[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71661-71667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25162]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682; FRL-9954-25-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT18


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Petroleum Refinery Sector

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
finalized amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Refinery Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) 1 and Refinery MACT 2 regulations and the New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for petroleum refineries. Subsequently, the EPA 
received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rules. The 
EPA is announcing reconsideration and request for public comment on 
five issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration where 
petitioners claim that the public was not afforded an opportunity to 
comment. Additionally, the EPA is proposing amendments to the final 
rule to clarify a compliance issue raised by stakeholders subject to 
the final rule and to correct a referencing error. The EPA is seeking 
comment only on the five identified petition issues and on the proposed 
compliance issue clarification and referencing error amendments. The 
EPA will not respond to comments addressing any other issues or any 
other provisions of the final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
is seeking comment only on the issues specifically identified in this 
notice. The EPA will not respond to any comments addressing other 
aspects of the final rules or any other related rulemakings. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0682. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change, and will be made 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send 
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information you claim as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include 
special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects 
or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information 
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742. Visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for additional

[[Page 71662]]

information about the EPA's public docket.
    Public hearing. A public hearing will be held if requested by 
October 24, 2016 to accept oral comments on this proposed action. The 
hearing will be held, if requested, on November 2, 2016 at the EPA's 
North Carolina Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. The hearing, if requested, will begin at 9:00 
a.m. (local time) and will conclude at 1:00 p.m. (local time). To 
request a hearing, to register to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if 
a hearing will be held, please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-
0832 or by email at [email protected]. The last day to pre-register 
to speak at a hearing, if one is held, will be October 31, 2016. 
Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at 
the hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking times 
may not be able to be fulfilled. Please note that registration requests 
received before the hearing will be confirmed by the EPA via email.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing, 
including whether or not a hearing will be held, will be posted online 
at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source. We ask that 
you contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at 
[email protected] or monitor our Web site to determine if a hearing 
will be held. The EPA does not intend to publish a notice in the 
Federal Register announcing any such updates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Refining and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; 
fax number: (919) 541-0246; and email address: [email protected]. 
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCU delayed coking unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCCU fluid catalytic cracking unit
HAP hazardous air pollutants
lbs/day pounds per day
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MIR maximum individual risk
MPV miscellaneous process vent
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD Pressure Relief Devices
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PSM Process Safety Management
PTE potential to emit
RC/CA root cause analysis and corrective action
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
RTR residual risk and technology review
SRU sulfur recovery unit
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
STP standard temperature and pressure
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit

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

I. General Information
    A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration 
action?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
III. Reconsideration Issues and Request for Public Comments
    A. Work Practice Standards for PRDs
    B. Work Practice Standards for Emergency Flaring
    C. Assessment of Risk From the Refinery Source Categories After 
Implementation of the PRD and Emergency Flaring Work Practice 
Standards
    D. Alternative Work Practice Standards for DCUs Employing the 
Water Overflow Design
    E. Reduced Frequency of Fenceline Monitoring
IV. Proposed Technical Clarifications
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)(42 U.S.C. 7412 and 
7607(d)(7)(B)).

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

   Table 1--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NAICS \a\
                NESHAP and source category                      code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refining Industry...............................       324110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by this action for the source categories listed. To determine 
whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability 
criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP, please contact the 
appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposal will also be available on the

[[Page 71663]]

Internet through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a 
forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the 
EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-risk-and-technology-review-and-new-source. Following publication in the Federal 
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key 
technical documents at this Web site.

II. Background

    On June 30, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register addressing the risk and technology review (RTR) for the 
Petroleum Refinery NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC (Refinery MACT 
1) and UUU (Refinery MACT 2). On December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75178), after 
receiving and addressing public comments, the EPA finalized 
determinations pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for the 
Petroleum Refinery source categories and amended Refinery MACT 1 and 2 
based on those determinations. The final December 2015 action included 
a determination that the remaining risk after promulgation of the 
revised NESHAP are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety. 
The December 2015 action also finalized changes to Refinery MACT 1 and 
2 pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), notably revising the 
requirements for flares and pressure relief devices (PRD). The December 
2015 action also finalized technical corrections and clarifications to 
Refinery NSPS subparts J and Ja to address issues raised by the 
American Petroleum Institute (API) in their 2008 petition for 
reconsideration of the final NSPS Ja rule that had not been previously 
addressed. These include corrections and clarifications to provisions 
for sulfur recovery plants, performance testing, and control device 
operating parameters.
    Following promulgation, the EPA received three separate petitions 
for reconsideration: Two jointly from API and the American Fuel and 
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and one from Earthjustice (submitted 
on behalf of Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against 
Toxics, Clean Air Council, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Del Amo 
Action Committee, Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Texas 
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services and Utah Physicians for a 
Healthy Environment). The petitions are available for review in the 
rulemaking docket (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682).
    On January 19, 2016, API and AFPM requested an administrative 
reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA of certain 
provisions of Refinery MACT 1 and 2, as promulgated in the December 
2015 final rule. Specifically, API and AFPM requested that the EPA 
reconsider the maintenance vent provisions in Refinery MACT 1 for 
sources constructed on or before June 30, 2014; the alternate startup, 
shutdown, or hot standby standards for fluid catalytic cracking units 
(FCCU) constructed on or before June 30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; the 
alternate startup and shutdown for sulfur recovery units (SRU) 
constructed on or before June 30, 2014, in Refinery MACT 2; and the new 
catalytic reforming units (CRU) purging limitations in Refinery MACT 2. 
The request pertained to providing and/or clarifying the compliance 
time for these sources. In response to this request and additional 
information received relative to providing additional compliance time 
for these provisions, the EPA issued a proposal on February 9, 2016 (81 
FR 6814). A final rule was published on July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45232, 
July 13, 2016), fully responding to the January 19, 2016, initial 
petition for reconsideration submitted by API and AFPM.
    On February 1, 2016, Earthjustice filed a petition for 
reconsideration of several aspects of the December 1, 2015, final rule, 
and on that same day API and AFPM submitted a supplemental petition for 
reconsideration, identifying additional issues on which they sought 
reconsideration. In these petitions, both Earthjustice and API/AFPM 
requested that the EPA reconsider certain aspects of the December 2015 
revisions to Refinery MACT 1 and 2, noting that CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B) authorizes the EPA to reconsider a rule where it is 
impracticable to raise an objection during the period for public 
comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) or if the 
grounds for such an objection arose after the close of the public 
comment period. In particular, Earthjustice claimed that several 
aspects of the revisions to Refinery MACT 1 were not proposed, and, 
thus they were precluded from commenting on them during the public 
comment period: (1) Work practice standards for PRDs and flares; (2) 
alternative water overflow provisions for delayed coking units (DCU); 
(3) reduced monitoring provisions for fenceline monitoring; and (4) 
adjustments to the risk assessment to account for these new work 
practice standards. The API/AFPM petition outlined a number of specific 
issues related to the work practice standards for PRDs and flares, and 
the alternative water overflow provisions for DCUs, as well as a number 
of other specific issues on other aspects of the rule. On June 16, 
2016, the EPA granted the petitions for reconsideration from 
Earthjustice and API/AFPM on the petitioners' claims as they relate to 
the following aspects of the December 2015 revisions to the final rule 
to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment: (1) The work 
practice standards for PRDs; (2) the work practice standards for 
emergency flaring events; (3) the assessment of risk as modified based 
on implementation of these PRD and emergency flaring work practice 
standards; (4) the alternative work practice standards for DCUs 
employing the water overflow design; and (5) the provision allowing 
refineries to reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring at sampling 
stations that consistently record benzene concentrations below 0.9 
micrograms per cubic meter.

III. Reconsideration Issues and Request for Public Comment

    After reviewing the two February 1, 2016, petitions for 
reconsideration as described above, we granted reconsideration to 
provide the public an opportunity to comment on selected provisions of 
the December 2015 amendments and the assessment of risk as modified to 
account for the implementation of the PRD and emergency flaring work 
practice standards included in the December 2015 final rule. To ensure 
public participation in its final decisions, the Agency is requesting 
public comment on these issues as described below. The EPA is seeking 
comment only on these five specific issues. The EPA will not respond to 
any comments addressing any other provisions of the December 1, 2015, 
final Refinery Sector Rule or any other rule or issues.

A. Work Practice Standard for PRDs

    In the proposed rule (79 FR 36970, June 30, 2014), EPA proposed to 
revise Refinery MACT 1 to establish operating and pressure release 
requirements that apply to all PRDs and to prohibit atmospheric 
releases of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from PRDs. To ensure 
compliance, we proposed to require that sources monitor PRDs using a 
system that is capable of recording the time and duration of each 
pressure release and notifying operators that a pressure release has 
occurred. Many commenters suggested that a prohibition on atmospheric 
PRD releases was not

[[Page 71664]]

indicative of the best performing facilities, was unachievable and/or 
very costly, and would have negative environmental impacts due to 
additional flares that would need to be installed and operated in 
standby mode to accept the PRD releases. Some commenters suggested that 
we should instead consider the rules on PRDs that apply to refineries 
in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
    Based on these comments, we evaluated the two California district 
rules and determined that 8 percent (or 12 refineries) are subject to 
these requirements, which was a sufficient number of subject refineries 
to establish work practice standards that represent the emissions 
limitation achieved in practice by the best performers. The two rules 
are similar in that they both establish comprehensive regulatory 
programs to address the group or system of PRDs at refineries by 
requiring monitoring, root cause analysis, and corrective action, and 
by focusing on PRDs with the greatest emissions potential through a 
combination of applicability thresholds (albeit with differing 
thresholds between the two rules). In addition, both rules exclude 
emissions from certain types of PRDs--typically lower-release potential 
PRDs, liquid-type PRDs, or in the case of SCAAMD PRDs resulting from 
events outside of the refinery's control. We considered the two rules 
as the basis for determining the best performers for establishing the 
work practice standard that is included in the December 2015 final 
Refinery Sector Rule (see 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)). In doing so, similar to 
these two rules, we established a work practice standard that is a 
comprehensive set of requirements that apply to the group of PRDs at 
refineries, and that focuses on reducing the size and frequency of 
atmospheric releases of HAP from PRDs, with an emphasis on prevention, 
monitoring, correction, and limitations on the frequency of release 
events. For further details on our analysis of the SCAQMD and BAAQMD 
rules and our use of those rules to establish a comprehensive work 
practice standard for PRDs that are representative of the best 
performing refineries, refer to the December 1, 2015, notice at 80 FR 
75216 and the memorandum in the docket titled, ``Pressure Relief Device 
Control Option Impacts for Final Refinery Sector Rule, July 30, 2015 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0750).
    In the final rule, we established a four-part work practice 
standard in place of the prohibition on release to the atmosphere based 
on what was achieved by the best performers, as represented by the two 
California rules. Consistent with the proposed rule, the first 
component of the work practice standard requires that owners or 
operators monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of recording the 
time and duration of each pressure release and notifying operators that 
a pressure release has occurred. Second, the work practice standard 
requires refinery owners or operators to establish preventative 
measures for each affected PRD to prevent direct release of HAP to the 
atmosphere as a result of pressure release events. Third, in the event 
of an atmospheric release, the work practice standard requires refinery 
owners or operators to conduct a root cause analysis to determine the 
cause of a PRD release event. If the root cause was due to operator 
error or negligence, then the release would be a violation of the work 
practice standard. A second release due to the same root cause for the 
same equipment in a 3-year period would be a violation of the work 
practice standard. A third release in a 3-year period would be a 
violation of the work practice standard, regardless of the root cause. 
Force majeure events, as defined in the final rule, would not count in 
determining whether there has been a second or third event. The fourth 
component of the work practice standard is a requirement for corrective 
action. For any event other than a force majeure event, the owner or 
operator would be required to conduct a corrective action analysis and 
implement the results of the corrective action analysis. Refiners have 
45 days to complete the root cause analysis and implement corrective 
action after the release event. The results of the root cause analysis 
and corrective action are due with the periodic reports on a semi-
annual basis.
    We excluded the following PRDs that have very low potential to emit 
(PTE) based on their type of service, size and pressure from the work 
practice standard: PRDs that only release material that is liquid at 
standard temperature and pressure (STP) and that are hard-piped to a 
controlled drain system, PRDs that do not have a PTE of 72 pounds per 
day (lbs/day) or more of volatile organic compounds (VOC), PRDs with 
design release pressure of less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge 
(psig), PRDs on mobile equipment, PRDs in heavy liquid service, and 
PRDs that are designed solely to release due to liquid thermal 
expansion. Although these PRDs are excluded from the work practice 
standard, they are subject to the operating and pressure relief 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(1) and (2), which apply to all PRDs.
    We request public comments on the work practice standard for PRDs 
as provided in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) and (5) through (7), including the 
number and type of release/event allowances; the type of PRDs covered 
by the work practice standard; and the definition of ``force majeure 
event'' in 40 CFR 63.641. We also request public comments on the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the work 
practice standard in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iii) and (i)(11).

B. Work Practice Standard for Emergency Flaring

    In the June 2014 proposed rule, the EPA proposed to amend the 
operating and monitoring requirements for petroleum refinery flares. As 
discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 36904, we determined that the 
requirements for flares in the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.18 were 
not adequate to ensure compliance with the Refinery MACT standards. In 
general, flares used as air pollution control devices are expected to 
achieve a 98-percent HAP destruction efficiency. However, because flows 
of waste gases to the flares had diminished based on reductions 
achieved by the increased use of flare gas recovery systems, there were 
times when the waste gas to the flare contained insufficient heat 
content to adequately combust and, thus, a 98-percent HAP destruction 
efficiency was not being achieved. In addition, the practice of 
applying assist media to the flare (particularly steam to prevent 
smoking of the flare tip) had led to a decrease in the combustion 
efficiency of flares.
    To ensure that a 98-percent HAP destruction efficiency was being 
met, as contemplated at the time the MACT standard was promulgated, we 
proposed revisions to Refinery MACT 1 that required flares to operate 
with a continuously-lit pilot flame at all times when gases are sent to 
the flare, with no visible emissions except for periods not to exceed 5 
minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, and to meet flare tip velocity 
limits and combustion zone operating limits at all times when gases are 
flared.
    During the comment period on the proposed rule, we received 
comments that the concern over insufficient heat content of the waste 
gas or over-assisting are less problematic in attaining a high level of 
destruction efficiency at the flare in emergency situations, where the 
flow in the flare

[[Page 71665]]

exceeds the smokeless capacity of the flare. Thus, commenters suggested 
that better combustion was assured closer to the incipient smoke point 
of the flare and that flow velocity limits and limits on visible 
emissions should not apply during flaring events.
    In the final rule, we determined that it was appropriate to set 
different standards for when a flare is operating below its smokeless 
capacity and when it is operating above its smokeless capacity. We 
finalized the proposed requirements (with minor revisions) to apply 
when a flare is operating below its smokeless capacity.
    We established a separate work practice standard that applies when 
a flare exceeds its smokeless capacity. As with flares operating below 
the smokeless capacity, the work practice standard requires the 
refinery to have a continuously-lit pilot flame and meet combustion 
zone operating limits (e.g., heat content in the combustion zone) at 
all times and meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. These requirements are the most critical in ensuring that 
a 98-percent destruction efficiency is being met. The work practice 
standard also requires owners or operators to develop flare management 
plans to identify the flare system smokeless capacity and flare 
components, waste gas streams that are flared, monitoring systems and 
their locations, procedures that will be followed to limit discharges 
to the flare that cause the flare to exceed its smokeless capacity, and 
prevention measures implemented for PRDs that discharge to the flare 
header. The work practice standard requires refinery owners or 
operators to conduct a specific root cause analysis and take corrective 
action for any flaring event that exceeds the flare's smokeless 
capacity and that also exceeds the flare tip velocity and/or visible 
emissions limit. Refiners have 45 days to complete the root cause 
analysis and implement corrective action after an event. The results of 
the root cause and corrective action are due with the periodic reports 
on a semi-annual basis.
    If the root cause analysis indicates that the exceedance of the 
flare tip velocity and/or the visible emissions limit is caused by 
operator error or poor maintenance, the exceedance is a violation of 
the work practice standard. A second event causing an exceedance of 
either the flare tip velocity or the visible emissions limit within a 
rolling 3-year period from the same root cause on the same equipment is 
a violation of the standard. A third exceedance of the velocity or 
visible emissions limit occurring from the same flare in a rolling 3-
year period is a violation of the work practice standard, regardless of 
the cause. However, force majeure events are excluded from the event 
count. The requirements for a continuously-lit pilot flame, combustion-
zone operating limits and the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements apply at all times (whether the flare is operating below, 
at, or above its smokeless capacity), including during a force majeure 
event.
    In reviewing the regulatory text for this proposed action, we 
determined that 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) contains an incorrect 
reference to pressure relief devices for which preventative measures 
must be implemented. The correct reference is paragraph 40 CFR 
63.648(j)(3)(ii) not 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5). We are proposing to correct 
this referencing error.
    We request public comments on the above smokeless capacity work 
practice standard in 40 CFR 63.670(o), including the requirements to 
maintain records of prevention measures in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B) 
and (o)(1)(vi); the requirement to establish a single smokeless design 
capacity in 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(iii)(B); the number and type of 
releases/events that constitute a violation; the phrase ``. . . and the 
flare vent gas flow rate is less than the smokeless design capacity of 
the flare'' in 40 CFR 63.670(c) and (d)''; the proposed correction to 
paragraph 40 CFR 63.670(o)(1)(ii)(B); and other provisions in 40 CFR 
63.670(o)(3) through (7). We also request public comments on the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with these work 
practice standards in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(11)(iv) and (i)(9)(x) through 
(xii).

C. Assessment of Risk From the Refinery Source Categories After 
Implementation of the PRD and Emergency Flaring Work Practice Standards

    The results of our residual risk review for the Petroleum Refinery 
source categories were published in the June 30, 2014, proposal (79 FR 
36934 through 36942), and included assessment of chronic and acute 
inhalation risk, as well as multipathway and environmental risk, to 
inform our decisions regarding acceptability and ample margin of 
safety. The results indicated that the cancer risk to the individual 
most exposed (maximum individual risk or ``MIR'') based on allowable 
HAP emissions is no greater than approximately 100-in-1 million, which 
is the presumptive limit of acceptability, and that the MIR based on 
actual HAP emissions is no greater than approximately 60-in-1 million 
but may be closer to 40-in-1 million. In addition, the maximum chronic 
non-cancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) due to inhalation 
exposures was less than 1. The evaluation of acute non-cancer risks, 
which was conservative, showed acute risks below a level of concern. 
Based on the results of a refined site-specific multipathway analysis 
portion of the risk review, we also concluded that the cancer risk to 
the individual most exposed through ingestion is considerably less than 
100-in-1 million.
    In the final Refinery MACT 1 rule, we established work practice 
standards for PRD releases and emergency flaring events, which under 
the proposed rule would not have been allowed. Thus, because we did not 
consider such non-routine emissions under our risk assessment for the 
proposed rule, we performed a screening assessment of risk associated 
with these emissions for the final rule as discussed in detail in 
``Final Residual Risk Assessment for the Petroleum Refining Source 
Sector'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. Our analysis showed 
that these HAP emissions could increase the MIR based on actual 
emissions by as much as 2-in-1 million, which results in essentially 
the same level of risk as was estimated at proposal. We also estimated 
that chronic non-cancer TOSHIs attributable to the additional exposures 
from non-routine flaring and PRD HAP emissions are well below 1. When 
adding the additional chronic noncancer TOSHI risks from the screening 
analysis with the analysis in the proposal, chronic noncancer TOSHI 
risks still remain below 1. Further, our screening analysis also 
projected that maximum acute exposure to non-routine PRD and flare 
emissions would result in a maximum hazard quotient (HQ) of 14 from 
benzene emissions based on a reference exposure level (REL). Based on 
risk analysis performed for the proposed rule and the screening 
assessment to consider how conclusions from that analysis would be 
affected by the additional non-routine flare and PRD emissions allowed 
under the final rule, we determined that the risk posed after 
implementation of the revisions to the MACT standards is acceptable.
    We request public comments on the screening analysis and the 
conclusions reached based on that analysis in conjunction with the risk 
analysis performed for the proposed rule.

D. Alternative Work Practice Standards for DCUs Employing the Water 
Overflow Design

    In Refinery MACT 1, we finalized MACT standards for DCU decoking

[[Page 71666]]

operations. Existing DCU-affected sources must comply with a 2 psig or 
220 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) limit in the drum overhead line 
determined on a rolling 60-event basis prior to venting to the 
atmosphere, draining, or deheading the coke drum. New DCU affected 
sources must comply with a 2.0 psig or 218[emsp14][deg]F limit in the 
drum overhead line on a per-event, not-to-exceed basis. In the final 
rule, we also finalized an alternative requirement to address DCU with 
water overflow design that we did not propose, where pressure 
monitoring would not be appropriate. As part of these provisions, we 
also included a new requirement in the final rule for DCU with water 
overflow design to hard-pipe the overflow drain water to the receiving 
tank via a submerged fill pipe (pipe below the existing liquid level) 
whenever the overflow water exceeds 220[emsp14][deg]F.
    We request public comments on the alternative work practice 
standard for delayed coking units employing a water overflow design 
provided in 40 CFR 63.657(e).

E. Reduced Frequency of Fenceline Monitoring

    In the December 2015 final rule, we revised Refinery MACT 1 to 
establish a work practice standard requiring refinery owners to monitor 
benzene concentrations around the fenceline or perimeter of the 
refinery. We promulgated new EPA Methods 325A and B which specify 
monitor siting and quantitative sample analysis procedures. The work 
practice is designed to improve the management of fugitive emissions at 
petroleum refineries through the use of passive monitors by requiring 
sources to implement corrective measures if the benzene concentration 
in air attributable to emissions from the refinery exceeds a fenceline 
benzene concentration action level. The work practice requires refinery 
owners to reduce fenceline levels that exceed the concentration action 
level to at or below that level. In the final rule, we included 
provisions that were not proposed that would allow for reduced 
monitoring frequency (after 2 years of continual monitoring) at 
monitoring locations with consistently low fenceline concentrations.
    We request public comments on the provision allowing refineries to 
reduce the frequency of fenceline monitoring at monitoring sites that 
consistently record benzene concentrations below 0.9 micrograms per 
cubic meter, as provided in 40 CFR 63.658(e)(3).

IV. Proposed Technical Clarifications

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to amend provisions related to 
how to address overlapping requirements for equipment leaks that are 
contained in Refinery MACT 1 and in the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa). The Refinery MACT 1 provision at 40 CFR 
63.640(p)(2) currently states that equipment leaks that are subject to 
the provisions in the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS (40 CFR part 60 
subpart GGGa) are only required to comply with the provisions in the 
Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS. However, the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS 
does not include the new work practice standards finalized in the final 
Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 63.648(j) which apply to releases from PRD. 
Certain provisions of 40 CFR 63.648(j) detail a work practice standard 
for the management of releases from PRD. We intended that these new 
work practice standards would be applicable to all PRD at refineries, 
including those PRD subject to the requirements in the Refinery 
Equipment Leaks NSPS. In order to provide clarity and assure that 
stakeholders subject to these provisions fully understand their 
compliance obligations, we are proposing that equipment components that 
are also subject to the provisions of the Refinery Equipment Leak NSPS, 
are required to comply with the provisions specified in the Refinery 
Equipment Leaks NSPS, except for PRDs in organic HAP service, which 
must only comply with the requirements in Refinery MACT 1 at 40 CFR 
63.648(j) for PRDs. We are also amending the introductory text in 40 
CFR 63.648(j) to reference Refinery Equipment Leaks NSPS at 40 CFR 
60.482-4a and amending paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii) of Refinery 
MACT 1 to correct the existing reference to 40 CFR 60.485(b), which 
should refer to 40 CFR 60.485(c) and 40 CFR 60.485a(c).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statues and Executive Orders can 
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CC and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0340. The proposed 
amendments are the result of a clarification that does not affect the 
estimated burden of the existing rule. Specifically, we are proposing 
amendments clarifying that facilities using the equipment leak overlap 
provisions must also comply with the PRD work practice standard in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC. In our burden estimates for the December 1, 
2015, final rule, we assumed that all major source refineries would 
have to comply with the PRD work practice standards. Consequently, the 
burden estimates provided with the December 1, 2015, final rule are 
consistent with the proposed clarifying amendment. Therefore, we have 
not revised the information collection request for the existing rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. The proposed rule consists of a 
clarification which does not change the expected economic impact 
analysis performed for the existing rule. We have, therefore, concluded 
that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly 
regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

[[Page 71667]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effect on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action requests comment on a risk assessment that is 
described in section III. C. of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant energy action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
proposed amendments serve to clarify one aspect of the rule. They do 
not relax the control measures on regulated sources, and, therefore, do 
not change the level of environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart CC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries

0
2. Section 63.640 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.640  Applicability and designation of affected source.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (2) Equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, are required to comply only with the 
provisions specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, except that 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service must only comply with 
the requirements in Sec.  63.648(j).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.648 is amended by revising paragraphs (j) introductory 
text and (j)(2)(i) through (iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.648  Equipment leak standards.

* * * * *
    (j) Except as specified in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure relief devices, 
such as relief valves or rupture disks, in organic HAP gas or vapor 
service instead of the pressure relief device requirements of Sec.  
60.482-4 of this chapter, Sec.  60.482-4a of this chapter, or Sec.  
63.165, as applicable. Except as specified in paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) 
of this section, the owner or operator must also comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section for all 
pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  
60.485(c) of this chapter, Sec.  60.485a(c) of this chapter, or Sec.  
63.180(c), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar days after the 
pressure relief device returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service 
following a pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device 
is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
    (ii) If the pressure relief device includes a rupture disk, either 
comply with the requirements in paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section 
(not replacing the rupture disk) or install a replacement disk as soon 
as practicable after a pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar 
days after the pressure release. The owner or operator must conduct 
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.  60.485(c) of this chapter, 
Sec.  60.485a(c) of this chapter, or Sec.  63.180(c), as applicable, no 
later than 5 calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to 
organic HAP gas or vapor service following a pressure release to verify 
that the pressure relief device is operating with an instrument reading 
of less than 500 ppm.
    (iii) If the pressure relief device consists only of a rupture 
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a 
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure 
release. The owner or operator may not initiate startup of the 
equipment served by the rupture disk until the rupture disc is 
replaced. The owner or operator must conduct instrument monitoring, as 
specified in Sec.  60.485(c) of this chapter, Sec.  60.485a(c) of this 
chapter, or Sec.  63.180(c), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar 
days after the pressure relief device returns to organic HAP gas or 
vapor service following a pressure release to verify that the pressure 
relief device is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 
ppm.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.670 is amended by revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii)(B) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.670  Requirements for flare control devices.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Implementation of prevention measures listed for pressure 
relief devices in Sec.  63.648(j)(3)(ii) for each pressure relief valve 
that can discharge to the flare.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25162 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P