject to the provisions of the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS pursuant
to 40 CFR 63.640(p)(2) must comply with the requirements in Refinery
MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j) for PRDs, as proposed. We are also
finalizing the amendment to the introductory text in 40 CFR 63.648(j)
to reference Refinery Equipment Leaks NSPS at 40 CFR 60.482-4a and the
amendment to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii) of Refinery MACT 1 to
correct the existing reference to 40 CFR 60.485(b), which should refer
to 40 CFR 60.485(c) and 40 CFR 60.485a(c), as proposed. Finally, as
noted in the history of these clarifying amendments, we addressed the
proposed amendments at 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) in a final rule
issued in November 2018 to more accurately cross-reference 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) rather than the entirety of 40 CFR
63.648(j)(3)(ii).
G. Corrections to November 2018 Final Rule
There were a number of publication errors associated with the
November 2018 rule. Several of these errors were associated with
inaccurate amendatory instructions or editorial errors in the final
amendment package. We are correcting these errors to finalize the
amendments consistent with the intent of the preamble to the November
2018 final rule (83 FR 60696). Table 2 of this preamble provides a
summary of the publication and editorial errors in the November 2018
rule that we are correcting in this final action.
Table 2--Summary of Corrections to November 2018 Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Issue Final revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery MACT 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.641, definition of Incorrect Revise instructions
``Reference control amendatory and reprint the
technology for storage instructions; entire definition to
vessels''. the Code of more easily
Federal implement revisions
Regulations to the definition of
could not ``Reference control
implement technology for
revisions as storage vessels''
instructed. consistent with the
intent of the
preamble to the
November 2018 final
rule.
40 CFR 63.643(c)(1)(v)........ There is a comma Amend 40 CFR
after the word 63.643(c)(1)(v) to
``less.'' It replace the comma
should be a after the word
period. ``less'' with a
period.
40 CFR 63.655(f)(1)(iii)...... Subordinate Amend 40 CFR
paragraphs (A) 63.655(f)(1)(iii) to
and (B) were include subordinate
inadvertently paragraphs (A) and
removed due to (B) consistent with
incorrect the intent of the
amendatory preamble to the
instructions. November 2018 final
rule.
40 CFR 63.655(f)(2)........... Subordinate Amend 40 CFR
paragraphs (i) 63.655(f)(2) to
through (iii) include subordinate
were paragraphs (i)
inadvertently through (iii)
removed due to consistent with the
incorrect intent of the
amendatory preamble to the
instructions. November 2018 final
rule.
40 CFR 63.655(h)(10).......... The introductory Amend 40 CFR
text associated 63.655(h)(10)
with this introductory text to
paragraph was read as ``Extensions
missing from the to electronic
regulatory text reporting
included in the deadlines.''
rule as
published in the
Federal Register.
40 CFR 63.655(i)(11) ``. . . Pilot-operated Amend 40 CFR
For each pilot-operated PRDs are not 63.655(i)(11)
pressure relief device subject to introductory text to
subject to the requirements requirements at remove ``or (iii).''
at 40 CFR 63.648(j)(4)(ii) or 40 CFR
(iii), . . .''. 63.648(j)(4)(iii
) so the
inclusion of
``or (iii)'' was
incorrect.
40 CFR 63.660(i)(2)(iii). Use of the plural Amend 40 CFR
``Use a cap, blind flange, in referencing 63.660(i)(2)(iii) to
plug, or a second valve for ``. . . an open- read ``Use a cap,
an open-ended valves or line ended valves . . blind flange, plug,
. . .''. .'' is incorrect or a second valve
grammar. for an open-ended
valve or line . .
.''
40 CFR 63.670(d)(2)........... Equation term Amend the reference
NHVvg in the equation term
incorrectly NHVvg in 40 CFR
references 63.670(d)(2) from
paragraph (l)(4) (l)(4) to (k)(4).
and should
instead
reference (k)(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6081]]
Refinery MACT 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart UUU, Item The ``1'' should Amend Item 9.c. of
9.c. ``XRF procedure in be superscripted Table 4 to Subpart
appendix A to this subpart 1; as it is UUU to read. ``XRF
. . .''. intended to procedure in
identify appendix A to this
footnote 1. subpart; \1\ . . .''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
As described in section III of this preamble, the EPA is not
revising the 2015 Rule requirements for: (1) The work practice
standards for PRDs; (2) the work practice standards for emergency
flaring events; (3) the assessment of risk as modified based on
implementation of these PRD and emergency flaring work practice
standards; or (4) the provision allowing refineries to reduce the
frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling locations that
consistently record benzene concentrations below 0.9 [micro]g/m\3\. In
this action, the EPA is finalizing two clarifying amendments which were
included in the proposed notice of reconsideration. These amendments
are not expected to have any cost, environmental, or economic impacts.
Therefore, the burden estimates and economic impact analysis associated
with the December 2015 rule (available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682) have not been altered as a result of this action. We note
that in the November 2018 rule, the EPA revised the requirements for
the alternative water overflow provisions for DCUs. A discussion of the
cost, environmental, and economic impacts of the amendments for the
water overflow provisions for DCUs were included in the April 2018
proposal and the November 2018 rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63,
subparts CC and UUU, and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0340 and
2060-0554. The revisions adopted in this action are clarifications and
technical corrections that do not affect the estimated burden of the
existing rule. Therefore, we have not revised the information
collection request for the existing rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The rule revisions being made through
this action consist of clarifications and technical corrections which
do not change the expected economic impact analysis performed for the
December 2015 rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will
have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effect on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. The actions
taken in this rulemaking are technical clarifications and corrections
and they do not affect risk for any populations.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
[[Page 6082]]
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
actions taken in this rulemaking are technical clarifications and
corrections and they do not affect the risk for any populations.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 14, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries
0
2. Section 63.640 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.640 Applicability and designation of affected source.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(2) Equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, are required to comply only with the
provisions specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, except that
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service must only comply with
the requirements in Sec. 63.648(j).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.641 is amended by revising the definition of ``Reference
control technology for storage vessels'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.641 Definitions.
* * * * *
Reference control technology for storage vessels means either:
(1) For Group 1 storage vessels complying with Sec. 63.660:
(i) An internal floating roof, including an external floating roof
converted to an internal floating roof, meeting the specifications of
Sec. Sec. 63.1063(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), and (b) and 63.660(b)(2);
(ii) An external floating roof meeting the specifications of
Sec. Sec. 63.1063(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), and (b) and 63.660(b)(2); or
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) A closed-vent system to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by 95 percent, or to an outlet concentration of 20 parts
per million by volume (ppmv).
(v) For purposes of emissions averaging, these four technologies
are considered equivalent.
(2) For all other storage vessels:
(i) An internal floating roof meeting the specifications of Sec.
63.119(b) of subpart G except for Sec. 63.119(b)(5) and (6);
(ii) An external floating roof meeting the specifications of Sec.
63.119(c) of subpart G except for Sec. 63.119(c)(2);
(iii) An external floating roof converted to an internal floating
roof meeting the specifications of Sec. 63.119(d) of subpart G except
for Sec. 63.119(d)(2); or
(iv) A closed-vent system to a control device that reduces organic
HAP emissions by 95 percent, or to an outlet concentration of 20 parts
per million by volume.
(v) For purposes of emissions averaging, these four technologies
are considered equivalent.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.643 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.643 Miscellaneous process vent provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) If, after applying best practices to isolate and purge
equipment served by a maintenance vent, none of the applicable
criterion in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section can be
met prior to installing or removing a blind flange or similar equipment
blind, the pressure in the equipment served by the maintenance vent is
reduced to 2 psig or less. Active purging of the equipment may be used
provided the equipment pressure at the location where purge gas is
introduced remains at 2 psig or less.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.648 is amended by revising paragraphs (j) introductory
text and (j)(2)(i) through (iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.648 Equipment leak standards.
* * * * *
(j) Except as specified in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, the
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure relief devices,
such as relief valves or rupture disks, in organic HAP gas or vapor
service instead of the pressure relief device requirements of Sec.
60.482-4 of this chapter, Sec. 60.482-4a of this chapter, or Sec.
63.165, as applicable. Except as specified in paragraphs (j)(4) and (5)
of this section, the owner or operator must also comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.
60.485(c) of this chapter, Sec. 60.485a(c) of this chapter, or Sec.
63.180(c), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure relief device returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service
following a pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device
is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
(ii) If the pressure relief device includes a rupture disk, either
comply with the requirements in paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section
(not replacing the rupture disk) or install a replacement disk as soon
as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar
days after the pressure release. The owner or operator must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 60.485(c) of this chapter,
Sec. 60.485a(c) of this chapter or Sec. 63.180(c), as applicable, no
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to
organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure release to verify
that the pressure relief device is operating with an instrument reading
of less than 500 ppm.
(iii) If the pressure relief device consists only of a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable
[[Page 6083]]
after a pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the
pressure release. The owner or operator may not initiate startup of the
equipment served by the rupture disk until the rupture disc is
replaced. The owner or operator must conduct instrument monitoring, as
specified in Sec. 60.485(c) of this chapter, Sec. 60.485a(c) of this
chapter, or Sec. 63.180(c), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar
days after the pressure relief device returns to organic HAP gas or
vapor service following a pressure release to verify that the pressure
relief device is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500
ppm.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iii),
(f)(2), adding a paragraph (h)(10) subject heading, and revising
paragraph (i)(11) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.655 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For miscellaneous process vents controlled by control devices
required to be tested under Sec. Sec. 63.645 and 63.116(c),
performance test results including the information in paragraphs
(f)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. Results of a performance test
conducted prior to the compliance date of this subpart can be used
provided that the test was conducted using the methods specified in
Sec. 63.645 and that the test conditions are representative of current
operating conditions. If the performance test is submitted
electronically through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) in accordance with Sec. 63.655(h)(9), the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status in lieu of the performance test results. The
performance test results must be submitted to CEDRI by the date the
Notification of Compliance Status is submitted.
(A) The percentage of reduction of organic HAP's or TOC, or the
outlet concentration of organic HAP's or TOC (parts per million by
volume on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen), determined as
specified in Sec. 63.116(c) of subpart G of this part; and
(B) The value of the monitored parameters specified in table 10 of
this subpart, or a site-specific parameter approved by the permitting
authority, averaged over the full period of the performance test.
* * * * *
(2) If initial performance tests are required by Sec. Sec. 63.643
through 63.653, the Notification of Compliance Status report shall
include one complete test report for each test method used for a
particular source. On and after February 1, 2016, for data collected
using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at
the time of the test, you must submit the results in accordance with
Sec. 63.655(h)(9) by the date that you submit the Notification of
Compliance Status, and you must include the process unit(s) tested, the
pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was
conducted in the Notification of Compliance Status. All other
performance test results must be reported in the Notification of
Compliance Status.
(i) For additional tests performed using the same method, the
results specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be
submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(ii) A complete test report shall include a sampling site
description, description of sampling and analysis procedures and any
modifications to standard procedures, quality assurance procedures,
record of operating conditions during the test, record of preparation
of standards, record of calibrations, raw data sheets for field
sampling, raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses,
documentation of calculations, and any other information required by
the test method.
(iii) Performance tests are required only if specified by
Sec. Sec. 63.643 through 63.653 of this subpart. Initial performance
tests are required for some kinds of emission points and controls.
Periodic testing of the same emission point is not required.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(10) Extensions to electronic reporting deadlines.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(11) For each pressure relief device subject to the pressure
release management work practice standards in Sec. 63.648(j)(3), the
owner or operator shall keep the records specified in paragraphs
(i)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. For each pilot-operated
pressure relief device subject to the requirements at Sec.
63.648(j)(4)(ii), the owner or operator shall keep the records
specified in paragraph (i)(11)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.660 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(2)(iii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.660 Storage vessel provisions.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Use a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve for an open-
ended valve or line following the requirements specified in Sec.
60.482-6(a)(2), (b), and (c).
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.670 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.670 Requirements for flare control devices.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Vtip must be less than 400 feet per second and also
less than the maximum allowed flare tip velocity (Vmax) as
calculated according to the following equation. The owner or operator
shall monitor Vtip using the procedures specified in
paragraphs (i) and (k) of this section and monitor gas composition and
determine NHVvg using the procedures specified in paragraphs
(j) and (l) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04FE20.003
Where:
Vmax = Maximum allowed flare tip velocity, ft/sec.
NHVvg = Net heating value of flare vent gas, as
determined by paragraph (k)(4) of this section, Btu/scf.
1,212 = Constant.
850 = Constant.
* * * * *
Subpart UUU--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units,
Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units
0
9. Revise Table 4 to Subpart UUU of Part 63 to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart UUU of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests for Metal HAP Emissions From Catalytic Cracking Units
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.1564(b)(2) and 63.1571(a)(5), you shall
meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.
[[Page 6084]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each new or existing catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerator You must . . . Using . . . According to these
vent . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any............................ a. Select sampling Method 1 or 1A in appendix Sampling sites must be
port's location and A-1 to part 60 of this located at the outlet of
the number of chapter. the control device or
traverse ports. the outlet of the
regenerator, as
applicable, and prior to
any releases to the
atmosphere.
b. Determine velocity Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or
and volumetric flow 2F in appendix A-1 to
rate. part 60 of this chapter,
or Method 2G in appendix
A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter, as applicable.
c. Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B in
molecular weight appendix A-2 to part 60
analysis. of this chapter, as
applicable.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A-3
content of the stack to part 60 of this
gas. chapter.
e. If you use an
electrostatic
precipitator, record
the total number of
fields in the
control system and
how many operated
during the
applicable
performance test.
f. If you use a wet
scrubber, record the
total amount (rate)
of water (or
scrubbing liquid)
and the amount
(rate) of make-up
liquid to the
scrubber during each
test run.
2. Subject to the NSPS for PM in a. Measure PM Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 You must maintain a
40 CFR 60.102 and not elect Sec. emissions. CFR part 60, appendix A- sampling rate of at
60.100(e). 3) to determine PM least 0.15 dry standard
emissions and associated cubic meters per minute
moisture content for (dscm/min) (0.53 dry
units without wet standard cubic feet per
scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B minute (dscf/min)).
(40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-3) to determine PM
emissions and associated
moisture content for unit
with wet scrubber.
b. Compute coke burn- Equations 1, 2, and 3 of
off rate and PM Sec. 63.1564 (if
emission rate (lb/ applicable).
1,000 lb of coke
burn-off).
c. Measure opacity of Continuous opacity You must collect opacity
emissions. monitoring system. monitoring data every 10
seconds during the
entire period of the
Method 5, 5B, or 5F
performance test and
reduce the data to 6-
minute averages.
3. Subject to the NSPS for PM in a. Measure PM Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 You must maintain a
40 CFR 60.102a(b)(1) or elect emissions. CFR part 60, appendix A- sampling rate of at
Sec. 60.100(e), electing the PM 3) to determine PM least 0.15 dscm/min
for coke burn-off limit. emissions and associated (0.53 dscf/min).
moisture content for
units without wet
scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B
(40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-3) to determine PM
emissions and associated
moisture content for unit
with wet scrubber.
b. Compute coke burn- Equations 1, 2, and 3 of
off rate and PM Sec. 63.1564 (if
emission rate (lb/ applicable).
1,000 lb of coke
burn-off).
[[Page 6085]]
c. Establish site- Continuous opacity If you elect to comply
specific limit if monitoring system. with the site-specific
you use a COMS. opacity limit in Sec.
63.1564(b)(4)(i), you
must collect opacity
monitoring data every 10
seconds during the
entire period of the
Method 5, 5B, or 5F
performance test. For
site specific opacity
monitoring, reduce the
data to 6-minute
averages; determine and
record the average
opacity for each test
run; and compute the
site-specific opacity
limit using Equation 4
of Sec. 63.1564.
4. Subject to the NSPS for PM in a. Measure PM Method 5, 5B, or 5F (40 You must maintain a
40 CFR 60.102a(b)(1) or elect emissions. CFR part 60, appendix A- sampling rate of at
Sec. 60.100(e). 3) to determine PM least 0.15 dscm/min
emissions and associated (0.53 dscf/min).
moisture content for
units without wet
scrubbers. Method 5 or 5B
(40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-3) to determine PM
emissions and associated
moisture content for unit
with wet scrubber.
5. Option 1a: Elect NSPS subpart J See item 2 of this
requirements for PM per coke burn- table.
off limit, not subject to the
NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
6. Option 1b: Elect NSPS subpart See item 3 of this
Ja requirements for PM per coke table.
burn-off limit, not subject to
the NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 60.102
or 60.102a(b)(1).
7. Option 1c: Elect NSPS See item 4 of this
requirements for PM table.
concentration, not subject to the
NSPS for PM in 40 CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
8. Option 2: PM per coke burn-off See item 3 of this
limit, not subject to the NSPS table.
for PM in 40 CFR 60.102 or
60.102a(b)(1).
9. Option 3: Ni lb/hr limit, not a. Measure Method 29 (40 CFR part 60,
subject to the NSPS for PM in 40 concentration of Ni. appendix A-8) Equation 5
CFR 60.102 or 60.102a(b)(1). b. Compute Ni of Sec. 63.1564.
emission rate (lb/
hr).
c. Determine the XRF procedure in appendix You must obtain 1 sample
equilibrium catalyst A to this subpart; \1\ or for each of the 3 test
Ni concentration. EPA Method 6010B or 6020 runs; determine and
or EPA Method 7520 or record the equilibrium
7521 in SW-8462; or an catalyst Ni
alternative to the SW-846 concentration for each
method satisfactory to of the 3 samples; and
the Administrator. you may adjust the
laboratory results to
the maximum value using
Equation 1 of Sec.
63.1571, if applicable.
d. If you use a i. Equations 6 and 7 of (1) You must collect
continuous opacity Sec. 63.1564 using data opacity monitoring data
monitoring system, from continuous opacity every 10 seconds during
establish your site- monitoring system, gas the entire period of the
specific Ni flow rate, results of initial Ni performance
operating limit. equilibrium catalyst Ni test; reduce the data to
concentration analysis, 6-minute averages; and
and Ni emission rate from determine and record the
Method 29 test. average opacity from all
the 6-minute averages
for each test run.
(2) You must collect gas
flow rate monitoring
data every 15 minutes
during the entire period
of the initial Ni
performance test;
measure the gas flow as
near as practical to the
continuous opacity
monitoring system; and
determine and record the
hourly average actual
gas flow rate for each
test run.
[[Page 6086]]
10. Option 4: Ni per coke burn-off a. Measure Method 29 (40 CFR part 60,
limit, not subject to the NSPS concentration of Ni. appendix A-8). Equations
for PM in 40 CFR 60.102 or b. Compute Ni 1 and 8 of Sec. 63.1564.
60.102a(b)(1). emission rate (lb/
1,000 lb of coke
burn-off).
c. Determine the See item 9.c. of this You must obtain 1 sample
equilibrium catalyst table. for each of the 3 test
Ni concentration. runs; determine and
record the equilibrium
catalyst Ni
concentration for each
of the 3 samples; and
you may adjust the
laboratory results to
the maximum value using
Equation 2 of Sec.
63.1571, if applicable.
d. If you use a i. Equations 9 and 10 of (1) You must collect
continuous opacity Sec. 63.1564 with data opacity monitoring data
monitoring system, from continuous opacity every 10 seconds during
establish your site- monitoring system, coke the entire period of the
specific Ni burn-off rate, results of initial Ni performance
operating limit. equilibrium catalyst Ni test; reduce the data to
concentration analysis, 6-minute averages; and
and Ni emission rate from determine and record the
Method 29 test. average opacity from all
the 6-minute averages
for each test run.
(2) You must collect gas
flow rate monitoring
data every 15 minutes
during the entire period
of the initial Ni
performance test;
measure the gas flow
rate as near as
practical to the
continuous opacity
monitoring system; and
determine and record the
hourly average actual
gas flow rate for each
test run.
e. Record the
catalyst addition
rate for each test
and schedule for the
10-day period prior
to the test.
11. If you elect item 5 Option 1b a. Establish each Data from the continuous
in Table 1, item 7 Option 2 in operating limit in parameter monitoring
Table 1, item 8 Option 3 in Table Table 2 of this systems and applicable
1, or item 9 Option 4 in Table 1 subpart that applies performance test methods.
of this subpart and you use to you.
continuous parameter monitoring
systems.
b. Electrostatic i. Data from the (1) You must collect gas
precipitator or wet continuous parameter flow rate monitoring
scrubber: Gas flow monitoring systems and data every 15 minutes
rate. applicable performance during the entire period
test methods. of the initial
performance test;
determine and record the
average gas flow rate
for each test run.
(2) You must determine
and record the 3-hr
average gas flow rate
from the test runs.
Alternatively, before
August 1, 2017, you may
determine and record the
maximum hourly average
gas flow rate from all
the readings.
c. Electrostatic i. Data from the (1) You must collect
precipitator: Total continuous parameter voltage, current, and
power (voltage and monitoring systems and secondary current
current) and applicable performance monitoring data every 15
secondary current. test methods. minutes during the
entire period of the
performance test; and
determine and record the
average voltage,
current, and secondary
current for each test
run. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017,
you may collect voltage
and secondary current
(or total power input)
monitoring data every 15
minutes during the
entire period of the
initial performance
test.
(2) You must determine
and record the 3-hr
average total power to
the system for the test
runs and the 3-hr
average secondary
current from the test
runs. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017,
you may determine and
record the minimum
hourly average voltage
and secondary current
(or total power input)
from all the readings.
[[Page 6087]]
d. Electrostatic Results of analysis for You must determine and
precipitator or wet equilibrium catalyst Ni record the average
scrubber: concentration. equilibrium catalyst Ni
Equilibrium catalyst concentration for the 3
Ni concentration. runs based on the
laboratory results. You
may adjust the value
using Equation 1 or 2 of
Sec. 63.1571 as
applicable.
e. Wet scrubber: i. Data from the (1) You must collect
Pressure drop (not continuous parameter pressure drop monitoring
applicable to non- monitoring systems and data every 15 minutes
venturi scrubber of applicable performance during the entire period
jet ejector design). test methods. of the initial
performance test; and
determine and record the
average pressure drop
for each test run.
(2) You must determine
and record the 3-hr
average pressure drop
from the test runs.
Alternatively, before
August 1, 2017, you may
determine and record the
minimum hourly average
pressure drop from all
the readings.
f. Wet scrubber: i. Data from the (1) You must collect gas
Liquid-to-gas ratio. continuous parameter flow rate and total
monitoring systems and water (or scrubbing
applicable performance liquid) flow rate
test methods. monitoring data every 15
minutes during the
entire period of the
initial performance
test; determine and
record the average gas
flow rate for each test
run; and determine the
average total water (or
scrubbing liquid) flow
for each test run.
(2) You must determine
and record the hourly
average liquid-to-gas
ratio from the test
runs. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017,
you may determine and
record the hourly
average gas flow rate
and total water (or
scrubbing liquid) flow
rate from all the
readings.
(3) You must determine
and record the 3-hr
average liquid-to-gas
ratio. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017,
you may determine and
record the minimum
liquid-to-gas ratio.
g. Alternative i. Data from the (1) You must collect air
procedure for gas continuous parameter flow rate monitoring
flow rate. monitoring systems and data or determine the
applicable performance air flow rate using
test methods. control room
instrumentation every 15
minutes during the
entire period of the
initial performance
test.
(2) You must determine
and record the 3-hr
average rate of all the
readings from the test
runs. Alternatively,
before August 1, 2017,
you may determine and
record the hourly
average rate of all the
readings.
(3) You must determine
and record the maximum
gas flow rate using
Equation 1 of Sec.
63.1573.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Determination of Metal Concentration on Catalyst Particles (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure).
\2\ EPA Method 6010B, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry, EPA Method 6020, Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, EPA Method 7520, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration, and EPA Method
7521, Nickel Atomic Absorption, Direct Aspiration are included in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846, Revision 5 (April 1998). The SW-846 and Updates (document
number 955-001-00000-1) are available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800; and from the National Technical Information Services
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket
Center, William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 700, Washington,
DC.
[FR Doc. 2020-01108 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
