[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17130]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 15, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[AD-FRL-5012-3]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Petroleum Refineries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to regulate the emissions of certain
hazardous air pollutants from petroleum refineries that are major
sources under section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. The
proposed rule, the national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for petroleum refineries, would require sources to achieve
emission limits reflecting the application of the maximum achievable
control technology, consistent with sections 112(d) and 112(h) of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. The proposed rule would regulate the
emissions of the organic hazardous air pollutants identified on the
list of 189 hazardous air pollutants in the Clean Air Act at both new
and existing petroleum refinery sources.
The EPA is also proposing to amend two standards of performance for
new stationary sources: standards of performance for equipment leaks of
volatile organic compounds in the synthetic organic chemicals
manufacturing industry; and standards of performance for volatile
organic compounds emissions from petroleum refinery wastewater systems.
These standards were previously promulgated under section 111 of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 13,
1994.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 5, 1994, a public hearing will be held on
August 15, 1994, beginning at 9 a.m. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact Ms. Lina Hanzely of the EPA at (919) 541-5673 by
August 5, 1994. Persons interested in attending the hearing should call
Ms. Hanzely at (919) 541-5673 to verify that a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible), to: The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (LE-
131), ATTN: Docket No. A-93-48, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing, it will be held at the EPA's Office of Administration
auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested
in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Ms. Hanzely, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5673.
Docket. The docket listed above under ADDRESSES contains supporting
information used in developing the proposed rule. The docket includes
several memoranda documenting the estimation of impacts of the
regulatory alternatives and the technical basis of the proposed
standards. Dockets are available for public inspection and copying
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standards, contact Mr. James F. Durham, at (919) 541-5672,
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13), Emission Standards Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to aid in
reading the preamble to the proposed regulation.
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations and Measurement Units
A. Acronyms
B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units
II. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Previous Regulations
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Applicability and General Standards
B. Miscellaneous Process Vent Provisions
C. Storage Vessel Provisions
D. Wastewater Provisions
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
G. Emissions Averaging
IV. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Rule
A. Environmental Impact
B. Energy Impact
C. Cost Impact
D. Economic Impact
E. Benefits Analysis
V. Emission and Impact Estimation Methods
VI. Rationale for Proposed Standard
A. Selection of Source Category, Sources, and Pollutants
B. Selection of Miscellaneous Process Vent Provisions
C. Selection of Storage Vessel Provisions
D. Selection of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operation
Provisions
E. Selection of Equipment Leak Provisions
F. Use of Continuous Monitoring to Determine Compliance
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Provisions
H. Rationale for Emissions Averaging Provisions
VII. Amendments to Previous Regulations
A. Amendment to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQQ
B. Amendment to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart VV
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review
The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal
Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-93-48, or by written
or telephone request from the Air and Radiation Docket Information
Center (see ADDRESSES). The proposed regulatory language is also
available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), on the EPA's
electronic bulletin boards. This bulletin board provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The
service is free, except for the cost of a telephone call. Dial (919)
541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. If more information on TTN is
needed call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations and Measurement Units
The following acronyms, abbreviations and measurement units are
provided to clarify the preamble to the proposed rule.
A. Acronyms
Act--Clean Air Act
BWON--Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP
CEMS--continuous emission monitoring system
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CTG--control techniques guideline
E.O.--Executive Order
EFR--External Floating Roof
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FCCU--fluidized catalytic cracking unit
FR--Federal Register
HAP--hazardous air pollutant
HON--hazardous organic national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for the SOCMI source category
ICR--information collection request
IFR--internal floating roof
LDAR--leak detection and repair
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP--national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS--new source performance standards
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
QIP--quality improvement program
RCT--reference control technology
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
SOCMI--synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
TAB--total annual benzene
TOC--total organic compounds
VOC--volatile organic compounds
B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units
Btu--British thermal unit
CO--carbon monoxide
hr--hour
kPa--kilopascals
Kw-hr/yr--kilowatt-hour per year
lb--pound
l/min--liters per minute
m\3\--cubic meters
Mg--megagrams
MEK--methyl ethyl ketone
MTBE--methyl tertiary butyl ether
NOX--nitrogen oxides
PM--particulate matter
ppm--parts per million
ppmv--parts per million by volume
ppmw--parts per million by weight
psia--pounds per square inch absolute
SO2--sulfur dioxide
yr--year
II. Background
This section provides background about the legal and policy
criteria that the Administrator took into consideration in selecting
the provisions of this proposed rule. It is included to give the reader
a sense of the rule as a whole. To that end, this section includes
background about the rule, the statutory authority of the rule,
including some statutory history, a summary of the current statutory
requirements for standards developed under section 112 of the Act, and
a summary of previous regulations.
The regulation being proposed today, under section 112 of the Act,
is the petroleum refineries NESHAP, which would set MACT for petroleum
refineries. The petroleum refineries industry group includes any
facility engaged in producing gasoline, naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels,
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives.
Some components of the petroleum refining industry have already
been subject to various Federal, State, and local air pollution control
rules. Although these existing rules will remain in effect, the
petroleum refinery NESHAP will provide comprehensive coverage of the
petroleum refinery sources not covered by the existing rules. The
petroleum refinery NESHAP, as proposed today, regulates emissions of
all the organic HAP's emitted from emission points at both new and
existing petroleum refinery sources. The proposed NESHAP reflects the
EPA's regulatory experience from previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings
involving similar kinds of sources and emission points. Information on
control technology applicability, performance, and cost was developed
to support these NESHAP and NSPS. This information was carefully
reconsidered in light of the Act and used in the selection of MACT and
the other provisions of the proposed rule, such as monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
A. Statutory Authority
This section provides a brief history of section 112 of the Act and
background regarding the definition of source categories and source for
section 112 standards. This information is included to give the reader
a sense of the statutory, judicial, and Congressional guidance that the
Administrator took into consideration in developing the source category
and source definitions for the petroleum refinery NESHAP.
Section 112 of the Act provides a list of 189 HAP's and directs the
EPA to develop rules to control HAP emissions. The Act requires that
the rules be established for categories of sources of the emissions,
rather than being set by pollutant. In addition, the Act sets out
specific criteria for establishing a minimum level of control and
criteria to be considered in evaluating control options more stringent
than the minimum control level. Assessment and control of any remaining
unacceptable health or environmental risk is to occur 8 years after the
rules are promulgated.
Specifically, section 112(c), as amended, directs the Administrator
to develop a list of all categories or subcategories of major sources
and such categories or subcategories of area sources that meet the
requirements of section 112(c)(3) and emit the HAP's listed pursuant to
section 112(b). Section 112(d) directs the Administrator to promulgate
emission standards for each listed category or subcategory of HAP
sources. Such standards will be applicable to both new and existing
sources and shall require:
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air
pollutants subject to this section (including a prohibition on such
emissions, where achievable) that the Administrator, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable for new and existing sources
in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard
applies. . . .
42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2).
The Act further provides that ``the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable'' shall be subject to a ``floor,''
which is determined differently for new and existing sources. For new
sources, the standards set shall not be any less stringent than ``the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source.'' For existing sources, the standards may not be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources in each category or
subcategory of 30 or more sources. (For smaller categories or
subcategories, the standards may not be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources in the
category or subcategory.)
In determining whether the standard should be more stringent than
the floor and by how much, the Administrator is to consider, among
other things, the cost of achieving such additional reductions. The
statutory provisions do not limit how the standard is to be set beyond
requiring that it be applicable to all sources in a category and be at
least as stringent as the floor.
B. Previous Regulations and Guidance
The regulations affecting the petroleum refining industry that have
already been promulgated include a number of NSPS in 40 CFR part 60:
subpart J--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries; subparts
K, Ka, and Kb--various standards of performance for storage vessels for
petroleum liquids; subpart GGG--Standards of Performance for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries; and subpart QQQ--Standards of
Performance for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater
Systems.
The regulations that have already been promulgated also include a
number of NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61: subpart J--NESHAP for Equipment
Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene; subpart Y--NESHAP for
Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels; and subpart FF--NESHAP
for Benzene Waste Operations.
The EPA has also issued guidance on controlling equipment leaks at
refineries in the refinery CTG. Guideline Series: Control of Volatile
Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-450/2-78-036. June 1978.
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
This section of this preamble summarizes the proposed rule (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC). The rule is made up of seven different subjects:
applicability, definitions, and general standards; miscellaneous
process vent provisions; storage vessel provisions; wastewater
provisions; equipment leak provisions; recordkeeping and reporting
provisions; and emissions averaging. This summary is divided into seven
subsections corresponding to these parts of the regulation.
The discussion in this section briefly summarizes the requirements
of the rule, without accounting for how the provisions were selected or
how applicability criteria were determined. Specific discussion of the
rationale upon which the provisions of the rule are based can be found
in section VI of this preamble.
It should be noted that State rules for VOC (and/or HAP's) may be
more stringent than the rules being proposed today for refineries.
Organic HAP's are only a subset of the VOC emitted from refineries.
This means that the magnitude of VOC emissions from a refinery can be
substantially greater than the HAP emissions, and the cost per unit of
emission reduction of any particular control strategy would be less.
A. Applicability and General Standards
The rule applies to petroleum refining process units that are part
of a plant site that is a major source as defined in section 112 of the
Act. The determination of potential to emit, and therefore major source
status, is based on the total of all HAP emissions from all activities
at the plant site. For example, at some integrated facilities there may
be operations from multiple source categories (e.g., petroleum
refining, SOCMI production, pesticide production). The potential to
emit for such a plant site would include HAP emissions from all source
categories. If that plant-site total potential to emit exceeds 10 tons
per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP's,
the petroleum refinery process units would be subject to the proposed
Petroleum Refinery NESHAP, even if the emissions from the petroleum
refinery process units were below the 10/25 threshold.
The applicability section of the regulation specifies what is
included in the petroleum refining source category and the source
within the source category.
Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in producing gasoline,
naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils, or other transportation fuels, heating fuels, or lubricants from
crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives.
The source comprises the miscellaneous process vents, storage
vessels, wastewater streams, and equipment leaks associated with
petroleum refining process units within a refinery. The rationale for
selecting this source definition is discussed in section VI.A of this
preamble.
The general standards section of the regulation establishes the
compliance dates for new and existing sources and requires that sources
be properly operated and maintained at all times. The general standards
clarify the applicability of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part
63 subpart A) to sources subject to subpart CC.
B. Miscellaneous Process Vent Provisions
Miscellaneous process vents are defined to include streams
containing greater than 20 ppmv organic HAP that are continuously or
periodically discharged from petroleum refining process units.
Miscellaneous process vents exclude vents that are routed to the
refinery fuel gas system and vents from fluidized catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regeneration, catalytic reformer catalyst regeneration,
and sulfur plants. The vents included in miscellaneous process vents
are defined specifically in the definitions section (Sec. 63.641) of
the proposed rule.
The miscellaneous process vent provisions require the owner or
operator of a miscellaneous process vent to reduce emissions of organic
HAP by 98 percent or to 20 ppmv, or to reduce emissions using a flare
meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A). The process vent provisions
allow for pollution prevention in that pollution prevention could be
used to reduce organic HAP concentrations to less than 20 ppmv, and the
stream would not be subject to control requirements.
C. Storage Vessel Provisions
A storage vessel means a tank or other vessel storing feed or
product for a petroleum refining process unit that contains organic
HAP's. The storage vessel provisions do not apply to the following: (1)
vessels permanently attached to mobile vehicles, (2) pressure vessels
designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kPa (29.7 psia), (3) vessels
with capacities smaller than 40 m\3\ (10,500 gal), and (4) wastewater
tanks.
The storage provisions define two groups of vessels: Group 1
vessels are vessels with a design storage capacity and a maximum true
vapor pressure above the values specified in the proposed regulation
and in section VI.C. of this notice; Group 2 vessels are all storage
vessels that are not Group 1 vessels. The storage provisions require
that one of the following control systems be applied to Group 1 storage
vessels: (1) an IFR with proper seals; (2) an EFR with proper seals;
(3) an EFR converted to an IFR with proper seals; or (4) a closed vent
system with a 95-percent efficient control device. The storage
provisions give details on the types of seals required. The EPA is co-
proposing an option that would also require controlled fittings on
existing floating roof tanks. Vessels at new sources that are equipped
with floating roofs are required to meet specifications for seals and
fittings. Monitoring and compliance provisions for Group 1 vessels
include periodic visual inspections of vessels and roof seals, as well
as internal inspections. If a closed vent system and control device is
used for venting emissions from Group 1 storage vessels, the owner or
operator must establish appropriate monitoring procedures. No controls
or inspections are required for Group 2 storage vessels. The storage
vessel provisions are based on and encourage pollution prevention. The
pollution prevention options specifically listed by the standard are:
IFR, EFR, and a closed vent system routed to a recovery device.
D. Wastewater Provisions
The wastewater provisions of this rule are based on the BWON, using
benzene as a surrogate for all organic HAP's from wastewater in
petroleum refineries. As explained in section VI.D of this preamble,
benzene is a good indicator of the presence of other HAP's in
wastewater. The wastewater streams subject to this rule include water,
raw material, intermediate, product, by-product, co-product, or waste
material that contains organic HAP's and is discharged into an
individual drain system. The wastewater provisions define two groups of
wastewater streams. Group 1 streams are those that contain a
concentration of at least 10 ppmw benzene, have a flow rate of at least
0.02 l/min, are located at a refinery with a total annual benzene
loading of at least 10 megagrams per year and are not exempt from
control requirements under 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF (the BWON). Group
2 streams are wastewater streams that are not Group 1.
The wastewater provisions of the rule refer to the BWON, which
requires owners or operators of a Group 1 wastewater stream to reduce
benzene mass by 99 percent using suppression followed by steam
stripping, biotreatment, or other treatment processes. Vents from steam
strippers and other waste management or treatment units are required to
be controlled by a control device achieving 95 percent emissions
reduction or 20 ppmv at the outlet of the control device. The
performance tests required for wastewater streams and treatment
operations to verify that the control devices achieve the desired
performance are included in the BWON, as are the monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping provisions necessary to demonstrate compliance. No
controls or monitoring are required for Group 2 wastewater streams. The
wastewater provisions promote pollution prevention in that pollution
prevention measures could be used to reduce the benzene concentration
to below the criteria for Group 1 wastewater streams. Once the stream
is a Group 2 wastewater stream, control is not required. Pollution
prevention measures may also be taken to reduce the refinery-wide TAB
quantity in waste to below 10 Mg/yr or to reduce the refinery-wide TAB
quantity in wastewater to below 1 Mg/yr, beyond which no further
control would be required. Furthermore, the emissions suppression
requirements of the provisions are pollution prevention measures.
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
The equipment leak standards for the petroleum refinery NESHAP
refer to the negotiated equipment leak regulation included in the HON
(40 CFR part 63 subpart H). These standards are summarized in the
preamble to the promulgated HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994). The
standards for the petroleum refinery NESHAP differ from the HON in the
following ways: only one leak definition for pumps in phase III; leak
definition for pumps is equal to or greater than 2,000 ppmv; leak
definitions for valves in phases II and III; monitoring frequencies for
valves; connectors are not required to be monitored, but sources may
choose to monitor valves less frequently in exchange for monitoring of
connectors. More details and a discussion of the rationale for these
differences are contained in section VI.E. The equipment leaks
standards further the goals of pollution prevention, because many of
the requirements, such as leak detection and repair, are pollution
prevention measures.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
The rule requires petroleum refineries complying with subpart CC to
keep records of information necessary to document compliance for 5
years and to submit the following four types of reports to the
Administrator: (1) An Initial Notification, (2) a Notification of
Compliance Status, (3) Periodic Reports, and (4) other reports. There
are no requirements for reporting compliance with the wastewater
provisions other than the reports already required by the BWON.
1. Initial Notification
The Initial Notification is due 120 days after the date of
promulgation for existing petroleum refinery sources. For new sources
that have an initial start-up more than 90 days after promulgation, the
application for approval of construction or reconstruction required
under the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A) must be
submitted in lieu of the Initial Notification. This application is due
as soon as practicable before construction or reconstruction is planned
to commence but it need not be sooner than 90 days after promulgation
of subpart CC. For new sources that have an initial start-up less than
90 days after promulgation, no application for approval of construction
is required, and the Initial Notification is due within 90 days after
promulgation.
The Initial Notification must list the petroleum refining process
units that are subject to the rule. The Initial Notification is not
required if a Title V operating permit application has been submitted
that provides the required information.
2. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted 150 days
after the sources's compliance date. It contains the information
necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved, such as:
the results of any performance tests for miscellaneous process vents;
design analyses for control devices applied to storage vessels; a
description of equipment subject to the equipment leaks provisions and
the number of pieces of equipment in each equipment type; and the
method of compliance with the equipment leak standard. For emission
points subject to continuous monitoring requirements, the notification
must contain site-specific ranges for each monitored parameter and the
rationale for selection of the ranges. If the information required in
the Notification of Compliance Status has already been submitted to the
operating permit authority, it does not need to be resubmitted.
3. Periodic Reports
Periodic Reports must be submitted semiannually, except that the
implementing agency can request quarterly submittal for emission points
where monitored parameter values are outside their permitted ranges
more than 1 percent or monitors are out of service more than 5 percent
of the total operating time in a semiannual reporting period.
All Periodic Reports must include information required to be
reported under the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for each
emission point. For continuously monitored parameters, the data on
those periods when the parameters are outside their established ranges
are included in the reports. Periodic Reports must also include results
of any performance tests conducted during the reporting period and
reports of equipment failures, leaks, or improper work practices that
are discovered during required inspections.
4. Other Reports
A very limited number of other reports must be submitted as
required by the provisions for each kind of emission point. Other
reports include notifications of storage vessel internal inspections,
and reports of start-up, shut-down, and malfunction required by the
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A).
G. Emissions Averaging
The EPA is proposing that emissions averaging be allowed among
existing miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, and wastewater
streams within a refinery. New sources would not be allowed to use
emissions averaging. Under emissions averaging, a system of emission
``credits'' and ``debits'' would be used to determine whether the
source is achieving the required emission reductions. An owner or
operator who generates an emission debit must control other emission
points to a level more stringent than is required by the regulation to
generate an emission credit. Annual emission credits must exceed
emission debits for a source to be in compliance. The proposed rule
contains specific equations and procedures for calculating credits and
debits. Monitoring of control device operation would be required and
Periodic Reports would be submitted quarterly instead of semiannually
for emission points in emissions averages.
IV. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Rule
This section presents the environmental, energy, cost, and economic
impacts resulting from the control of HAP emissions under the proposed
rule. It is estimated that approximately 190 petroleum refineries would
be required to apply controls by the proposed standards.
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline, the level of control
in the absence of the proposed rule. The estimates include the impacts
of applying control to: (1) existing process units and (2) additional
process units that are expected to begin operation over a 5-year
period. Thus, the estimates represent annual impacts occurring in the
fifth year. Based on a review of annual construction projects over the
years 1988 to 1992 listed in the Oil and Gas Journal, it was assumed
that 34 new process units would be constructed each year over a 5-year
period.
For regulatory purposes, some of the process units constructed in
the first 5 years of the rule may be considered new sources, while
others may be considered part of an existing source. However, for the
purpose of presenting total impacts, this distinction has not been
made.
A. Environmental Impact
The environmental impact of the rule includes the reduction of HAP
and VOC emissions, increases in other air pollutants, and decreases in
water pollution and solid waste resulting from the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that the emissions of HAP
from refineries would be reduced by 54,000 Mg/yr, and the emissions of
VOC would be reduced by 350,000 Mg/yr (see table 1). Estimates of
baseline HAP and VOC emissions are presented in conjunction with
emissions reductions estimates to illustrate the level of control being
achieved by the rule. Baseline HAP and VOC emissions take into account
the current estimated level of emissions control, based on previous
regulations and questionnaire responses submitted by refineries. As a
result, baseline HAP and VOC emissions reflect the level of control
that would be achieved in the absence of the proposed rule. The
proposed rule would achieve a 68 percent reduction in HAP emissions and
a 72 percent reduction in VOC emissions relative to the baseline. Table
1 presents the baseline emissions and emission reduction for each of
the four kinds of emission points controlled by this proposed rule.
Table 1.--National Primary Air Pollution Impact in the Fifth Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions Emission reductions
(Mg/yr) -------------------------------------------
Source ---------------------- (Mg/yr) (Percent)
-------------------------------------------
HAP VOC HAP VOC HAP VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous process vents................... 9,800 190,000 8,400 180,000 86 95
Equipment leaks............................... 52,000 190,000 45,000 160,000 87 85
Storage vessels............................... 9,300 111,000 1,300 21,000 14 19
Wastewater collection and treatment........... 10,000 10,000 (a) (a) (a) (a)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 81,000 500,000 55,000 360,000 68 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe MACT level of control is no additional control.
Emission levels of other air pollutants (CO, NOX, SO2)
were not quantified. However, slight increases above existing emission
levels would result from the combustion of fossil fuel as part of
control device operations. Additional emissions of CO, NOX, and
SO2 would result from fuel burned to generate energy for operation
of compressors for ducting miscellaneous process vent streams to
control devices.
Impacts for water pollution and solid waste were judged to be
negligible and were not quantified as part of the impact analysis.
B. Energy Impact
Increases in energy use were estimated for operating control
equipment that would be required by the proposed standards (i.e.,
compressors for ducting miscellaneous process vent streams to control
devices). The estimated energy use increase in the fifth year would be
13 million kw-hr/yr of electricity or 21,000 barrels of oil equivalent.
C. Cost Impact
The cost impact of the rule includes the capital cost of new
control equipment, the cost of energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and
electricity) required to operate control equipment, and operation and
maintenance cost. Generally, the cost impact also includes any cost
savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the form
of emissions. The average cost effectiveness of the regulation ($/Mg of
pollutant removed) is also presented as part of the cost impact. The
average cost effectiveness is determined by dividing the annual cost by
the annual emission reduction.
Under the proposed rule, it is estimated that total capital costs
would be $207 million (first quarter 1992 dollars) and total annual
costs would be $84 million (first quarter 1992 dollars) per year. Table
2 presents the capital and annual cost impact of the proposed
regulation for each of the four kinds of emission points as well as the
national totals. In addition to the cost impact shown in Table 2, it is
estimated that monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities
would cost about $26 million/yr, bringing the total national annual
costs to about $110 million.
Table 2.--National Control Cost Impacts in the Fifth Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
capital Total Average HAP Average VOC
Source costsa annual cost cost
(106 $ ) costs (106 effectiveness effectiveness
$/yr) ($/Mg HAP) ($/Mg VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
process vents...... 31 12 1,400 66
Equipment leaks..... 130 66 1,500 410
Storage vessels..... 46 6 4,600 340
Wastewater
collection and
treatment.......... (b) (b) (b) (b)
---------------------------------------------------
Total........... 207 84 ............. .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTotal capital costs incurred in the 5-year period.
bThe MACT level of control is no additional control.
D. Economic Impacts
The preliminary economic impact analysis for the selected
regulatory alternatives shows that the estimated price increases for
affected products range from 0.18 percent for residual fuel oil to 0.51
percent for jet fuel. Estimated decreases in product output range from
0.12 percent for jet fuel to 0.37 percent for residual fuel oil. Total
net exports (exports minus imports) for all petroleum liquids are
predicted to decrease by 1.8 million barrels annually, approximately 1
percent, as a result of the standard.
Industry has expressed concern that the proposed rule could cause
some small refineries to shut down. Using conservative (i.e., worst
case) assumptions, the economic analysis indicates that from none to
seven small refineries are at risk of closure under the proposed rule.
The majority of the closures would occur in refineries that process
less than 10,000 to 20,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Also, the
regulatory flexibility analysis showed that compliance costs as a
percentage of sales are more than twice as high for small refiners
compared to other refiners. For more information, consult ``Economic
Impacts Analysis of the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP'' in the docket.
E. Benefits Analysis
The RIA presents the results of an examination of the potential
health and welfare benefits associated with air emission reductions
projected as a result of implementation of the petroleum refinery
NESHAP. The proposed regulation regulates HAP emissions from storage
tanks, process vents, equipment leaks, and wastewater emission points
at refining sites. Of the HAP's emitted by petroleum refineries, some
are classified as VOC, which are ozone precursors. Hazardous air
pollutant benefits are presented separately from the benefits
associated specifically with VOC emission reductions.
The predicted emissions of a few HAP's associated with this
regulation have been classified as probable or known human carcinogens.
As a result, one of the benefits of the proposed regulation is a
reduction in the risk of cancer mortality. Other benefit categories
include reduced exposure to noncarcinogenic HAP's, and reduced exposure
to VOC.
Emissions of VOC have been associated with a variety of health and
welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions, together with
NOX, are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone.
Exposure to ambient ozone is responsible for a series of respiratory
related adverse impacts.
Based on existing data, the benefits associated with reduced HAP
and VOC emissions were quantified. The quantification of dollar
benefits for all benefit categories is not possible at this time
because of limitations in both data and available methodologies.
Although an estimate of the total reduction in HAP emissions for
various control options has been developed for the RIA, it has not been
possible to identify the speciation of the HAP emission reductions for
each type of emission point. However, an estimate of HAP speciation for
equipment leaks has been made. Using emissions data for equipment leaks
and the Human Exposure Model, the annual cancer risk caused by HAP
emissions from petroleum refineries was estimated. Generally, this
benefit category is calculated as the difference in estimated annual
cancer incidence before and after implementation of each regulatory
alternative. Since the annual cancer incidence associated with baseline
conditions was less than one life per year, the benefits associated
with the petroleum refinery NESHAP were determined to be small.
Therefore, these benefits are not incorporated into this benefit
analysis.
The benefits of reduced emissions of VOC from a MACT regulation of
petroleum refineries were quantified using the technique of ``benefits
transfer.'' Because analysis by the Office of Technology Assessment
from which benefits transfer values were obtained only estimated health
benefits in nonattainment areas, the transfer values can be applied to
VOC reductions occurring only in nonattainment areas. (Nonattainment
areas are geographical locations in which the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for ozone has been violated.) The benefit transfer
ratio range for acute health impacts used in this analysis is from $25
to $1,574 per megagram of VOC with an average of $800 per megagram of
VOC. In order to quantify VOC emission reductions, these ratios were
multiplied by VOC emission reductions from petroleum refineries located
in ozone nonattainment areas. Estimated benefits for VOC reductions are
$148.3 million for the proposed regulation and $153.9 million for a
more stringent alternative.
The quantified benefits exceed costs by $15.9 million 1992 dollars
per year for the proposed alternative. The quantified benefits exceed
costs by $5.5 million 1992 dollars per year for the more stringent
alternative. Thus, a comparison of the incremental difference in the
two alternatives indicates that the incremental net benefits are
negative for the more stringent alternative.
V. Emission and Impact Estimation Methods
Emissions from petroleum refineries and the impact of controlling
emissions were estimated using information published in the Oil and Gas
Journal and provided by petroleum refineries in response to information
collection requests and questionnaires sent out under section 114 of
the Act. For a general discussion of the estimation methods for
existing and new petroleum refinery sources and references for
memoranda on the specific methods used for each kind of emission point,
refer to the memorandum, Emission and Impact Estimation Methods,
available in the Docket. It is noted that API provided the EPA with
emissions data that it has collected relatively recently on leaking
equipment. The EPA is evaluating this data. Once this review is
complete, the EPA intends to incorporate it into documents which are
used for estimating emissions, particularly on an individual plant
basis. It could also affect the emission reduction estimates provided
for the promulgated standard.
VI. Rationale for Proposed Standard
A. Selection of Source Category, Sources, and Pollutants
This section of the preamble describes the rationale for the
selection and definition of the petroleum refinery source category and
for the factors that the Administrator took into consideration in
defining the sources within the petroleum refinery source category.
1. Selection of Source Category
The definition of the source category is important in setting
standards because it sets the boundary for what emission points will be
regulated under this standard. A large plant site such as a refinery
could comprise multiple source categories. For example, a refinery is
likely to contain equipment that would be regulated under the
industrial cooling tower source category, the process heater source
category, the industrial boiler source category, or the SOCMI source
category. The petroleum refinery source category regulated under this
NESHAP is defined to include equipment specifically used to produce
fuels, heating oils, or lubricants by separating petroleum or
separating, cracking, or reforming unfinished petroleum derivatives.
The EPA's source category list (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992),
required by section 112(c) of the Act, identifies categories of sources
for which NESHAP are to be established. This list includes all
categories of major sources of HAP's known to the EPA at this time, and
all area source categories for which findings of adverse effects
warranting regulation have been made. Two categories of sources are
listed for petroleum refineries: (1) catalytic cracking (fluid and
other) units, catalytic reforming units, and sulfur plant units,
scheduled for promulgation in 1997, and (2) other sources not
distinctly listed, scheduled for promulgation in 1995 (58 FR 63952,
December 3, 1993).
Based on review of information on petroleum refineries during
development of the proposed standards, it was determined that some of
the emissions points from the two listed categories of sources have
similar characteristics and can be controlled by the same control
techniques. In particular, miscellaneous process vents emitting organic
HAP's, storage vessels, wastewater streams, and leaks from equipment in
organic HAP service within catalytic cracking units, catalytic
reforming units, and sulfur plant units are similar to emission points
from the other process units at petroleum refineries (i.e., units in
the category of ``other sources not distinctly listed''). Because it is
most effective to regulate these emission points in a single
regulation, the EPA intends to amend the source category list when the
standards proposed today are promulgated. Upon revision, all emission
points from petroleum refining units included in today's proposed
standards will be in a single source category.
The petroleum refinery source category selected for regulation by
subpart CC includes process units for catalytic cracking (fluid and
other), catalytic reforming, sulfur plants, and other petroleum
refinery units not distinctly listed. The other units not distinctly
listed include, but are not limited to, process units for thermal
cracking, vacuum distillation, crude distillation, hydrotreating/
hydrorefining, alkylation, isomerization, polymerization, lube oil
processing, and hydrogen production. Units for processing natural gas
liquids, refining units for recycling discarded oil, and shale oil
extraction units are not covered by this rule. Ethylene processes are
not covered by this rule because they are included in a separate source
category.
Miscellaneous process vents, as defined in Sec. 63.641 of the
proposed rule, from the process units subject to this rule are part of
the petroleum refinery source category. Three kinds of vents at
petroleum refineries would not be included in the source category for
today's proposed rule. These vents--the catalytic cracking catalyst
regeneration vent, the catalytic reformer catalyst regeneration vent,
and the sulfur plant vents--will be included in a separate category
subject to a 1997 deadline. These vents have significantly different
HAP emission characteristics and would be controlled with different
controls than the rest of the refinery emission points. The standard
proposed today addresses emissions of organic HAP's. The FCCU catalyst
regeneration vent emits primarily metal HAP's, which would be
controlled using particulate controls. Catalytic reformer catalyst
regeneration vents emit hydrogen chloride, and sulfur plant vents emit
carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Because of their unique
characteristics, the EPA concluded that these emission points warranted
separate consideration. Because limited data are currently available,
these emission points will be included in a separate source category
under a separate schedule. (However, the EPA would like to clarify that
miscellaneous process vents (as defined in Sec. 63.641 of the proposed
rule) from catalytic cracking, catalytic reforming, and sulfur plant
units that emit organic HAP's would be subject to subpart CC.)
a. Distinction between petroleum refinery and SOCMI source
categories. This petroleum refineries NESHAP generally covers refinery
processes that produce petroleum liquids (such as gasoline, naphthas,
and kerosene) for use as fuels. Often, products of refinery processes
are used to make synthetic organic chemicals other than fuels. The
petroleum refineries NESHAP will not cover chemical manufacturing
process units that are covered under the SOCMI source category, even if
these units are located at a refinery site. A SOCMI chemical
manufacturing process unit that is located at a refinery and produces
one or more of the chemicals listed in the HON (40 CFR part 63 subpart
F, table 1) as a single chemical product or as a mixed chemical used to
produce other chemicals would be considered a SOCMI process and would
be subject to the HON rather than to the petroleum refineries NESHAP.
For example, MTBE, an additive used for octane enhancement in
gasoline, is a SOCMI chemical that can be produced at some petroleum
refineries and is made from a petroleum refinery product. The feedstock
for MTBE is a mixed C4, C5 hydrocarbon stream produced in an FCCU; the
FCCU is subject to the petroleum refineries NESHAP. However, MTBE is on
the list of SOCMI chemicals in the HON (40 part 63 subpart F), so the
process unit used to produce MTBE from the C4, C5 hydrocarbon feedstock
is regulated under the HON, not under the petroleum refineries NESHAP.
b. Exclusion of area sources. A petroleum refining process would be
subject to the proposed standard only if it is part of a major source.
A major source is any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit, considering controls, more than 10 tons per
year of any HAP or more than 25 tons per year of total HAP. An area
source is any stationary source or group of stationary sources that are
not major sources. The General Provisions for the NESHAP (40 CFR part
63 subpart A), provide a definition of potential to emit. The General
Provisions apply to the petroleum refinery source category.
Based on the information available on petroleum refineries and
emission estimates developed for this standard, the EPA has no
information that can be used to determine whether area sources in the
petroleum refinery source category would present a threat of adverse
effects to human health or to the environment. It is believed that most
refineries are major sources, and that there are few, if any, area
sources. The EPA requests comments containing information on whether
there are area sources within the petroleum refining source category
and on the emissions from such sources. Commenters should provide the
basis for any emission estimates.
c. Exclusion of research and development facilities. The proposed
standard would not apply to research and development facilities, such
as laboratories and pilot plants, regardless of whether the facilities
are located on the same site as a commercial petroleum refinery.
Research and development facilities connected with petroleum refineries
are believed to be small, and the EPA has limited information about
their operations or about the appropriate controls for these
facilities. The EPA concluded, therefore, that it would not be
appropriate to include research and development facilities in this
regulation. In accordance with section 112(c)(7) of the Act, a separate
source category for research and development facilities may be
established at a later date if more comprehensive information becomes
available. Standards for such facilities may be developed at a later
date, if the EPA determines that such action is warranted.
d. Exclusion of transfer operations. Transfer operations at
petroleum refineries, that is, loading products into tank trucks,
railcars, or marine vessels, is not included in the source category
regulated by this rule. Loading of marine vessels will be regulated
under the Federal Standards for marine tank vessel for loading and
unloading operations and NESHAP for marine tank vessel for loading and
unloading operations. Emissions from loading tank trucks and railcars
will be regulated under the NESHAP for the gasoline distribution and
organic liquids distribution (nongasoline) source categories in the
liquids distribution industry group. The NESHAP for the gasoline
distribution source category was proposed in February 1994; the NESHAP
for the organic liquids distribution source category is scheduled to be
promulgated by 2000.
e. Small refineries. The standard proposed today would apply to all
refineries that are major sources including small refineries. Small
refineries maintain that they will be more severely affected by the
proposed rule than large refineries and therefore should be given
separate regulatory consideration. Small refiners point out that they
are predominately located in rural areas that are in compliance with
the Federal ambient air quality standard for ozone. Therefore, many of
them have not implemented LDAR programs and other control procedures
that have been started by large refiners to control VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas. As a result they will be confronted with
relatively high costs for starting LDAR programs and retrofitting
storage tanks. Moreover, small refiners point out that LDAR costs are
related more to refinery complexity than size. Therefore, refineries
that differ in size but have similar processing configurations will
incur similar costs. However, the costs on a per-barrel basis will be
higher for the small refineries.
The proposed rule does not treat small refineries as a separate
subcategory because the EPA could not identify fundamental technical
differences between small and large refineries. In addition, even if
small refineries were in a separate source category it appears that the
minimum control levels (floors) would not be much different from those
for the larger refineries. Comments are requested on whether a basis
exists for subcategorizing small refineries, and if so, at what size,
along with supporting data and rationale.
2. Selection of Source
The definition of source is an important element of this NESHAP
because it describes the specific grouping of emission points within
the source category to which each standard applies.
The EPA has broad discretion in defining ``sources.'' Section
112(d) directs the Administrator to set standards for all ``major
sources'' within every listed category. Area sources meeting the
requirements of sections 112(c)(3) or 112(k) must also be regulated.
Major sources are ``stationary sources,'' or groups of stationary
sources, of a given size, as defined in section 112(a)(1). The
definition of ``stationary source'' included in section 112 is
identical to the definition used in section 111(a), which is ``any
building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant.'' 42 U.S.C. 7411(a). However, section 112, as
amended, does not require that the standards set under section 112(d)
be set for the same components of the categories as was done under
section 111. Thus, there is no requirement that the section 112(d)
NESHAP for stationary sources be set for precisely the same portions of
the industry as the section 111 NSPS.
As the Supreme Court has recognized in Chevron, USA, Inc., versus
Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (hereafter
referred to as Chevron), EPA has broad discretion to define ``source.''
The Court recognized in Chevron that if any Congressional intent can be
discerned from the statutory language of section 111(a)(3) (the
definition of source that is used in section 112), ``the listing of
overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than
confine, the scope of the EPA's power to regulate particular sources in
order to best effectuate the policies of the Act.'' Chevron. Thus, the
court found that a ``source'' can encompass ``any discrete, but
integrated operation, which pollutes.'' Chevron. As such, the EPA has
flexibility, within the broad definition of ``stationary source,'' to
define the source for each section 112(d) standard as broadly or
narrowly as is appropriate for the particular industry being regulated.
Previous regulations have, in light of this flexibility, defined source
in a variety of ways, ranging from narrow to broad definitions. For
example, for BWON, the source was defined as the plant site, for the
petroleum refinery equipment leaks NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG)
the source was the process unit, and for the petroleum refinery
wastewater NSPS (40 CFR part 60 subpart QQQ) the source was more
narrowly defined. There is no presumptive definition.
The proposed standard defines source as the collection of emission
points in HAP-emitting petroleum refining processes within the source
category that are part of a major source. The source comprises all
miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, wastewater streams, and
equipment leaks associated with petroleum refining process units that
are located at a single plant site covering a contiguous area under
common control.
The way the source is defined has implications for setting MACT and
for compliance with the proposed rule. Emission standards for new and
for existing sources promulgated under section 112(d) of the Act must
represent the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable; this is
typically referred to as MACT. The EPA considered two possible
definitions of source for the petroleum refinery NESHAP. The source
could be defined narrowly as each individual process vent, storage
vessel, or wastewater stream or piece of equipment; or the source could
be defined broadly, as the collection of all such emission points at
the refinery.
The narrow definition of the petroleum refinery source, defining
the source as each individual emission point, was rejected because a
narrow definition is more appropriate when all emission points have
consistent characteristics and because it would not allow compliance
flexibility. For example, if each storage vessel were comparable to
each other storage vessel, so that the same performance level could
apply to them all, a narrow definition might be appropriate. In fact,
storage vessels can vary widely in size and material stored, and the
emission performance level appropriate for one may be inappropriate for
another. In addition, the control strategy for a refinery is decided at
a refinery level. Often, individual emission points within a refinery
are controlled together (e.g., multiple miscellaneous process vents can
be routed to one control system). Thus, it is reasonable to look at the
overall level of control a refinery is achieving because the size,
level of emissions, and significance of emissions can vary from point
to point.
A broad definition of source allows consideration of site-specific
differences and compliance flexibility, including emissions averaging.
With a broad definition, a source may exercise some choice in the level
of control of each individual emission point as long as the sourcewide
MACT level of emission reduction is met. This flexibility results in
benefits of achieving maximum emission reductions in a more efficient
and cost-effective manner.
Another reason for selection of the broad definition of source is
compatibility with the BWON source definition. This compatibility
allows the standards to be consistent and eliminates the burden of
overlapping standards and implementation problems that would arise if
the source for today's proposed rule was defined much more narrowly
than the BWON source.
The definition of source also affects refineries making changes to
existing facilities. Under the Act, sources that are constructed or
reconstructed after proposal of a standard are considered to be new
sources. Reconstructions are defined in Sec. 63.2 of the NESHAP General
Provisions (59 FR 12408, March 16, 1994) as the replacement of
components of an affected source to such an extent that the fixed
capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new
source. Upon reconstruction, an affected source is subject to standards
for new sources, including compliance dates, irrespective of any change
in emissions of hazardous air pollutants from that source.
With a narrower source definition, enforcement of the standard
would be difficult because any change to any emission point could
trigger regulatory provisions governing reconstruction. Reconstructed
sources are treated as new sources, so many small ``new'' sources could
be scattered throughout an existing refinery. Determining requirements
for different emission points would be complex, and the new or
reconstructed sources (which are treated as new sources) may require
control systems separate from the control systems for existing sources.
This could increase the cost and economic impact of the regulation.
With a broad source definition, the replacement or addition of new
equipment would be unlikely to exceed 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost of the source.
3. Determining New Source Status
The proposed rule clarifies the process for determining if new or
existing source requirements would apply to a particular petroleum
refining process unit or emission point. The requirements and
definitions used by the proposed petroleum refineries rule to
distinguish new and existing sources are consistent with section 112(a)
and the related components of the subpart A General Provisions. The
following would be subject to the subpart CC requirements for new
sources: (1) Petroleum refining process units constructed after the
date of proposal of subpart CC and having the potential to emit major
quantities (10 tons per year of any HAP or 25 tons per year of any
combination of HAP's); (2) existing sources reconstructed after that
date; and (3) ``greenfield'' petroleum refining process units that
constitute all or part of a major source constructed after that date.
(New source requirements would not be triggered by the addition of an
individual emission point, such as a storage vessel.) Thus, any change
or addition to an existing petroleum refinery plant site must meet the
same three criteria as a ``greenfield'' plant to be considered a new
source. The EPA proposes this approach for determining what is subject
to new source requirements to avoid providing an incentive for
petroleum refinery owners and operators to construct processes as area
sources. Also, EPA wanted to ensure that new sources built at existing
plant sites are subject to the same requirements as new sources that
are ``greenfield'' sites. Additions to an existing plant that do not
meet the requirements of being a petroleum refining process unit and do
not have the potential to emit major amounts, would be subject to
existing source requirements.
4. Selection of Pollutants
The HAP's that are emitted from the emission points that make up
the source in this source category are all organic HAP's; the
predominant HAP's are benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, and
hexane. Therefore, the provisions of this NESHAP apply to the organic
HAP's listed in section 112(b) of the Act.
B. Selection of Miscellaneous Process Vent Provisions
The definition in Sec. 63.641 of the proposed rule describes the
vents that are considered to be ``miscellaneous process vents.'' The
available data indicated that these vents have similar emission
characteristics and can be controlled by the same type of control
technologies.
1. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
The Act specifies that the EPA, in determining the MACT level of
control for sources regulated under section 112, must select emission
control requirements that are at least as stringent as, or more
stringent than, the emission control level identified as the floor. As
a result, the EPA began the process of selecting control requirements
for miscellaneous process vents by determining MACT floors for existing
and new sources. The MACT floor determinations are fully described in a
memorandum ``Determination of the Petroleum Refinery MACT Floors for
Existing and New Sources,'' available in the docket. This section
summarizes the MACT floors as they relate to miscellaneous process
vents, and the selection of the proposed process vent provisions.
The Act requires that the EPA determine MACT based on consideration
of cost, energy requirements and nonair quality health and
environmental impacts. The EPA maintains that the requirements of this
proposed rule were determined based on these statutorily-specified
criteria. The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
considering additional criteria such as pollution prevention,
environmental equity, affordability, and technology innovation.
a. Existing sources. Based on information contained in industry
responses to the EPA's ICR and section 114 questionnaires, it was
determined that the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of sources is combustion control of all
miscellaneous process vents. Data analyses conducted in developing
previous NSPS and the HON determined that combustion controls can
achieve 98 percent organic HAP reduction or an outlet organic HAP
concentration of 20 ppmv for all vent streams. The selection of these
numerical levels is described in the preamble for the proposed reactor
processes NSPS (55 FR 26953, June 29, 1990).
The MACT floor level of control for existing sources, therefore,
includes reduction of organic HAP emissions from miscellaneous process
vents by 98 percent or to a level of 20 ppmv for miscellaneous process
vents with concentrations that exceed de minimis levels. A de minimis
level of 20 ppmv was selected. Process vents with organic HAP emission
levels below this concentration would not be subject to the proposed
rule because the available technologies may not be able to reduce
organic emissions below this level. Regulatory options more stringent
than the floor were not investigated for miscellaneous process vents
because no available technology that is generally applicable can
achieve a more stringent level of control than the MACT floor.
Therefore, the standard being proposed for miscellaneous process vents
at existing sources is the MACT floor.
The estimated emission reductions and cost impacts for the proposed
standards for all emission points are shown in table 3. The
miscellaneous process vent costs are based on routing the vents to the
refinery fuel gas or flare systems. Some industry representatives have
expressed concerns that the costs may be underestimated. The EPA
requests specific cost data and information on how miscellaneous
process vents at existing sources would be controlled and what the cost
would be.
Table 3.--Control Options and Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP Cost effectiveness ($/Mg
Baseline -------------------------- HAP)
Source emissions Control Emission Percent Annual cost -------------------------
(Mg/yr) optiona reduction emission ($1,000/yr)
(Mg/yr) reduction Average Incremental
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
Process Vents:
Existing 8,900 Floor*........ 7,600 85 13,000 1,700 N/A
sources.
New sourcesb.. 900 Floor*........ 770 85 370 480 N/A
Storage Vessels:
Existing 9,000 Floor*........ 1,300 14 11,400 8,500 N/A
sourcesc.
Option 1*..... 1,800 20 13,600 7,800 4,400
Option 2...... 2,600 29 37,000 14,000 30,000
New sourcesb.. 290 Floor*........ 4 1.4 98 24,000 N/A
Option 1...... 14 4.8 550 39,000 45,000
Wastewater:
Existing 9,200 Floor*........ ........... N/A ........... N/A N/A
sources.
Option 1...... 7,700 93 120,000 15,000 15,000
New sourcesb.. 960 Floor*........ ........... N/A ........... N/A N/A
Option 1...... 930 97 18,000 20,000 20,000
Equipment Leaks:
Existing 50,000 Floord........ 35,000 69 69,000 2,000 N/A
sources.
Option 1*..... 44,000 87 66,000 1,500 -330
Option 2...... 46,000 91 78,000 1,700 6,000
New sources... 1,300 Floor*,d...... 640 49 -210 -330 -330
Option 1...... 760 59 840 1,100 8,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aExplanation of control options:
Storage Vessels
Existing Sources
Floor=Subpart Kb floating roof with specified seals or closed vent systems and control devices for vessels 177 m3 storing liquid with the vapor pressures 8.3 kPa.
Option 1=Floating roof with subpart Kb specified seals and fittings for vessels 151 m3 storing
liquids with true vapor pressure 5.2 kPa.
Option 2=Floating roof with subpart Kb specified seals and fittings for vessels 151 m3 storing
liquids with true vapor pressure 0.014 kPa.
New Sources
Floor=Floating roof with subpart Kb specified seals and fittings for vessels 151 m3 storing liquid
with the vapor pressures 3.4 kPa, and vessels 76 m3 storing liquids with vapor
pressures equal to or greater than 77 kPa.
Option 1=Floating roof with specified seals and fittings for vessels 151 m3 storing liquids with
true vapor pressures 0.014 kPa, and vessels 76 m3 storing liquids with vapor pressures
equal to or greater than 77 kPa.
Equipment Leaks
Existing Sources
Floor=Compliance with the petroleum refinery NSPS.
Option 1=Compliance with the negotiated equipment leaks regulation in HON, subpart H of part 63, without
connectors.
Option 2=Compliance with the negotiated equipment leaks regulation in HON, subpart H of part 63.
New Sources
Floor=Compliance with the negotiated equipment leaks regulation in HON, subpart H of part 63, without
connectors.
Option 1=Compliance with the negotiated equipment leaks regulation in HON, subpart H of part 63.
Wastewater
Existing and New Sources
Floor=Compliance with the BWON for any refinery with > 10 Mg/yr of benzene loading in waste. Controlling waste
streams > 10 ppm benzene by weight with flow rates > 0.02 1/min.
Option 1=Compliance with the BWON for all refinery wastewater streams.
Miscellaneous Process Vents Existing and New Sources
Floor=Control to 20 ppm HAP or 98 percent reduction of HAP by combustion.
bImpacts were estimated for new process units constructed in the 5 years after promulgation. For regulatory
purposes, some of these units may be considered new sources while others may be considered part of an existing
source.
cThe floor and option 1 are being co-proposed for storage vessels at existing sources and the EPA is requesting
comment on which should be selected.
dFor equipment leaks at both new and existing sources the option identified as the ``floor'' is slightly more
stringent than the actual floor. For ease of costing, these options were chosen to represent the floor. See
footnote ``a'' for an explanation of the control options.
*=Control option chosen.
N/A=Not applicable.
Industry has commented that the control requirements for the
process vents should be based on a cost-effectiveness method similar to
the TRE approach used in the HON rule. Industry recommendations are
based on limited information which indicates that the control cost per
ton of HAP reduction can differ by several hundred percent. As in the
HON, the differences are apparently due to wide variations in the
control costs and the HAP content of the process vents.
The EPA requests comment on whether or not the control requirements
for the miscellaneous process vents should be based on a cost-
effectiveness approach similar to the TRE method used in the HON. The
EPA does not have the information to determine if a cost-effectiveness
approach is needed or to develop one and to relate it to the floor. The
required information includes descriptions of the sources of emissions
and the emission controls. The vent stream characteristics such as flow
rate, heating value, VOC, and HAP contents are also required.
Information provided by industry in response to two formal EPA
questionnaires contained little information with respect to the vent
stream characteristics. It is not possible to develop TRE equations
that are specific to petroleum refineries without this information. In
the event that the EPA develops a TRE, the Agency requests the
information that is needed to develop cost-effectiveness equations for
the refining industry similar to those in the HON. The information is
requested for a representative segment of the refining industry. If
this information is received, the EPA will analyze it before
promulgation of this rule and will utilize a TRE approach if such an
approach appears appropriate.
Industry has commented that the cost equations for the TRE
requirements in the HON rule may be applicable to the refining
industry. The EPA solicits comment with supporting information on the
applicability of the HON cost equations to the refining industry such
as information on the similarity or differences between the refining
industry and the SOCMI in terms of vent stream characteristics (flow,
concentration, heating value) and for combustion control device designs
in use.
Industry has commented that the applicability levels for the HAP
concentration (50 ppmv) and the flow rate (0.005 standard cubic meter
per minute) in the process vents provisions of the HON should be
applicable to the refining industry. The purpose of the applicability
levels is to avoid affecting large numbers of small vents whose
cumulative emissions are small relative to the control costs and the
costs of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The EPA requests
information to determine if there are large numbers of small vents with
low HAP concentrations in the refining industry, and whether such vents
are controlled. If such vents exist, the EPA also requests information
to determine the applicability levels that would avoid affecting vents
where the emission control and administrative costs are inordinately
high relative to the emission reductions. If sufficient data are
received and the MACT floor does not require control of such vents, the
EPA will include appropriate applicability levels in the final rule.
Industry has commented that the EPA has overestimated the HAP and
VOC emissions from the miscellaneous process vents--particularly from
the alkylation and vacuum distillation units. The estimates are based
on: (1) Information submitted by the petroleum refining industry in
response to the EPA questionnaires, and (2) emission estimation
extrapolations and assumptions by the EPA where reported data were
insufficient. Industry has questioned the assumptions made by the EPA
in their analysis. Industry maintained that part of the reported
emissions may be from water blowdowns, equipment leaks or from other
emission sources that are not true process vents. The EPA will consider
revising the emission estimates if the EPA receives new data
demonstrating that revisions are appropriate.
Industry has commented that since the HAP to VOC ratio for
reformers is dissimilar to other process units, the EPA should not use
it to estimate HAP emissions from process units other than reformers.
The EPA agrees with industry on this point and plans to revise the
estimates after considering any new information submitted.
b. New sources. Because the best performing source controls all
miscellaneous process vents by combustion, the new source MACT floor
includes reduction of emissions from miscellaneous process vents by 98
percent or to a level of 20 ppmv. A 20 ppmv de minimis concentration
was selected for the same reason as existing sources. There are no
available control options that are generally applicable that can
achieve emission levels more stringent than the floor. Therefore, the
standard being proposed for miscellaneous process vents at new sources
is the MACT floor. The cost and emission reduction for new source are
presented in table 3.
2. Selection of Format
The format of the regulation for miscellaneous process vent streams
depends on the kind of control device the refinery selects. For vent
streams controlled by control devices other than flares, the format of
the regulation is a combination of a weight-percent reduction and an
outlet concentration. A weight-percent reduction format is appropriate
for process vent streams with HAP concentrations above 1,000 ppmv,
because a weight-percent limit is the best measure of the performance
of combustion control devices and will assure that MACT is applied. For
process vent streams with HAP concentrations below 1,000 ppmv, the
format of the regulation is a 20 ppmv outlet concentration, because 98
percent HAP reduction may not be achievable.
For vent streams controlled by a flare, the proposal refers to the
performance specifications in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, section 63.11). An emission limit or percent reduction
format was not selected because it is very difficult to measure the
emissions from a flare to determine its efficiency.
The petroleum refinery fuel gas system is considered part of the
refinery processes; therefore, any vent stream being recovered and
routed to the fuel gas system is also considered part of the process.
These vent streams are not considered miscellaneous process vents and
are not subject to subpart CC. Furthermore, these vents are already
controlled to the most stringent levels achievable.
3. Selection of Performance Tests, Monitoring Requirements, and Test
Methods
The standard specifies the performance tests, monitoring
requirements, and test methods necessary to determine whether a
miscellaneous process vent stream is required to apply control devices
and to demonstrate that the allowed emission levels are achieved when
controls are applied. The format of these requirements, as with the
format of the miscellaneous process vent provisions, depends on the
control device selected.
a. Performance test. Performance tests ensure that a control device
can achieve the required control level and help establish operating
parameters that indicate proper operation and maintenance. Initial
performance tests are required for control devices other than flares
and certain boilers and process heaters. Specifically, testing would be
required for incinerators, and for boilers and process heaters smaller
than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) where the vent stream is not used as
the primary fuel or mixed with the primary fuel prior to being
introduced into the boiler.
As previously stated, miscellaneous process vent streams routed to
the refinery fuel gas system are not subject to these standards, and
boilers and process heaters that use refinery fuel gas are not required
to be tested.
An initial performance test is not required for boilers and process
heaters larger than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) because they operate at
high temperatures and residence times. Analysis shows that when vent
streams are introduced into the flame zone of these boilers and process
heaters, over 98 percent reduction or an outlet concentration of 20
ppmv is achieved. Therefore, a performance test is not necessary.
Because percent reduction and outlet concentration cannot feasibly
be measured at flares, the flare must meet the requirements for
operating conditions in Sec. 63.11 of 40 CFR part 63 subpart A.
b. Test methods. The proposed miscellaneous process vent provisions
would require the use of approved test methods to ensure consistent and
verifiable results for initial performance tests and compliance
demonstrations. The proposed regulation refers to the HON (40 CFR part
63, subpart G) for performance test provisions; but the rationale for
the use of these provisions for petroleum refineries is presented
below. For performance tests, Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, are specified for measuring vent stream flow rate.
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is specified for measuring
total vent stream HAP or TOC concentration at the outlet of the control
device to determine whether outlet HAP concentration is below 20 ppmv
or at both the inlet and outlet of the control device to determine if
HAP emissions are reduced by 98 percent. In order to allow owners or
operators greater flexibility, the proposed provisions also allow the
use of any test method or test results validated according to the
protocol in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
The EPA considered allowing Method 25A as an alternative to Method
18 for demonstrating compliance of control devices applied to process
vents; however, Method 25A is not included as an alternative for
demonstrating compliance with the emissions reduction. The basis for
the decision was that the EPA determined that the results obtained with
Method 25A would not consistently demonstrate HAP control efficiency.
Miscellaneous process vent streams often contain mixtures of multiple
organic HAP's and other organic compounds. The TOC measurements
obtained with Method 25A would vary depending on how the method is
calibrated, because response factors for individual compounds vary.
Furthermore, some compounds are not well detected by Method 25A.
Another concern is that the relative proportion of individual organic
compounds may change across the combustor. Therefore, specifying
calibration with the principal HAP in the inlet would not necessarily
produce reliable results.
c. Monitoring. Control devices used to comply with the proposed
standard need to be maintained and operated properly if either a 98
percent reduction or outlet concentration of 20 ppmv is to be achieved
on a continuing basis. Monitoring of the control device operating
parameters can be used to determine if the emission limit is being met
on a continuous basis. The monitoring of operating parameters
constitutes enhanced monitoring, as discussed in section VI.F of this
notice.
The EPA considered two monitoring options: (1) the use of CEMS to
measure HAP's and (2) continuous monitoring of control device operating
parameter. Continuous emission monitoring systems are not currently
available for all of the organic HAP's found in miscellaneous process
vent streams. Thus, direct monitoring of HAP emission reduction or
concentration is not possible for every stream. Furthermore, for those
HAP's where CEMS are available, the costs of installing, calibrating,
operating, and maintaining CEMS and flow monitors at both the inlets
and outlets of every control device (which would be needed to determine
percent reduction) would be much higher than the costs of parameter
monitoring. The use of CEM's would, therefore, increase the cost
impacts of the rule.
It is proposed that the continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters be used to determine whether continuous compliance
is achieved. The proposed standard lists the parameters that can be
monitored for the common types of combustion devices: thermal
incinerators, catalytic incinerators, boilers and process heaters, and
flares. These parameters were selected because they are good indicators
of combustion device performance, and instruments are available at a
reasonable cost to monitor these parameters continuously. The proposed
rule also allows the owner or operator to request to monitor parameters
not listed in the proposed standard on a site-specific basis.
The proposed standard would require the owner or operator to
establish site-specific parameter ranges through the Notification of
Compliance Status report or the operating permit submitted to comply
with Title V of the Act. Site-specific parameter ranges accommodate
site-specific differences in control design and process vent stream
characteristics. Failure to maintain the established values of the
monitored parameters would be an enforceable violation of the emission
limits of the standard.
The proposed petroleum refineries NESHAP does not require
monitoring boilers or process heaters with a heat capacity of 44 MW
(150 million Btu/hr) or greater, or boilers or process heaters with a
heat capacity less than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) that introduce the
process vent stream as a primary fuel or mix it with the primary fuel
and introduce it through the same burner. These devices operate at
temperatures and residence times that the EPA has concluded will ensure
compliance with the emission limits (at least 98 percent reduction of
total HAP). Therefore, if the vent stream is routed to the devices as
described above and enters at the specified locations, continuous
compliance is demonstrated.
C. Selection of Storage Vessel Provisions
1. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
This section summarizes the MACT floors for new and existing
sources as they relate to storage vessels, regulatory alternatives more
stringent than the floors, and the rationale for the selected
alternatives for storage vessels.
a. Existing sources. Based on information on storage vessel control
levels and vessel capacities and vapor pressures submitted to the EPA
by petroleum refineries, the MACT floor level of control was determined
to be: storage vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 177
m3 storing liquids with true vapor pressures greater than or equal
to 8.3 kPa must control to the level of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb with
the exception of fitting requirements for floating roof vessels. This
represents the average level of storage vessel control achieved at the
best-performing 12 percent of sources. The control applicability
criterion of 177 m3 (1,115 barrels or 47,000 gallons) was selected
because the best-performing sources do not control storage vessels with
capacities below this size. The vapor pressure of 8.3 kPa (1.2 psia)
was determined by screening the data set for controlled tanks (tanks
that met subpart Kb seal requirements) at increasing vapor pressures
until the cumulative number of tanks identified as controlled equalled
12 percent of the entire data set. The average vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquids in these controlled tanks was 8.3 kPa.
The EPA also considered two alternative levels of emission
limitation. Each required control to subpart Kb levels including
controlled fittings for floating roof vessels and were for control of
vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 151 m3 (950
barrels or 40,000 gallons). However, each of the alternatives had a
different true vapor pressure applicability criterion. The first
alternative required that vessels storing liquids with a true vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 5.2 kilopascals (0.75 psia) be
controlled. This alternative was analyzed because it also corresponds
to one of the applicability tiers of subpart Kb of 40 CFR part 60. The
second alternative was for controls being required for vessels storing
liquids with a true vapor pressure greater than or equal to 0.014
kilopascals (0.002 psia). This alternative was chosen in order to
assess the impact of control of vessels storing low vapor pressure
liquids such as diesel/distillate, jet kerosene/kerosene, heavy gas
oil, residual fuel oil, and asphalt. Table 3 presents the emission
reductions and cost for the MACT floor level of control and the two
options above the floor.
The EPA is co-proposing the floor level of control, and option 1,
for storage tanks in order to promote comment on both options. The
floor requires that petroleum liquids with true vapor pressures of 8.3
kPa (1.2 psia) or higher be placed in floating roof storage tanks
equipped with seals that comply with the NSPS for volatile organic
liquids (subpart Kb of 40 CFR part 60). The floor control will reduce
the current HAP emissions from storage tanks by 14 percent. This
relatively small emission reduction is due to the fact that most
volatile petroleum liquids are stored in floating roof tanks to reduce
product losses or to comply with VOC control requirements in ozone
nonattainment areas. The emission reductions associated with upgrading
the seals on such tanks to comply with subpart Kb requirements are, in
many cases, modest.
Controlling both the fittings and the seals to subpart Kb
requirements was evaluated as option 1. The EPA seeks comment on
whether the floor level or control or option 1 should be selected. In
particular, the EPA requests comment on whether or not the incremental
cost effectiveness of option 1--$4,400 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced--should be viewed as making that option unachievable
considering cost. The EPA also requests comment on whether option 1
should be selected because of a combination of factors. Specifically,
option 1 achieves a greater degree of pollution prevention because even
less product is lost due to evaporation. In addition, the vapor
pressure and storage tank size applicability levels for option 1
correspond to the HON's applicability levels for large storage tanks.
Also, since HAP emissions represent roughly 10 percent of VOC
emissions, additional cost-effective VOC reductions would result from
option 1. Finally, option 1 would provide a 20 percent reduction,
rather than a 14 percent reduction, in emissions of the types of HAP
emitted from petroleum refinery storage tanks.
No nonair quality health impacts, energy, or other environmental
impacts were expected from any of the alternatives. Thus, these
considerations did not affect the choice of the proposed rule. The
controls required by the proposed requirements are not expected to
create any secondary emissions of carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides.
b. New sources. The MACT floor for new sources is control of
vessels equal to or greater than 151 m3 (950 barrels or 40,000
gallons) with vapor pressures equal to or greater than 3.4 kPa (0.5
psia), and vessels with capacities equal to or greater than 76 m3
(475 barrels or 20,000 gallons) storing liquids with vapor pressures
equal to or greater than 77 kPa (11.1 psia). Such vessels would be
required to meet requirements essentially equivalent to 40 CFR part 60
subpart Kb (i.e., use of floating roofs with proper seals and
controlled fittings, or a closed vent system with a 95 percent
efficient control device). The applicability criteria are based on the
most stringent regulations that apply to petroleum refinery storage
vessels including Rule 463 of California's South Coast Air Quality
Management District and the storage vessel NSPS (subpart Kb).
The MACT floor and an option more stringent than the floor
requiring control of storage vessels with vapor pressures above 0.014
kPa (0.002 psia) (which is the same as option 3 for existing sources)
was also considered. The proposed level of control for new sources is
the MACT floor. Vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 151 m3
(950 barrels or 40,000 gallons) storing liquids with true vapor
pressures greater than or equal to 3.4 kPa (0.5 psia), and vessels with
capacities greater than or equal to 76 m\3\ (475 barrels or 20,000
gallons) storing liquids with vapor pressures equal to or greater than
77 kPa (11.1 psia) would be required to comply with the subpart Kb
(including the controlled fitting requirements). The option more
stringent than the floor was not selected because it would result in
high costs relative to HAP emission reduction.
2. Selection of Format
The storage vessel provisions in the HON rule are very similar to
the requirements of subpart Kb. The HON storage provisions are clearer
and give more details in explaining the controlled fitting requirements
than subpart Kb. The HON provisions have an allowance for existing
source owners and operators to wait for the next scheduled maintenance
for the upgrading of certain seals and installation of fittings on
vessels already equipped with floating roofs; this provision is not in
subpart Kb because it applies only to new storage vessels. In addition,
the HON storage vessel provisions clarify the provisions that apply
when an EFR is converted to an IFR as a means of compliance. Because of
all these reasons, the EPA elected to refer directly to the
requirements in the HON. The format of the HON includes equipment and
work practice standards; if control devices are used, there is an
emission standard (percent reduction) format. For storage vessels at
existing sources the HON storage vessel provisions are referred to
without the controlled fitting requirements. For storage vessels at new
sources all of the requirements in the HON storage vessel provisions
are referred to.
The proposed regulation differs from the HON in that storage
vessels that contain petroleum liquids with true vapor pressures of 5.0
psia or greater are required to comply with the proposed rule within 3
years. That is, refiners are not permitted to wait until the next
scheduled maintenance to install the emission controls if such
maintenance is beyond the compliance date. Calculations indicate that
when the true vapor pressure of the material in the tanks exceeds 5.0
psia, the emission reductions that result from installing controls
within 3 years more than offset the HAP emissions created from cleaning
and degassing the storage vessels. The EPA requests comment on this
conclusion with supporting data and calculations.
3. Selection of Compliance Determination Provisions
The proposed compliance determination provisions for storage
vessels include inspections of floating roofs and design evaluations
and monitoring of closed vent systems and control devices. The use of
monitoring and inspections to determine continuous compliance
constitute enhanced monitoring.
For storage vessels controlled with floating roofs, it is not
feasible to capture and continuously monitor emissions. Therefore,
periodic inspection of roof seals for IFR's and EFR's and seal gap
measurements for EFR's are used to determine compliance with the
storage vessel equipment and work practice standards. If defects are
found during inspections they must be repaired within specified times.
There are provisions for requests for extensions and delay of repair of
certain conditions are met. These inspection and repair provisions are
similar to the HON, and the proposed rule cross-references the HON
where appropriate. Failure to perform inspections or to complete
repairs as specified constitutes an enforceable violation of the
standards.
For storage vessels controlled by closed vent systems and control
devices, the EPA considered the use of CEMS to measure HAP's and
control device operating parameter monitoring. Continuous emissions
monitoring was determined to be infeasible for the same reasons
described in the miscellaneous process vents section. Furthermore,
emissions from storage vessels have low flow rates and also have highly
variable flows and concentrations with the majority of emissions
occurring during filling. These characteristics would complicate
emission monitoring. Control device operating parameter monitoring is
proposed as a means of determining continuous compliance with the
percent reduction specified for control devices. The petroleum
refineries rule, which cross-references the HON, provides for sources
to establish site-specific control device operating parameters and
ranges appropriate to their storage vessel control system.
D. Selection of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Operation
Provisions
1. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
This section summarizes the determination of the MACT floors for
new and existing sources as they apply to wastewater, regulatory
alternatives more stringent than the floors, and the rationale for the
selected alternative for wastewater.
The alternative selected for proposal is the floor level of control
(compliance with BWON). The BWON controls 75 percent of the benzene in
refinery wastewater nationwide and 76 percent of the volatile organic
HAP in refinery wastewater. (For more information, refer to the
memorandum in the docket entitled ``The Effectiveness of the Benzene
Waste Operations NESHAP for Controlling Volatile HAP Loading in
Petroleum Refinery Wastewater''). The EPA believes that benzene is an
effective surrogate for indicating the presence of all HAP compounds in
petroleum refinery wastewater because data show that the majority of
the total HAP compound loading in wastewater consists of compounds that
are very similar to benzene in terms of both chemical structure and
volatility (from the water phase to the air phase). Volatile HAP
compounds are present in a fairly constant ratio to benzene
(approximately four-to-one on a mass basis) except in two
circumstances, product blending and MEK dewaxing units. Because of the
different nature of these processes, different ratios would be
expected. In both of these process units HAP's are added. In the case
of MEK dewaxing units the benzene concentration is relatively low, less
than 1 ppmw on average; however, the baseline volatile HAP emissions
from MEK dewaxing units are also relatively low, less than 1 percent of
the HAP baseline emissions. For product blending, the benzene
concentration is relatively high, greater than 10 ppmw on average;
therefore, even though the HAP-to-benzene ratio is not the same as with
other process units, wastewater streams from product blending process
units have a sufficient benzene concentration that control would be
required at applicable facilities. Thus, the EPA maintains that benzene
is a good surrogate for all HAP compounds. The EPA requests comment on
this position and any supporting data.
Because the proposed standard for wastewater requires compliance
with the existing BWON, no additional emission reduction, cost, energy,
or other environmental or health impacts are associated with the
proposed standard.
a. Wastewater: Existing sources. The best performing wastewater
control systems are those that are in place to comply with the BWON.
These systems control not only benzene, but are also expected to
control the other organic HAP's in petroleum refinery wastewater. The
BWON applies to wastewater streams that contain 10 ppmw benzene or
greater, have a flow of 0.02 l/min or greater, and are located at
facilities with a TAB loading of at least 10 Mg/yr in waste and
wastewater. Based on data provided to the EPA through the BWON 90-day
reports, the EPA determined that the BWON was applicable to 43 percent
of the refineries. No refineries are known to have more stringent
controls than the BWON. Therefore, the MACT floor, or the average of
the top performing 12 percent of sources, is control to the BWON level
of control.
The EPA considered an alternative level of emission reduction more
stringent than the MACT floor that would be achieved by controlling all
wastewater streams with at least 10 ppmw benzene at any refinery
regardless of the size of its annual benzene loading. Table 3 presents
the cost and emission reductions for the MACT floor and the alternative
more stringent than the floor.
Alternative control option 1 was not selected because the
additional emission reduction achieved through further control was not
significant, given the associated costs (see table 3). Also, this
option would primarily affect small refineries and it is expected that
it could have significant impact on small businesses. There may be some
additional nonair quality benefits, such as reduced generation of
hazardous waste and reduced water contamination, and air quality
benefits from reduction of non-HAP VOC; however, these benefits could
not be quantified.
b. Wastewater: New sources. The analysis of the data base also
showed that the maximum emission reduction being achieved at any source
is determined by the control requirements for the BWON. Thus, the floor
for new sources is control to the BWON level of control. The floor
alternative was selected as the proposed level of control for new
sources. As with existing sources, the option more stringent than the
floor was considered, and the impacts are shown in table 3. Option 1
was rejected for new sources for the same reasons described above for
existing sources.
2. Selection of Format
Because the BWON is the basis of the selected level of control for
both new and existing sources, the EPA elected to refer directly to
those requirements. The provisions for controlling air emissions from
wastewater streams are a combination of equipment, operational, work
practice, and emission standards. The reasons for selection of these
formats are described in the preamble to the proposed BWON standards
(54 FR 38083, September 14, 1989).
3. Selection of Testing and Monitoring Provisions
Because the proposed refineries NESHAP refers directly to the BWON
equipment, operational, work practice, and emission standards, it is
also appropriate to refer to the testing and monitoring requirements of
BWON for compliance determination. The monitoring procedures required
by the BWON would be used to determine compliance with the standard.
Failure to maintain the established values of monitored parameters, or
failure to conduct the required measurements and inspections would be
an enforceable violation of the standards.
E. Selection of Equipment Leak Provisions
1. Selection of Emission Control Requirements
This section of the preamble summarizes the MACT floors as they
relate to equipment leaks within new and existing sources, regulatory
alternatives more stringent than the floors, and the rationale for the
selected alternative for equipment leaks. As mentioned in section
VI.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA requests comment on consideration of
pollution prevention, environmental equity, affordability, and
technology innovation as additional criteria in the selection of MACT.
a. Equipment leaks: Existing sources. The EPA's analysis indicated
that the average control level of the best-controlled 12 percent of
sources, the MACT floor level of control, is between the level of
control required by the petroleum refinery CTG and the petroleum
refinery NSPS. For costing purposes, the petroleum refinery NSPS level
of control was used for the MACT floor option. This was done because it
would have been difficult to determine the requirements for an option
in between the two levels of control. Also by using the NSPS the
results were a conservative estimate of the cost of the MACT floor; and
the option was not less stringent than the floor.
Two options above the floor were also considered based on the
negotiated rule for equipment leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H). As
discussed in the preamble presenting the rationale for the negotiated
rule (57 FR 62659 and 57 FR 62660), the framework developed in the
regulatory negotiation was the presumptive basis for the refinery
standard. The EPA also agreed in the negotiation to consider whether
the numerical standards and leak definitions established for SOCMI
sources were achievable by refineries. While both options 1 and 2 are
based on the negotiated rule, option 1 does not include the connector
provisions. Table 3 presents the estimated cost and emission reduction
for the floor and the two additional options.
The proposed standard is the negotiated rule without the connector
provisions and with a few exceptions. (The exceptions to the negotiated
rule are discussed in the remainder of this subsection.) This option,
which is similar to option 1, was selected because it is consistent
with the negotiated rule, and it achieves significant emission
reduction at a reasonable cost relative to the MACT floor. As discussed
later in this section, more frequent valve monitoring is allowed in
place of connector monitoring because, as shown in the table for option
2, the cost of connector monitoring is high relative to the emission
reduction achieved, and additional valve control is a more cost
effective way to reduce emissions.
No nonair quality health impacts, energy, or other environmental
impacts were expected from any of the alternatives. Thus, these
considerations did not affect the choice of the proposed requirements.
In light of the agreements made during the negotiation, the EPA
considered whether leaks should be defined differently in the proposed
refinery standard than in subpart H, what performance level should be
established in phase III of the pump and valve standards, and which
provisions in the negotiated rule were relevant and applicable to
refinery operations. Available monitoring data from a few refineries
and differences between typical refinery operations and SOCMI
operations (e.g., turnaround schedules, line sizes, percent HAP in
process fluids, line pressures) were considered. The differences were
found to affect the availability of some low emission technologies and
the achievable performance levels. The EPA concluded that a few changes
to the provisions of the negotiated rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart H)
were necessary to ensure that the proposed standard for refineries is
achievable. The changes to the provisions and the reasons for the
changes are discussed below.
One change that was considered was a change to the definition of
``in organic hazardous air pollutant service.'' Using the definition
from the negotiated rule, equipment that contains or comes in contact
with fluid that is less than 5 percent by weight total organic HAP's
would not be subject to the equipment leak provisions.
Pump standard. The negotiated rule for equipment leaks implements
the leak detection and repair program for pumps in three phases, with
lower leak definitions in the later phases. The EPA considered the
available information on emission performance of mechanical seals and
concluded that the negotiated standard for pumps was achievable. The
proposed standard for refineries, however, has been simplified to
specify only one leak definition in phase III. The negotiated
provisions for pumps in polymerizing monomer service and food/medical
service are not relevant to this category, and therefore have not been
included in the refinery standard. In addition, to simplify the rule, a
leak has been defined as a concentration of 2,000 ppm or greater. This
change makes the level at which repair is required the same as the leak
definition. Additionally, low emission single seal technology has
progressed to the point where these seals can achieve a 2,000 ppm leak
definition for certain process services. It is expected that this will
result in lower costs to comply than if dual seals were necessary.
Additionally, in examining the appropriateness of the pump standard
to refinery operations, the EPA considered whether to extend some of
the concepts of the negotiated valve standard to the pump standard for
refineries. Specifically, the EPA considered whether to allow reduced
monitoring frequency for better performance and to allow increased
monitoring frequency as an alternative to the QIP for poor performance.
The negotiated valve standard included incentive provisions to
encourage better performance and two forms of penalty options to
consider differences among facilities' ability to undertake a QIP.
After considering the predicted differences in effectiveness of
different monitoring intervals for pumps, the EPA concluded that an
incentive for better performance could be included in the pump standard
and still assure better emission performance. The pump standard for
refineries thus would allow facilities that achieve less than 3 percent
of pumps leaking, or one pump leaking, to monitor pumps quarterly; and
facilities that have greater than 3 percent (or 1 pump) but fewer than
10 percent, or 3 pumps, leaking would be required to conduct monthly
monitoring of pumps. The EPA considered whether an alternative to the
QIP could be provided for those facilities that have greater than 10
percent, or 3 pumps, leaking. It was determined that in such
situations, the only alternative is an engineering analysis to
determine the cause of the high leak frequency. Therefore, facilities
with 10 percent, or 3 pumps, leaking or greater will still be required
to implement a QIP for pumps.
The EPA also considered whether LDAR should be required for
reciprocating pumps in heavy liquid service. In most cases when drips
are observed, monitored concentration is below the leak definition, and
elimination of such drips would be infeasible due to spare or design
limitations. The replacement of such pumps would be very expensive, and
would result in little emission reduction. Therefore, the EPA concluded
that requirements to monitor and repair such pumps would be
unproductive.
The proposed rule would require monitoring and repair for
reciprocating pumps in light liquid service. The EPA requests comment
on the feasibility and cost of controlling leaks from reciprocating
pumps in light liquid service. Commenters are requested to include
technical information to support their comments.
Similarly, comment is requested on the feasibility and cost of
control measures for reciprocating compressors. As with pumps, there
may be space and design constraints that may preclude adding seals and
repair or replacement could be costly.
Valve standard. The EPA considered whether the negotiated standard
was appropriate for values, and proposes to adjust the leak definition
for phases II and III. The proposed leak definition of 1,000 ppm for
phases II and III was selected based on consideration of monitoring
data from a few facilities, existing state programs, and the expected
emission reduction and cost associated with different leak definitions.
The EPA considered but rejected using 10,000 ppm as the concentration
that defines a leak because several state programs recently established
leak definitions of 500 to 1,000 ppm. However, there is only one State
program that has a leak definition/performance standard framework
consistent with subpart H and leak definition lower than 10,000 ppm.
This program has been in effect for a number of years and controls
refineries with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm. This program has shown
that a valve performance standard for refineries can be reliably
implemented and is achievable with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm. This
program and the fact that significant additional emission reduction can
be achieved cost-effectively, led the EPA to conclude that a 1,000 ppm
leak definition was practical and achievable. A leak definition lower
than 1,000 ppm was not selected because the additional emission
reduction achievable was small (<1 percent) and the lack of data from
refineries with performance standards utilizing a leak definition of
less than 1,000 ppm.
Owing to the limited data available in this rulemaking, the EPA
selected the performance levels considering the differences in total
HAP content of process fluids in SOCMI processes and refinery processes
and the performance levels selected in the equipment leak negotiation.
It was determined that with an equipment leak definition of 1,000 ppm,
a performance standard based on 5 percent allowable leaking valves for
petroleum refineries is equivalent to the subpart H performance
standard for the SOCMI. This determination was based on the calculation
procedures in ``Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates,'' (EPA-
453/R-93-026) and average HAP/VOC ratios for process fluids.
The EPA also evaluated what monitoring frequencies should be
established for given performance levels (i.e., percent leaking
valves). Using the average HAP to VOC ratio estimated for HON, the EPA
concluded that equivalent performance requirements would be established
if the refinery standard required quarterly monitoring for facilities
achieving less than 5 percent leaking valves. Similarly, semiannual
monitoring would be allowed for facilities achieving less than 4
percent leaking valves; and annual monitoring for facilities achieving
less than 3 percent leaking valves.
In addition to the basic valve program described above, EPA
developed an optional, more stringent performance standard, that can be
used by facility owners or operators electing not to implement a
connector program. EPA has concluded a connector LDAR program is a
costlier way to achieve emission reductions, as compared with a more
stringent valve standard. The EPA, thus concluded that a more cost
effective approach would be to allow facilities the option to elect
lower performance levels for valves in lieu of implementing a connector
LDAR program.
Based on the Protocol document, an equivalent emissions reduction
can be achieved by a one percent differential of the allowable leakers
at the 1,000 ppm leak definition. Therefore, a facility electing not to
implement the connectors LDAR program can elect to comply with a valve
performance standard of 4 percent leaking valves with quarterly LDAR, 3
percent leaking valves with semi-annual LDAR and 2 percent leaking
valves with annual LDAR program.
The nonrepairable valve allowance was also adjusted to consider
differences between refinery operations and SOCMI operations. The
proposed standard would allow exclusion of 1 percent per year up to a
maximum of 3 percent of the valves in HAP service from the calculation
of percent leaking valves. The nonrepairables provision is structured
in this manner to take into consideration the typically longer
turnaround schedules in refineries than in SOCMI process units, while
recognizing that some refinery units may operate on shorter schedules.
Connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service. The EPA
considered whether application of the negotiated standard for
connectors to refinery operators was appropriate. In this evaluation,
the EPA considered differences between designs, capacities, and
operations of refinery and SOCMI units and how these might alter the
cost of a LDAR program for connectors. Because the existing connector
emission factor predicts very low emission rates from connectors, it
appears that a connector LDAR program is relatively costly to achieve
additional emission reductions. Table 3 provides a comparison of the
costs and emission reductions for control alternatives that include and
control alternatives that exclude the negotiated rule's connector
standard. The EPA, thus, concluded that a more cost effective approach
would be to allow sources the option to elect less frequent monitoring
for valves if a connector LDAR program is implemented.
The proposed equipment leak provisions give three options for a
connector LDAR program which, if any of these are implemented, would
allow for less frequent monitoring of valves. The three options are:
(1) A random 200 connector survey; (2) a connector inspection program,
and (3) the negotiated rule's connector program. In the random 200
connector survey, the monitoring frequency depends on the percent
leaking connectors identified in 200 randomly chosen connectors. At
higher leak frequencies, the owner or operator has to survey connectors
more frequently and repair any leaking connectors detected. In the
connector inspection program, all connectors of 2 in. or greater
nominal diameter in gas/vapor service are to be monitored using Method
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and all connectors of 2 in. or
greater nominal diameter in light liquid service are to be inspected
for indications of liquids dripping. This alternative was developed
because the majority of connectors in refinery process units that will
be subject to the equipment leak provisions of the standard are in
light liquid service and a visual inspection program should be less
costly to implement than Method 21 monitoring of these connectors. The
monitoring frequency of this program also varies with the percentage of
leaking connectors. The negotiated rule's program is included as a
third option, because some refinery units may be required under their
state program to implement these provisions.
A nonrepairable connector allowance is included because increased
monitoring frequency, if triggered by nonrepairable components, would
be of little benefit. The proposed alternative standard for connectors
allows for excluding 1 percent of the connectors per year up to a
maximum of 3 percent of the connectors from the calculation of the
percentage of leaking connectors. The nonrepairable allowance was
selected considering the need to provide an incentive to limit the
number of nonrepairable connectors while also trying to avoid
imposition of unproductive costs.
b. Equipment leaks: New sources. The floor for new sources is
between the NSPS and the rule proposed for existing sources. Available
data shows that many refineries are complying with the NSPS and several
are also complying with State rules that have lower leak definitions
(i.e., 1,000 ppm for values). The EPA therefore did not consider the
NSPS as an option for new sources because it would be below the floor.
For costing purposes, the same requirements as option 1 for existing
sources were considered the floor for new sources. The EPA considered
option 2 for existing sources as another option for new sources (option
1 for new sources). (See table 3 and the text in section VI.E.1.a of
this preamble.) The proposed standard for new sources, which is similar
to the option costed as the new source floor, is the negotiated rule
(40 CFR part 63 subpart H) without the connector provisions and with a
few other differences. This is the same as the standard proposed for
existing sources. This option was selected because it is at least as
stringent as the floor and achieves significant emission reduction at a
more reasonable cost than option 1 for new sources. No nonair quality
health impacts, energy, or other environmental impacts were expected
from either of the alternatives, so these considerations did not affect
the choice of the proposed requirements. The rationale for not
requiring connector LDAR and the rationale for the differences between
the proposed rule and subpart H are discussed in section VI.E.1.a.
One difference between the proposed rule for new and existing
sources is that pumps and valves at new sources must be in compliance
with phase II at start-up, rather than phase I. This is consistent with
the negotiated rule. It is reasonable to expect new sources to be
designed to achieve the phase II level of control because they do not
experience retrofit constraints that affect existing sources.
c. Equipment leaks: Small refineries. The EPA is considering
whether it is appropriate to establish a different standard for small
refineries. As proposed, the equipment leaks provisions would be the
same for small and large refineries, except that all equipment at small
refineries would be allowed 18 months to begin compliance (instead of
requiring one-third of the equipment to comply in 6 months, one-third
in 12 months, and the remainder in 18 months). Compliance in 6 or 12
months could be infeasible for many small refineries. Many are located
in attainment areas and have never been required to implement LDAR
programs and their owners or operators do not have expertise in setting
up and operating such programs. It will require more time for these
refineries to develop and implement LDAR programs and the associated
recordkeeping and reporting systems.
The EPA is also considering a less stringent standard and a longer
compliance time for small refineries. In particular, small refinery
existing sources could be required to comply with the provisions of the
equipment leaks NSPS 40 CFR part 60 subpart GGG instead of the proposed
option. As discussed in section VI.E.1.a, the MACT floor for equipment
leaks at existing sources is between the CTG and the NSPS, so the NSPS
is at least as stringent as the MACT floor. The NSPS has a leak
detection level of 10,000 ppm and does not have the phased-in lower
leak definitions and performance levels or the QIP provisions of the
proposed rule. Thus, the NSPS would be simpler and less costly for
small refiners to implement. There is also concern that because of
start-up costs for the LDAR program and the relationship of costs to
refinery complexity, the cost per Mg of emission reduction for options
above the floor could be somewhat higher for small refiners. The EPA
solicits comments on whether the standard for small refineries should
be based on the NSPS instead of the negotiated rule. In particular,
documentation of the control level of small refineries, and the costs
of complying with the NSPS versus the proposed rule would be helpful.
Commenters should provide the technical bases for their cost estimates
and other comments.
The EPA is also considering allowing small refineries 3 years to
achieve compliance with the NSPS level of control. As previously
stated, small refineries may need additional time to design and
implement LDAR programs. Section 112 of the Act allows the EPA to
establish compliance times up to a maximum of 3 years for existing
sources. New sources would be required to comply upon start-up or
promulgation of the rule, whichever is later, as required by the Act.
The EPA requests comments and supporting rationale on what compliance
times are reasonable for small refineries.
2. Selection of Format
Because it is not practical to measure emissions from equipment
leaks, an equipment and work practice format was chosen for the
standards. Format selection is discussed in the preamble to the
proposed HON (57 FR 62608). Because the HON negotiated rule for
equipment leaks is the basis of the standard chosen to regulate
petroleum refinery equipment leaks for both new and existing sources,
the EPA elected to refer directly to the requirements in the negotiated
rule. The differences for pumps, valves, and connectors are specified
in the proposed subpart CC.
3. Selection of Monitoring and Compliance
Determination Provisions. Because the equipment leak provisions of
the proposed rule are work practice and equipment standards,
monitoring, repairing leaks, and maintaining the required records
constitutes compliance with the rule. The HON equipment leak provisions
are appropriate to determine continuous compliance with the petroleum
refinery equipment leak standards. In summary, these provisions require
periodic monitoring with a portable hydrocarbon detector to determine
if equipment is leaking. If leaks are detected, repair is required
within specified time periods. There are provisions for delay of repair
in certain circumstances. Failure to perform the required monitoring or
to repair leaking equipment within the specified time period or
document a delay of repair would constitute an enforceable violation of
the standards.
F. Use of Continuous Monitoring to Determine Compliance
The EPA has considered how sources subject to this NESHAP should
demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards. The EPA has
concluded that where CEMS were not feasible operating parameter
monitoring can be used for this purpose. As explained under
miscellaneous process vents in section VI.B of this notice, use of CEMS
is not feasible for measuring emissions from petroleum refineries;
however, continuous operating parameter monitoring is required for some
emission points. An excursion of a parameter outside the established
range would constitute a violation of the emission standards. Owners or
operators are required to establish site-specific ranges for operating
parameters based on performance test data and/or other information.
This allows owners or operators to demonstrate the parameter ranges
that correspond to meeting the emission limits for their particular
emission points and control devices. If a parameter is outside the
range it would be considered a violation of the emission limits unless
the excursion is caused by a start-up, shut-down, or malfunction that
meets the criteria for a malfunction specified in the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A).
A daily averaging period for monitored parameters was selected for
determining whether an excursion has occurred. This averaging period
allows for short-term (e.g., 15-minute or hourly) parameter
fluctuations that are expected and unavoidable for the types of control
devices required, and gives the owner or operator a reasonable period
of time to take action if there is a problem. If a shorter averaging
period (for example 3 hours) were selected, sources would be likely to
have multiple excursions caused by the same operational problem because
it would not be possible to correct problems in one 3-hour reporting
period.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed approach for determination
of compliance based on continuous parameter monitoring, and on possible
alternative approaches.
As explained in section VI.B, (Miscellaneous Process Vents section)
not all vents are required to use continuous monitors. Most
miscellaneous process vents would probably be ducted to the refinery
fuel gas system for combustion in boilers, and such vents would not be
regulated under the proposed rule and would not be required to perform
any monitoring.
For some emission points, such as storage vessels equipped with
floating roofs and equipment leaks, continuous monitoring is not
feasible. In such cases, failure to comply with the required inspection
and repair procedures would constitute a violation of the equipment and
work practice standards.
G. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Provisions
The proposed rule would require sources to submit up to four types
of reports: Initial Notification, Notification of Compliance Status,
Periodic Reports, and Other reports. The purpose and contents of each
of these reports are described in this section. The wording of the
proposed rule requires all draft reports to be submitted to the
``Administrator''. The term Administrator means either the
Administrator of the EPA, an EPA regional office, a State agency, or
other authority that has been delegated the authority to implement this
rule. In most cases, reports will be sent to State agencies. Addresses
are provided in the General Provisions (subpart A) of 40 CFR part 63.
Records of reported information and other information necessary to
document compliance with the regulation are generally required to be
kept for 5 years. A few records pertaining to equipment design would be
kept for the life of the equipment.
1. Initial Notification
The proposed rule would require owners or operators who are subject
to subpart CC to submit an Initial Notification. This report
establishes early communication between the source and the regulatory
agency, allowing both to plan for regulatory compliance. If the
information contained in the Initial Notification has already been
submitted to the operating permit authority, no Initial Notification is
required for this rule. For existing sources, the Initial Notification
is due 120 days after the date of promulgation. For new sources, the
Initial Notification is due as soon as practicable before construction
or reconstruction is planned to commence but it need not be sooner than
90 days after promulgation of subpart CC.
The Initial Notification must include a list of the petroleum
refining processes at the source that are subject to subpart CC, and
which provisions may apply (e.g., the provisions for miscellaneous
process vents, storage vessels, or equipment leaks). A detailed
identification of emission points is not required, because these data
would be included in the operating permit application.
2. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status would be submitted 150 days
after the source's compliance date. For new sources, the compliance
date is at start-up or the promulgation date of subpart CC, whichever
is later. For existing sources, the proposed compliance date is 3 years
after promulgation, except that equipment leaks compliance would be
staggered, with one-third of the equipment complying 6 months after
promulgation, another third in 12 months, and the remainder in 18
months. The timing of compliance-related reporting for equipment leaks
is specified in 40 CFR part 63 subpart H, which was referenced by
subpart CC. The Notification of Compliance Status contains the
information necessary to demonstrate that compliance has been achieved,
such as the results of performance tests and design analyses. If this
information has already been submitted as part of a Title V operating
permit program it does not have to be repeated in a Notification of
Compliance Status. If it is not already submitted, however, it must be
submitted as specified in this rule.
Sources with a large number of emission points are likely to submit
results of multiple performance tests for each kind of emission point.
For each test method used for a particular kind of emission point
(e.g., a process vent), one complete test report would be submitted.
For additional tests performed for the same kind of emission point
using the same method, the results would be submitted, but a complete
test report is not required. Results would include values needed to
determine compliance (e.g., inlet and outlet concentrations, flow
rates, and percent emission reduction) as well as the values of
monitored parameters averaged over the period of the test. Submitting
one test report will allow the regulatory authority to verify that the
source has followed the correct sampling and analytical procedures and
has done calculations correctly. Complete test reports for other
emission points may be kept at the plant rather than submitted. This
reporting system was established to ensure that reviewing authorities
have sufficient information to evaluate the monitoring and testing used
to demonstrate compliance with the petroleum refineries NESHAP, while
minimizing the reporting burden.
Another type of information to be included in the Notification of
Compliance Status is the specific range for each monitored parameter
for each emission point, and the rationale for why this range indicates
compliance with the emission standards. (If this range has already been
established in the operating permit, it does not need to be repeated in
the Notification of Compliance Status.)
Although in some previous NSPS and NESHAP, the EPA has specified a
pre-determined range of operating parameter values, such values could
be considered inadequate given the increased importance of parameter
monitoring in determining and certifying compliance due to the new
requirements in section 114 of the Act. For the proposed petroleum
refinery NESHAP, the EPA is requiring sources to establish site-
specific ranges. Allowing site-specific ranges for monitored parameters
accommodates site-specific variation in emission point characteristics
and control device designs. Based on the information available at
proposal, it appeared to be difficult to establish ranges or minimum or
maximum values that would be applicable in all cases.
The proposed system for establishing operating parameter ranges
attempts to balance the need for technical certainty and operational
feasibility. The ranges may be established by performance testing
supplemented by engineering assessments and manufacturer's
recommendations. However, the performance test is not required to be
conducted over the entire range of permitted parameter values because
such a requirement could impose significant technical difficulties and
costs on the source. The EPA believes that a performance test conducted
for a smaller, yet representative, range of operating conditions can
still provide a range for the operating parameters that ensures
compliance with the emission limit. For emission points and control
devices where a performance test is not required (for example, a closed
vent system and control device on a storage vessel), the range may be
established by engineering assessment.
As an example, for a miscellaneous process vent controlled by an
incinerator, the notification of compliance status would include the
site-specific minimum firebox temperature that will ensure that the
emission limit is met and the data and rationale to support this
minimum temperature.
3. Periodic Reports and Records of Monitoring Data
Periodic Reports are required to ensure that the standards continue
to be met and that control devices are operated and maintained
properly. Generally, Periodic Reports would be submitted semiannually.
If monitoring results show that the parameter values for a particular
emission point are outside the established range for more than 1
percent of the operating time in a reporting period, or the monitor is
out of service for more than 5 percent of the time, the implementing
agency may request that the owner or operator submit quarterly reports
for that emission point. After 1 year, the source can return to
semiannual reporting, unless the regulatory authority requests
continuation of quarterly reports.
The EPA has established this reporting system in order to provide
an incentive (less frequent reporting) for good performance. Because of
uncertainty about the periods of time over which sources are likely to
experience excursions outside the parameter ranges or monitoring system
failures, the EPA is seeking comment on the 1 and 5 percent criteria
triggering more frequent reporting. In particular, data are requested
on both the frequency of excursions and monitoring system downtime.
Periodic Reports specify periods when the values of monitored
parameters are outside the ranges established in the Notification of
Compliance Status or operating permit. If the values of the monitored
parameters are within the established range, records are kept, but the
values are not reported. This will reduce the volume of information in
reports and will reduce the reporting burden while still allowing
determination of continuous compliance.
For continuous parameter monitoring, records must be kept of the
parameter recorded once every 15 minutes. If a parameter is monitored
more frequently than once every 15 minutes, 15-minute or more frequent
averages may be recorded instead of the individual values. For days
when the monitored values are not outside their ranges, the owner or
operator may convert the 15-minute values to hourly averages and then
discard the 15-minute values. These provisions ensure that there will
be enough monitoring values recorded and retained to be representative
of the monitoring period, while reducing by a factor of four the burden
that would be associated with digital conversion of data, transferring
data to tape or hard copy, copying, and storing the data if all the 15-
minute values had to be retained.
The proposed rule would allow sources to request approval to use
alternative monitoring and recordkeeping systems. This will reduce the
burden by allowing greater use of existing systems. Alternative
monitoring systems specifically discussed in the rule include
nonautomated systems and data compression systems. These systems will
be allowed on a site-specific basis, dependent upon approval of the
implementing agency. The proposed rule includes specific minimum
requirements for applications to use nonautomated systems. For example,
parameters must be manually read and recorded at least once per hour
and the source must demonstrate that the frequency is sufficient to
represent control device operating conditions. Data compression systems
do not record monitored operating parameter values at a set frequency,
but record all values that meet set criteria for variation from
previously recorded values. The proposed rule would require sources
applying to use such systems to show that they are designed to: Measure
and record at least four representative values per hour, recognize and
alert the operator to unchanging data, and calculate daily averages.
Additional details and rationale for these provisions are contained in
the preamble to the promulgated HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994).
For some types of emission points and controls, periodic (e.g.,
monthly, quarterly, or annual) inspections or measurements are required
instead of continuous monitoring. Records that such inspections or
measurements were done must be kept; but results are included in
Periodic Reports only if a problem is found. This requirement is
designed to minimize the recordkeeping and reporting burden of the
proposed rule.
4. Other Reports
There are a very limited number of other reports. Where possible,
subpart CC is structured to allow information to be reported in the
Periodic Reports. However, in a few cases, it is necessary for the
source to provide information to the regulatory authority shortly
before or after a specific event. For example, for storage vessels,
notification prior to internal tank inspections is required to allow
the regulatory authority to have an observer present. Requests for
approval to monitor control device operating parameters other than
those listed in the rule and requests for approval to use alternatives
to continuous monitoring must be submitted 18 months prior to the
compliance date for existing sources. This will allow the regulatory
authority and the source to reach agreement on monitoring requirements
prior to the compliance date. Certain notifications and reports
required by the part 63 General Provisions must also be submitted.
H. Rationale for Emissions Averaging Provisions
The EPA is proposing that emissions averaging be allowed for
miscellaneous process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater streams
within petroleum refineries. The EPA requests comments on whether
emissions averaging should be included in the final rule, and on
specific features of the proposed emissions averaging provisions.
Commenters should provide the reasons for their recommendations and
supporting information.
The EPA proposed a NESHAP for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and
Unloading Operations in the Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 92 on Friday,
May 13, 1994. Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations is a
source category included on the list of source categories for
regulation under Section 112. The NESHAP addresses HAP from these
operations; loading and unloading operations can occur at refineries as
well as other types of plants.
Today's proposed rule addresses only the 4 emission points in
refinery operations discussed earlier in this notice. Although no
regulatory text is included in today's proposal, the EPA requests
comments on the concept of expanding the petroleum refinery source
category covered by today's rule to include marine vessel loading and
unloading operations subject to the requirements of section 112 that
occur at refineries. The marine vessel requirements proposed for
purposes of compliance with section 183(f), however, would remain
unchanged. If the above change is made to the petroleum refinery source
category, the source category currently listed in accordance with
section 112(c) as Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations
would be split into two parts--those which are collocated at refineries
and those which are not. The ones collocated at refineries would be
combined with and become part of the refinery source category addressed
by today's proposed rule. The source category list would be amended
accordingly. The purpose would be to allow emissions averaging between
the HAP emissions from marine vessel loading and unloading and the HAP
emissions from the refinery emission points identified in today's rule
as suitable for emissions averaging. It appears that in some cases,
there may be opportunities to control some of these emission points
(e.g. storage tanks) more cost-effectively than marine vessel loading
and unloading operations. In other cases, it may be more cost-effective
to control marine vessel operation emissions than the refinery emission
points. Integrating marine loading and unloading operations into the
refinery category and utilizing emissions averaging may provide an
opportunity for more emissions reductions at a lower cost than would
occur if the categories remain separate. In addition, because of the 10
percent discount factor, additional emissions reductions will be
achieved if emissions averaging is used. The EPA requests comments on
whether there would be additional regulatory and enforcement
complexities if this approach were adopted.
If the suggested approach were adopted, the limitations of the
proposed emissions averaging provisions included in today's proposal
would also apply to the loading and unloading operations. With regard
to calculating the emissions for purposes of averaging, the May 13
proposal included procedures for determining HAP emissions from marine
vessel loading operations for purposes of determining applicability of
the rule; the EPA solicited comment on these procedures. These emission
estimating procedures will also be considered for the purpose of
emission averaging. The promulgation date, and thus the compliance
date, for the marine vessel loading and unloading standard is currently
expected to be earlier than the petroleum refinery standard. The EPA
requests comments on whether and how these compliance dates should be
made consistent, and what legal factors should be considered.
The EPA's database which serves as the basis for the May 13
proposed rule for marine vessels does not identify which loading and
unloading operations occur at refineries as opposed to other types of
plants. However, the EPA has no data to indicate that marine vessel
loading operations at refineries are dissimilar to marine vessel
loading operations located at other facilities or that their control
levels differ. Therefore, the EPA anticipates that the floors for
neither the petroleum refinery nor the marine vessel rules would be
affected by redefining the source categories as described. If any data
were received which could lead to changes in the floor calculations,
the public would be given an opportunity to review the data as well as
an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to the floors.
If the EPA expands the refinery source category to include marine
vessel loading and unloading operations, loading operations at
refineries would have an opportunity to average emissions and reduce
costs. In addition, they would be required to achieve additional
emission reductions in accordance with the 10 percent discount
requirement contained in the emissions averaging provisions. Loading
operations that stand alone would not have this same opportunity to
reduce costs. Public comment is solicited on the magnitude of these
impacts and the appropriateness of this distinction.
Some marine terminals handle products with low concentrations of
HAP's but high concentrations of non-HAP VOC. In such circumstances, it
may be cost-effective to forego control of HAP's from marine terminals
by overcontrolling HAP's from another emission point. If, however, the
emission point being controlled does not offset the non-HAP VOC
foregone by not controlling the marine terminals, a net increase in
non-HAP VOC could result. The EPA solicits comments on what
considerations should be given to this type of situation in deciding to
combine marine terminals and refineries for the purpose of emission
averaging.
The EPA requests comment on the extent to which emissions averaging
between marine vessel loading and unloading operations and other
refinery operations could result in exposure spikes. This could occur
if batch emission streams were left uncontrolled in exchange for
control of continuous emission streams, or vice versa.
Several regulatory alternatives were considered for each emission
point covered by today's rule. In some cases, more stringent
alternatives than those selected as the basis of the proposal were
rejected based on cost considerations. If the EPA were to decide to
allow emissions averaging between marine vessel loading and unloading
operations and those emission points allowed to average by today's
proposal, sources would likely have an opportunity to reduce compliance
costs. It is possible that reduction in compliance costs could make
other control options more affordable. Public comment is solicited on
whether the 10 percent discount factor included in the emissions
averaging provisions adequately addresses this issue or how the
potential cost savings resulting from the redefinition of the source
category should be considered when the EPA reevaluates the regulatory
alternatives as part of the final rule.
The EPA also requests that commenters submit data on possible
emission factors and/or alternative emission calculation procedures for
marine vessel operations for consideration in the final rule.
The EPA will consider all comments and data received on this issue
in publishing a final rule. If the EPA decides to promulgate a final
rule allowing emissions averaging between marine vessel loading and
unloading operations and other emission points at refineries, the
Administrator may decide to publish a supplemental proposal or notice
of data availability to provide the public an opportunity to comment,
particularly on the specific averaging provisions of the rule.
1. Reasons for Proposing Averaging for the Four Emission Points
Emissions averaging is proposed as a means of providing sources
flexibility to comply in the least costly manner while still
maintaining a regulation that is workable and enforceable. Recently,
the EPA and Amoco Corporation conducted a joint study of environmental
releases at the Amoco facility in Yorktown, Virginia. A focus of the
study was to identify cost-effective pollution prevention and control
opportunities. Specific emission estimates and control strategies for
the Yorktown facility may not apply to other refineries due to site-
specific differences. However, the study did highlight the importance
of compliance flexibility and the potential of pollution prevention
strategies to achieve cost-effective emission reductions. Emissions
averaging is one way to allow compliance flexibility within the
statutory limitations of section 112 of the Act.
The EPA has included emissions averaging provisions in this rule as
one way of providing operational flexibility, however, implementing
agencies can seek approval of the State rules or authorities which
differ in form from the federal rule developed under section 112 of the
CAA. An implementing agency could submit a formal request under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart E demonstrating that the State rule, among other
criteria, is at least as stringent for each affected source as the
federal rule. Therefore, implementing agencies have the option of
developing their own rule that provides operational flexibility through
the State program approval and delegation process.
For some facilities, including small refineries, use of emissions
averaging could prevent serious economic impacts or potential closures.
For example, economic impacts could be caused by removing fixed roof
storage vessels from service to retrofit controls when the number of
products is increasing due to the upcoming reformulated gasoline rules,
and all the vessels may need to be in service to maintain production
levels. Facilities in Northern climates have a limited season during
which retrofits could be done, which corresponds to the gasoline
production season. Averaging would provide some flexibility to not
retrofit all storage vessels if other emission points could be more
easily over-controlled. Similarly, due to site-specific equipment
configurations and emission characteristics, it may be infeasible to
route a particular miscellaneous process vent to the existing fuel gas
or flare system. Control of such a vent could be costly. Another case
where averaging would be useful is where facilities already control
storage vessels or process vents, but the controls do not fully meet
the specifications of the regulation. It could be costly to retrofit
such emission points, and might only result in a few percent emission
reduction. Emissions averaging might allow facilities to retain the
current control levels for such points and balance this by over-control
of emission points that can be controlled more cost effectively.
The EPA requests comment on the usefulness of emissions averaging
provisions for the petroleum refinery industry.
The EPA is also interested in making sure that any flexibility
provisions be appropriately tailored to each particular source category
so that environmental protection is continually assured, and real
flexibility provided. For that reason, the EPA is requesting comment on
the specific provisions of the emissions averaging approach discussed
below (recordkeeping and reporting, monitoring, compliance periods,
debits, credits, credit discount factors, limits on averaging,
interpollutant trading and averaging, and scope).
This request for comment includes the threshold criteria (hazard or
risk equivalency, discount factor) established in the HON for the use
of averaging, and its appropriateness for this source category. For
example, during discussions on the HON rule, concerns were raised about
interpollutant trades resulting from the use of averaging provisions.
As a result of these concerns, threshold criteria were added to ensure
equal or greater environmental protection by requiring a demonstration
of equivalent protection, and by requiring a 10 percent increase in
reductions resulting from the use of averaging. Given that emission
points in SOCMI sources and refinery sources have similar emission
characteristics (multiple pollutant streams) which make interpollutant
trading virtually inescapable under any averaging system, the EPA is
seeking comment on these threshold criteria for use with this MACT
standard.
For the purposes of this MACT standard, the EPA would also like to
solicit comment on cost as a threshold criteria for the use of an
interpollutant averaging scheme. The Agency's assumption is that cost
would likely be a prime motivator for the use of any averaging. It may
be, however, that an explicit criteria for the demonstration of extreme
costs (e.g., related to space constraints, safety concerns, near term
plans for process changes, or additional control of well controlled
points), as a pre-condition for the use of an interpollutant averaging
scheme, would better protect against potential risk increases. This
criteria would also likely result in less flexibility for the source.
An alternative method of providing for operational flexibility
would be to establish a case-by-case waiver system. This approach would
allow sources that meet specific threshold criteria to determine an
alternative compliance option for certain emission points. A source
would need to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the implementing
agency, that MACT cannot be met for certain emission points because of
extreme costs related to space constraints, safety concerns, near term
process changes, or additional control of well controlled emission
points. The alternative compliance option would, at a minimum, have to
ensure that the control level for the entire source is at least as
stringent as the MACT level of control. Some of the provisions of the
HON averaging system (e.g., hazard [risk] equivalency, discount factor)
could also be incorporated into this approach. While this approach only
allows flexibility for those facilities that make the required
demonstration, it provides sources and implementing agencies more
flexibility to design a more tailored control scenario.
The EPA requests comment on the concept of a case-by-case waiver
system, the specific threshold criteria and the appropriateness of
adopting HON-based provisions.
2. Overview of Averaging
In the emissions averaging scheme proposed for petroleum
refineries, a system of emissions ``credits'' and ``debits'' is used to
determine whether the required emission reductions are achieved.
Basically, the petroleum refineries provisions for each kind of
emission point require Group 1 points (those meeting certain
applicability criteria) to achieve a particular emissions reduction or
apply a certain control technology. These technologies are called the
``reference control technologies,'' or RCT's, and the EPA has
established a control efficiency (percent emission reduction) for the
RCT for each kind of emission point. If an owner or operator does not
achieve the control efficiency of the RCT for a Group 1 emission point,
an emission debit is generated.
An owner or operator who generates an emission debit must control
other emission points to a level more stringent than is required for
that kind of point to generate emission credits. Credits may come from:
(1) control of Group 1 emission points using technologies that the EPA
has rated as being more effective than the appropriate RCT, (2) control
of Group 2 emission points, and (3) pollution prevention projects that
result in greater emission reduction than the standard requires for the
relevant point or points.
Emission credits would need to exceed debits on an annual basis for
a source to be in compliance. Monitoring and quarterly credit/debit
ratio checks would also be used to determine compliance, as described
in section H.3 below. Furthermore, prior to using emissions averaging,
a source would need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
implementing agency that the planned emissions average would not result
in increased risk or hazard relative to compliance without averaging.
3. Selection of Averaging Provisions
This section describes the rationale for specific aspects of the
proposed emissions averaging provisions and the alternative policies
that were considered in developing these provisions.
a. The scope of emissions averaging. The EPA proposes to allow
emissions averaging across miscellaneous process vents, storage
vessels, and wastewater streams within a single existing source, as
defined for the petroleum refining source category. This proposed scope
allows as much flexibility as possible while adhering to statutory
requirements and maintaining an enforceable standard.
The EPA decided against allowing equipment leaks to be included in
emissions averaging. While there are methods available for quantifying
emissions from equipment leaks, equipment leaks cannot be included in
emissions averages at this time because the proposed standard for
equipment leaks has no fixed performance level. Although it would be
possible to establish site-specific emission levels, the cost would be
high, and it would also be costly to maintain the documentation
necessary to demonstrate compliance.
Based on the complexity and cost of developing a scheme to include
equipment leaks in emissions averaging and the likelihood of a high
compliance determination burden for both the industry and enforcement
agencies, the EPA decided the public cost of including equipment leaks
in emissions averaging is not warranted at this time.
The EPA proposes not to allow emissions averaging at new sources.
New sources have historically been held to a stricter standard than
existing sources because it is most cost-effective to integrate state-
of-the art controls into equipment design and to install the technology
during construction of new sources. One reason for allowing averaging
is to permit existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at
diverse points with varying degrees of control already in place in the
most economically and technically reasonable fashion. This concern does
not apply to new sources which can be designed and constructed with
compliance in mind. Also, because new sources will have to comply with
applicable NSPS (e.g., 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb), there would be
little opportunity for emissions averaging at new sources.
Averaging would be permitted only among emission points within the
petroleum refineries source category. Other emission points (e.g.,
SOCMI emission points) located within the contiguous facility could not
be averaged with petroleum refinery emission points. The fundamental
problem with allowing averaging among different source categories is
that it allows averaging among multiple sources. The proposed petroleum
refineries NESHAP defines the source as the collection of emission
points within petroleum refinery processes within a major source. Many
major sources containing such points will also contain other points
that are not covered by this standard but are covered by different MACT
standards (e.g., the HON). Each of these standards may have a separate
floor, and the statute requires that each standard be no less stringent
than its floor.
It would be inconsistent with section 112(d) to allow averaging to
be used to permit a source subject to a MACT standard to avoid
compliance with that standard. In addition, different sources would
have different compliance deadlines. Section 112(i) requires compliance
by a source within a set timeframe. Transferring emission reduction
obligations to points outside of the source would be inconsistent with
the requirement of section 112(d) that standards be set for sources in
a listed category and the requirement of section 112(i) that compliance
with such standard be achieved by sources in the category.
b. Interpollutant trading and risk analysis. The majority of HAP
emissions at refineries are composed of a few chemicals, including
benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, and hexane. There is a
narrower range of variation in emission stream composition among
petroleum refinery emission points than there is in some other source
categories (e.g., SOCMI emission points regulated by the HON). However,
the different HAP's emitted have different toxicities, and there are
some variations in the concentrations of individual HAP's and the
emission release characteristics of different emission points.
Therefore, there is a potential that some emissions averaging scenarios
could increase the health risk to the public relative to the risk of
compliance without emissions averaging. For this reason, the EPA
proposes that sources who elect to use averaging must demonstrate, to
the satisfaction of the implementing agency, that compliance through
averaging would not result in greater risk or hazard than compliance
without averaging. The EPA would provide guidance for making the
demonstration based on existing procedures, but the actual methodology
to be used by the source would be chosen by the implementing agency.
The EPA believes that this approach provides assurance of health
protection while allowing for site-specific evaluations. This approach
also gives all implementing agencies the authority to consider risk in
approving averages. A more complete discussion of the reasons for this
decision and the alternatives considered is provided in the preamble to
the promulgated HON (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994). The EPA requests
comment on whether the provisions regarding risk or hazard
demonstration should be the same for petroleum refineries as for the
HON.
The EPA also requests comment on whether sources should be required
to use the hazard ranking system developed for the purposes of section
112(g) to demonstrate that compliance through averaging would not
result in greater hazard. States would still have the option of also
requiring a risk analysis.
c. Limits on averaging. The EPA proposes that emissions averages be
limited to 20 points at a source, or 25 points if pollution prevention
measures are used to control some points in the average. A limitation
on the number of points is proposed because the complexity of averaging
across a large number of points would raise significant enforcement
concerns, as well as concerns about the resource burden on implementing
agencies. The EPA anticipates that most sources will not find a large
number of opportunities to generate cost-effective credits. Hence, it
can be anticipated that most averages will involve a limited number of
emission points, and imposing a limit should not affect most sources.
The limit of 20 points in an average, 25 points if pollution prevention
measures are used, was chosen because the EPA anticipates that most
sources will rarely want to include more than 20 points in an average.
In addition, allowing much more than 20 points would make enforcement
increasingly untenable. Thus, the competing interests of flexibility
for sources and enforceability were balanced in this decision. A higher
number of points is allowed where pollution prevention is used in order
to encourage pollution prevention strategies, and because the same
pollution prevention measure may reduce emissions from multiple points.
The proposed rule would grant State and local agencies the
discretion to preclude sources from using emissions averaging to comply
with the petroleum refineries NESHAP, without using the section 112(l)
rule delegation process. Without this provision, if a State or local
agency wished to receive delegation of authority to implement and
enforce the NESHAP without averaging, a review by the EPA would be
required. Including this provision in the NESHAP will reduce paperwork
burdens on States, expedite delegation of the rule to States, and
remove a potential source of uncertainty for sources subject to the
rule. Even though the EPA supports the use of emissions averaging where
it may be appropriate, its use must be balanced by the individual needs
of States and local agencies that bear the responsibility for
administering and enforcing the rule. A detailed rationale for allowing
agencies discretion to implement the NESHAP without emissions averaging
is contained in the preamble for the promulgated HON (59 FR 19402,
April 22, 1994).
d. Credits. The equations and procedures for calculating source
wide credits are contained in Sec. 63.650 of the proposed rule. The
proposed emissions averaging would allow credits only for control or
pollution prevention actions taken after November 15, 1990, the date of
the 1990 Amendments. The EPA proposes not to allow actions taken before
passage of the 1990 Amendments to be used to generate emission credits
because such reductions would have occurred anyway, for reasons
unrelated to the 1990 Amendments or the proposed rule. If the EPA
allowed these actions to generate emission credits, then the source
would be able to generate more emission debits and, thus, more total
emissions. Emissions averaging is a method for complying with subpart
CC and should not result in more emissions than the other compliance
options.
Credits could be generated if miscellaneous process vents, Group 1
storage vessels, or Group 1 wastewater streams are controlled using
equipment that EPA agrees has a higher efficiency than the RCT for
those points. Credits can also be generated if a pollution prevention
measure is used on a Group 1 point or a miscellaneous process vent,
alone or in combination with a control technology, and it results in
lower emissions than would use of the RCT alone. In order to take
credit for reductions beyond the RCT level, the source would need to
demonstrate the efficiency or level of emission reduction achievable
through use of the control technology or pollution prevention measure.
The process for application and approval of a ``nominal efficiency''
higher than the RCT efficiency is contained in Sec. 63.650 of the
proposed rule.
The EPA proposes not to allow credits for use of an RCT above its
designated reference efficiency rating. (The RCT's for process vents,
storage vessels, and wastewater, and their efficiencies are listed in
the definitions section of the proposed rule.) Reference control
efficiency ratings for RCT were established because each RCT has a
minimum level of emissions reduction that can generally be achieved.
The EPA acknowledges that RCT's can sometimes achieve greater emission
reductions. However, providing credits for these instances is
inappropriate because the magnitude of debits, not just credits, is
based on the RCT's reference efficiency ratings. If it could be
determined that the RCT on a debit generator could achieve greater
reductions than its rated efficiency, the magnitude of debits from the
point would be greater. Thus, to give credit for reductions above an
RCT's rated efficiency and not to increase the magnitude of debits as
well would represent a windfall from averaging, and result in greater
emissions than under point-by-point compliance.
Credit could be generated by applying a control technique or
pollution prevention measure to a Group 2 storage vessel or wastewater
stream. There are no Group 2 miscellaneous process vents under the
refineries NESHAP because all miscellaneous process vents subject to
the rule are required to apply control (i.e., are Group 1). The
procedures for determining the efficiency of controls or pollution
prevention measures applied to Group 2 storage vessels and wastewater
streams are contained in Sec. 63.650 of the proposed rule.
e. Credit discount factors. A discount factor of 10 percent is
proposed for calculating credits. A discount factor would reduce the
value of credits in the emissions average by a certain percentage
before the credits are compared to the debits. In considering a
discount factor, the EPA examined the requirements for determining MACT
in section 112(d) of the Act. Section 112(d)(2) specifies that MACT
standards shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of
HAP's, taking into consideration, among other things, the cost of
achieving those reductions. By defining the source broadly and
including the option for emissions averaging in the proposed rule, it
could be argued that the EPA is providing flexibility for source owners
and operators that would lower the costs of compliance. The EPA is
persuaded that, to carry out the mandate of Sec. 112(d)(2) of the Act,
some portion of these cost savings should be shared with the
environment by requiring sources using averaging to achieve more
emission reductions than they would otherwise. The 10 percent discount
factor is consistent with the HON and other programs. While realizing
environmental benefits, the 10 percent factor is not so high as to
preclude or strongly discourage emissions averaging.
Credits generated through use of a pollution prevention measure
would not be discounted, because the EPA recognizes that encouraging
pollution prevention will result in more overall emission reductions,
possibly including multimedia reductions and lower overall releases
into the environment.
f. Debits. The equations and procedures for calculating source-wide
debits are contained in Sec. 63.650 of the proposed rule. Debits would
be generated when a miscellaneous process vent or a Group 1 storage
vessel is not controlled to the level required by the miscellaneous
process vent or storage vessel provisions of the NESHAP. Debits could
not be generated for Group 1 wastewater streams.
g. Compliance period. The EPA proposes that the credits and debits
generated in emissions averages balance on an annual basis, and that
debits do not exceed credits by more than 30 percent in any one quarter
of the year. These two requirements are used together to establish an
emissions averaging system that provides flexibility for changes in
production over time without allowing for wide-ranging fluctuations in
HAP emissions over time. The annual compliance period was selected for
proposal to accommodate seasonal changes in production and provide
sources flexibility in selecting points for inclusion in emissions
averages. Annual averaging accommodates seasonal changes in feedstocks,
product mix, and operating conditions. Seasonal changes in product mix
are common at refineries which, for example, may maximize gasoline
production during some parts of the year and maximize fuel oil (heating
oil) during other seasons. With an annual compliance period, sources
can average emission points that may not have the same emission rates
during some periods of the year, as long as they are similar on an
annual basis. This latitude will also be useful to accommodate averages
with points that must undergo temporary maintenance shutdowns at
different times during the year.
In selecting a compliance period for averaging, the EPA also
considered the need to verify compliance and, when appropriate, take
enforcement action in a timely fashion. One concern about an annual
compliance period is that the EPA's authority to take administrative
enforcement actions would be reduced because section 113(d) of the Act
limits assessment of administrative penalties to violations that occur
no more than 12 months prior to the initiation of the administrative
proceeding. Administrative proceedings are far less costly than
judicial proceedings for both the EPA and the regulated community. The
requirement that debits not exceed credits by more than 30 percent in
any quarter enables the EPA to use this administrative enforcement
authority by providing a shorter period in which to verify compliance.
The EPA is, however, also considering compliance periods that are
shorter than annual. The EPA has concerns about the ability to take
enforcement actions for violations that cover an entire year and thus
involve the analysis and presentation of an entire year's data, which
may make litigation complex. Specific alternatives could include a
quarterly or semiannual block averaging period, where credits would
need to equal or exceed debits for each 3-month or each 6-month period.
Alternatively, a quarterly or semiannual block averaging period with
banking for an additional 3-month or 6-month period could be specified.
If banking were allowed across blocks, the source could reserve or
``bank'' extra emission credits from one period to offset debits in the
next averaging period. At the end of the next averaging period, any
unused banked credits would expire. Banking could avoid some
noncompliance scenarios and accommodate seasonal variations; however,
it could make compliance determination more complex. The EPA requests
comments on whether one of these alternatives should be selected
instead of the proposed annual compliance period.
h. Banking. The EPA considered ``banking'' of credits, which would
allow excess credits generated in one compliance period to be saved and
used to offset debits in a subsequent compliance period. The EPA
proposes not to allow banking if an annual compliance period is
selected for emissions averaging. While banking could provide
additional compliance flexibility for sources, it would greatly
increase the administrative burden of emissions averaging and would
also increase the likelihood of peak HAP exposures. In years when
banked credits were used, sources could be emitting beyond the
standard. Banking is more fully discussed in the preambles to the
proposed and promulgated HON (57 FR 62608, December 31, 1992 and 59 FR
19402 April 22, 1994).
i. Monitoring. Emission points in emissions averages would be
subject to the same performance testing and monitoring requirements as
the proposed rule requires for other emission points that are not
included in averages. If monitoring shows that the controls in place on
any given emission point in the emission average are not being operated
to achieve their specified emission reduction, this would be separately
enforceable from the credit/debit balance.
If a continuously monitored emission point in an emissions average
experiences a period of excess emissions, the proposed presumption is
that the point should be assigned either no credits or maximum debits.
It is proposed that either no credits and maximum debits, as
applicable, will be assigned for periods of excess emissions because
any other assumption would result in emission reductions that could not
be verified or adequately enforced. However, if the source has data
indicating that some partial credits or debits may be warranted, it can
submit that information to the implementing agency with the next
Periodic Report. Thus, partial credits and debits can be assigned with
the approval of the implementing agency.
j. Recordkeeping and reporting. Under emissions averaging, sources
would submit a detailed description of the planned emissions average in
an implementation plan. The plan can be submitted in the operating
permit application, an amendment to the application, or as a separate
submittal. The emissions averaging plan would be approved by the
operating permit authority, except that sources applying for credits
for controls with nominal efficiencies beyond the RCT level would need
to obtain EPA approval for the nominal efficiency rating.
The Notification of Compliance Status would contain performance
test results for emission points in averages and first quarter debit
and credit calculations. Periodic reports for points in emission
averages would be submitted quarterly, instead of semiannually.
Quarterly reporting of credits and debits would allow timely
enforcement of the quarterly emissions check provisions previously
described. Periods when monitoring data for an emission point indicate
excess emissions would also be identified in the quarterly reports.
Recordkeeping for emission points in emissions averages would be
similar to that for other emission points. In addition, records of
monthly credit and debit calculations would be maintained.
These recordkeeping and reporting provisions were selected for
proposal because they are as consistent as possible with the provisions
for emission points that are not in averages, while also providing the
additional credit and debit information needed to determine whether the
emissions average is achieving the required level of emissions
reduction.
VII. Amendments to Previous Regulations
Amendments to two previous regulations are being proposed along
with the proposal of the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP: The Petroleum
Refinery Wastewater NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 subpart QQQ; and the SOCMI
Equipment Leak NSPS, 40 CFR 60 subpart VV.
A. Amendment to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart QQQ
Two amendments to subpart QQQ are being proposed. One clarifies a
confusion regarding an exemption for tanks. The other allows the use of
mechanical shoe seals on tanks.
Section 60.692-3(d), Standards: Oil-water separator, of subpart QQQ
exempts tanks that are subject to the requirements of K, Ka, or Kb from
the requirements of Sec. 60.692-3. This exemption was placed in the
standards section of the subpart with the intent that the exemption
applied to tanks subject to the control and associated requirements of
K, Ka, or Kb. There has been confusion regarding whether the exemption
applies to tanks subject to the control requirements or to affected
facilities as defined in K, Ka, and Kb.
The affected facilities to which K and Ka apply are storage vessels
with capacities greater than or equal to 151 cubic meters. Subparts K
and Ka require controls on affected facilities containing liquids with
vapor pressures equal to or greater than 10.3 kPa.
The affected facility to which Kb applies is each storage vessel
with a capacity greater than or equal to 40 cubic meters. However, each
storage vessel with a capacity less than 75 cubic meters is exempt from
the General Provisions (part 60 subpart A) and from the provisions of
subpart Kb, except for the requirement that the operator keep records
showing dimensions and capacity of vessel [Sec. 60.116b(b)]. Subpart Kb
requires controls on affected facilities with capacities greater than
or equal to 151 cubic meters containing liquids with vapor pressures
greater than or equal to 5.2 kPa.
The intent of subpart QQQ is to control emissions from the
wastewater system down to and including primary treatment. The control
technique is to prevent exposure to the atmosphere of the oily
wastewater in the drain system and the oil-water separator. Subpart QQQ
requires that each drain be equipped with a water seal control and each
junction box and sewer line be covered. Subpart QQQ also requires each
oil water separator tank, slop oil tank, storage vessel, or other
auxiliary equipment be equipped and operated with a tightly sealed
fixed roof.
Questions have arisen regarding whether Sec. 60.692-3(d) would
allow an open-top tank in the wastewater system at or upstream of the
oil-water separator. For example, assume a tank is an affected facility
under subpart QQQ and Subpart K, Ka, or Kb and contains an organic
liquid with a vapor pressure less than 5.2 kPa. The operator would have
to meet recordkeeping requirements but the tank would not be required
to have a fixed roof to comply with K, Ka, or Kb. This is obviously
inconsistent with the intent of the control technology based standards
of subpart QQQ.
The second proposed amendment is to allow use of mechanical shoe
seals on oil/water separators. As described in the proposal preamble
for subpart QQQ, 52 FR 16338 (May 4, 1987), the EPA only had
information on the availability of two basic designs for primary seals
that are applicable to oil-water separators. The two designs were
vapor-mounted and liquid-mounted primary seals. The EPA solicited
comments on the effectiveness of different types of seals applicable to
oil-water separators. The EPA received no comments on the use or
availability of mechanical shoe seals.
Since promulgation of subpart QQQ, the EPA has received several
requests to allow the use of mechanical shoe seals to meet the
requirements of subpart QQQ. Subpart Kb allows the use of liquid-
mounted primary seals or mechanical shoe seals on external floating
roofs on storage tanks.
According to the proposal preamble for subpart Kb, 49 FR 29702
(July 23, 1984), data from tests conducted on external floating roof
tanks by the American Petroleum Institute show that a mechanical shoe
primary seal in conjunction with a rim-mounted secondary seal is as
effective as a liquid-mounted primary seal with a secondary seal. These
same data were used to evaluate the efficiency of vapor-mounted primary
seals in response to comments received on the proposed rule.
Since liquid-mounted primary seals and mechanical shoe primary
seals both meet the requirements of the equipment standards in subpart
Kb, it is determined, by analogy, that these two primary seal types
meet the requirements of the alternative equipment standards in subpart
QQQ. Thus, it is proposed that Sec. 60.693-2 of subpart QQQ be amended
to allow use of mechanical shoe seals.
B. Amendment to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart VV
The EPA proposes to amend the definition of closed vent system in
40 CFR part 60 subpart VV to clarify that if equipment leak emissions
are routed back to the process, this does not make the process subject
to the closed vent system standards that require operation with no
detectable leaks above 50 ppmv. In the case of petroleum refineries,
equipment leaks may be sent to the refinery-wide fuel gas system. It
was not EPA's intent to require the entire fuel gas system to be
subject to the 500 ppm requirement because the fuel gas system is an
integral part of the process. Furthermore, the EPA's cost impact
estimates did not include the large monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting burden of complying with the 500 ppm limit, or the leak
detection and repair requirements for the hundreds or thousands of
valves, connectors, and other equipment associated with the refinery
fuel gas system and the dozens of boilers or process heaters combusting
the refinery fuel gas.
The EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV Sec. 60.482-5
to match the language in the equivalent section of the equipment leaks
negotiated rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart H, Sec. 63.166). The language
from the negotiated rule more clearly represents the EPA's intentions.
The current language in subpart VV requires sampling connection systems
to be equipped with a closed purge system or a closed vent system. The
negotiated rule requires closed purge sampling, closed-loop sampling,
or a closed vent system. Closed-purge sampling systems eliminate
emissions due to purging by either returning the purge material
directly to the process or by collecting the purge in a collection
system which is not open to the atmosphere for recycle or disposal.
Closed-loop sampling systems also eliminate emissions due to purging by
returning process fluid to the process through an enclosed system that
is not directly vented to the atmosphere. Closed vent vacuum systems
capture and transport the purged process fluid to a control device. In
situ sampling systems would be exempted from these regulations.
It is proposed that paragraph (f) of Sec. 60.482-10 of subpart VV
be revised to be consistent with the requirements for closed vent
systems developed for the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G, Sec. 63.148).
These revisions more clearly reflect the EPA's intent and specify the
monitoring and recordkeeping necessary to demonstrate compliance with
the requirement to operate with no detectable leaks above 500 ppmv. For
closed vent systems constructed of hard-piping, compliance would be
determined by an initial Method 21 inspection and an annual visual
inspection. Because such systems are extremely unlikely to leak, an
annual Method 21 inspection is considered to be overly burdensome. For
systems constructed of ductwork, annual Method 21 inspections would be
required. The proposed revisions specify the time period for repairs if
leaks are detected. Provisions are included for delay of repair,
equipment that is unsafe to inspect, and equipment that is difficult to
inspect. These provisions are very similar to those currently included
in other sections of subpart VV (such as the valve standards), so they
provide consistency.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)] the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set fourth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' rule
because it will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100
million, and is therefore subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 12866. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request document
has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1692.01), and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M
Street, SW (2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 4,281 hrs per recordkeeper annually. This includes
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to: (1) Chief, Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; and (2) the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires the EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations
on small business entities. If a preliminary analysis (known as the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis) would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number (usually taken as at least 20
percent) of small entities, then a final regulatory flexibility
analysis must be prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines for regulations like this one
whose start action notifications were filed before April 1992 indicated
that an economic impact should be considered significant if it meets
one of the following criteria:
(1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5
percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
(2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities;
(3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow
plus external financial capabilities, or
(4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of
small entities.
Data were not readily available to determine if criteria (1) and
(3) were met or not, so the analysis focused on the other two. Results
from the economic impact analysis indicate that potential closures
range from none to a maximum of seven. The closures would occur in
refineries that process less than 10,000 to 20,000 barrels of crude oil
per day (refer to the ``Economic Impact Analysis of the Regulatory
Alternatives for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP'' in the Docket).
While this percentage of net closures is less than 20 percent of the
total number of small refineries (90), it was deemed high enough for
carrying out a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on that basis alone.
Criterion (2), however, was satisfied. The compliance costs to sales
ratio for the small refiners was more than 10 percent greater than the
same ratio calculated for all other refiners.
There are three reasons why small entities are disproportionately
affected by the regulation. The first is the fact that they tend to own
smaller facilities, and therefore have smaller economies of scale.
Because of the smaller economies of scale, per-unit costs of production
and compliance are higher for the small refiners compared to others.
Related to this is the fact that small refiners have less ability to
produce differentiated products. This ability, called complexity,
increases with increasing refinery capacity. A large refinery can
respond to a relative increase in production costs for one product by
increasing production of a product now relatively cheaper to produce,
an ability most small refiners rarely enjoy.
A second reason is they have fewer capital resources. Small
refineries have less ability to finance the capital expenditures needed
to purchase the equipment required to comply with the regulation. The
third is the difference in internal structure. None of the small
refiners are vertically or horizontally integrated, and in all but a
few cases are not the subsidiary of a large parent company. The small
refiners are typically independent owners and operators of their
facilities, and most are owners of a single refinery. They do not
possess the ability to shift production between different refineries
and have less market power than their large competitors.
Another reason why smaller refiners experience greater economic
impacts than other refiners is due to the small industry-level price
increases (less than 1 percent in all cases). It is unlikely that small
refiners will be able to recover annualized control costs by increasing
product prices, since the large refiners will not be significantly
impacted. As seen in the examination of criterion (2), the large
refiners will not be significantly affected from compliance with the
regulation.
In calculating the number of closures, the assumption was made that
those refineries with the highest per-unit control costs were marginal
after compliance with the regulation. While this assumption is often
useful in closure analysis, it is not always true. The assumption is
consistent with perfect competition theory that presumes all firms are
price-takers. If a refiner does have some monopoly power in a
particular market, then it is possible the refiners could continue to
operate for some period while complying with the regulation. It is a
conservative assumption that likely biases the results to overstate the
number of refinery closures and other impacts of the proposed
regulation.
To mitigate these economic impacts on small refiners, the Agency is
considering whether to subcategorize and develop separate MACT floors.
As stated in section VI.A.1.e, comments are requested on whether a
basis exists for subcategorizing small refineries, and if so, at what
size, along with supporting data and rationale. In addition, the EPA
would like to better understand the impact of the proposed rule on
small refineries. To assist the EPA in assessing the impact of the
proposed rule on small refiners, the Agency requests comment with
supporting information on the level of competition between refiners
that process less than 10,000 to 20,000 barrels of crude oil per day
and the larger refiners. Moreover, there is additional uncertainty in
predicting the economic impact since the EPA does not have the
information to determine if or how small refineries will actually be
affected by the proposed rule. For example, they would not be affected
if the HAP emissions are below the 25 ton per year cutoff specified in
the statute or they are processing crude oils or producing products
whose vapor pressures and HAP contents are below the applicability
levels specified in the rule. The EPA seeks comment and better
information on these very small refineries as follows:
(1) Are refineries that process less than 10,000 to 20,000 barrels
per day of crude oil ``major sources'' as defined in section 112 of the
Act?
(2) Are the HAP contents of the process vents below the 20 ppmv
applicability level?
(3) Are the HAP contents of the petroleum liquids in the processing
lines below the 5 percent (by weight) applicability level in the
equipment leak provisions?
(4) Are the true vapor pressures of the petroleum liquids in the
storage vessels below the 1.2 psia applicability level?
Supporting data should be included with the responses to these
questions.
D. Review
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health and environmental risks, any overlap
with other programs, the existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health
data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Intergovernmental relations, Natural
gas, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Petroleum refineries, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 30, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-17130 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P