### 1 PROPOSED REVISION TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO MEET THE REQUREMENTS OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SET FORTH BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT UNDER THE 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS

August 15, 2015 Public Notice

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AIR MANAGEMENT SERVICES

COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT

### 2 INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the City of Philadelphia Departme nt of Public Health, Air Management Services (AMS) proposed changes to the Phil adelphia portio n of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy commitments made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). See EPA Conditional Approval of Philadelphia’s 1997 8-hour ozone Reasonable Availabl e Control Technology (RACT) demonstration, 78 FR 75902 (December 13, 2013); 44 Pa.B. 5975. Specifically, AMS committed to make source specific RACT determinations for certain ma jor sources of VOC and/or NOx located in Philadelphia, and to certify that certain othe r source-specific RACT controls that were previously approved under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to adequately represent RACT under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Id.

On August 15, 2015, AMS published notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin announcing the availability of further revisions to the SIP, and certain underlying Plan Approvals, to meet RACT requirements se t forth by the Clean Air Act under the 1997 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS. 45 Pa.B. 4781.

A public hearing on these proposed acti ons was held on September 17, 2015, and written comments were taken until September 30, 2015. Comments received on these further revisions and related underlying plan approvals are discussed, and responded to therein.

### 3 LIST OF COMMENTORS

Submitted Written Comments

1. Diana Esher Director, Air Protection Divisi on, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (EPA)

2. Francis Steitz Director, Division of Air Qualit y, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

3. Joseph Minott, (Executive Director), Ben Hartung, (Staff Attorney) Clean Air Council

Testimony at Public Hearing

4. Elizabeth Arnold E.D.G.E.

5. Ann Dixon Protecting Our Waters

6. Peter Winslow Board Member Pennsylvania Interfaith Power and Light

7. Susan Saxe Green Justice Philly

8. W. Francis Elling Society of Friends Philadelphia Meeting/Unity Friends Meeting

9. Tamara Clements Protecting Our Waters

10. Robert Monk Citizen

11. Matt Walker Community Outreach Director Clean Air Council

### 4 12. Dr. Marta Guttenberg Member Clean Air Council

13. Ron Whyte Green Justice Philly

14. Ben Hartung Staff Attorney Clean Air Council

15. Dr. Poune Saberi Physicians for Social Responsibility

16. Maxine McCleary Action United

### 5 WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1. Written Comments Submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

A. EPA Comments Pertaining to Philade lphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC, Philadelphia Refi nery (PLID 1501), 3144 Passyunk Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19145

 “AMS should only consider Federally (sic) enforceable emission rates in estimating potential-to-emit (PTE) for the emissions sources evaluated subject to RACT. The nitrogen oxides (NOX) PTE for 868 FCCU [at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) facility] is base d on an emissions rate of 50 part per million volumetric dry (ppmvd), at 0 per cent (%) oxygen (O2) on a 7-day rolling average. AMS indicates that this lim it was proposed by PES in February 2015 in order to comply with a Federal Consen t Decree between Sunoco, Inc. and EPA, several states, and the City of Philadelphia (Civil Action No.05-02866).

o Please clarify if this limit is Federa lly (sic) enforceable at this time.

o In addition, the proposed RACT tec hnical memo provides two different proposed NOX emissions rates as a result of the Consent Decree for the 868 FCCU. Page 15 of the RACT memo indicates that the proposed NOX emissions limit for 868 FCCU is 50 pp mvd, at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average, whereas page 16 indicates that it is 100 ppmvd, at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average. As noted above, the cost-effectiveness calculations provided by AMS for evaluating NOx controls for this unit are based on the 50 ppmvd NOX limit. Although the proposed RACT memo does not support the 100 ppmvd NOX limit, the limit is being proposed as RACT for the 868 FCCU. AMS must clarify which is the proposed limit.”

AMS Response: As required by federal consent decree in U.S. Et. Al., v. Sunoco

, Civil Action No. 05-02866 (E.D. Pa.) (Consent Decree ), the operator of the PES facility conducted stack tests in the 868 FCCU w ith low NOx combustion promoter, and subsequently proposed emission limits of 100 ppmvd and 50 ppmvd NOx at 0% oxygen
per 7-day and 365-day rolling averages respectively. See , e.g. 2 nd 

### Amendment to the Consent Decree at Para. 10 (Entered September 1, 2011); 868 Low NOx CO Combustion Promoter Study, (Feb. 2013). Both of these NOx emission limits are federally enforceable under the Consent Decree. Id

. AMS is proposing that 1) 130.2 tons NOx per 365 day rolling period, and 2) 100 ppmvd or ppmdv 0% per 7-day rolling average (same as the federally enforceable 100 ppmvd NOx limit) as RACT. See 01501 RACT Plan Approval, Condition E. AMS concedes that the 130.2 tons NOx per 365-day rolling average limit is not currently federally enforceable. However, this limit was derived from the federally enforceable 47,500 barrels per day on a rolling 365-day average condition found in AMS Plan Approval No. 00184 (Dated March 22, 2002) and the 50 ppmvd NOx at 0% oxygen per 7-day rolling average proposed pursuant to the Consent Decree. The 130.2 tons NOx per 365-day

### 6 rolling average limit will, of course, become federally enforceable by the time the proposed SIP Revision is submitted to EPA for approval. See e.g. 45 Pa.B. 4781 (August 15, 2015).

Note: The reference to a “50 ppmvd . . . [o r ppmdv] @ 0% oxygen” on page 15 of the 1501 RACT Technical Memo pertaining to the 868 FCCU did not include a reference to the applicable averaging period (e.g. 365-day rolling averaging period). This omission has been corrected.

 “In table 7 of the proposed RACT tec hnical memo, AMS lists the following NOX limits for [PES’s] 1232 FCCU: 40 ppmvd at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average and a 208.28 tons per year, on a 365 day rolling average. However, on Page 16 AMS proposes RACT for 1232 FCCU to be the 30 ppmvd at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average as well as the tons per year limit. AMS also proposed the 30 ppmvd as a RACT limit in its RACT Plan Approval. According to the facility’s Title V Permit, the applicable shorter-ter m limit should be 30 ppmvd at 0% O2 on a 7-day rolling average. EPA requests AM S to correct what appears to be a typographical error in Table 7 of the RACT memo.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the 1501 RACT Technical Memo and made the recommended correction. See Final 01501 RACT Technical Memo at page 16, table 7.

 “AMS indicates that the RACT require ments in 25 PA Code 129.58 supersede the case-by-case RACT requirements approved into the SIP for the [PES] facility’s fugitive emissions of volatile organic compound (VOC). EPA recognizes that 25 PA Code 129.58 has been certified as RACT for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to satisfy the Control Technology Guidelin e (CTG) requirements for controlling VOC fugitive emissions from petroleum refinery equipment. See 78 FR 75902, December 13, 2014. For further clarificati on and to avoid any anti-backsliding issues, EPA recommends AMS to replace the existing case-by-case requirements in the RACT Plan Approval with a condition requiring PES VOC fugitive emissions to comply with 25 PA Code 129.58.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 1501 RACT Plan Approval and made the recommended change. Compliance with 25 Pa. Code § 129.58 is now incorporated in Condition 2.K of the Final 1501 RACT Plan Approval.

B. EPA Comments Pertaining to Kind er Morgan Liquid Terminals, LLC Philadelphia Terminal (PLID 05003), 3300 North Delaware Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19134

 “In the proposed RACT technical memo [pertaining to Kinder Morgan’s (KM) facility], AMS explains that the tank car /truck loading operati ons are subject to different RACT requirements when pro cessing organic liquids with different vapor pressure. Loading of organic materi als with Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of 4.0 pounds per square inch (psi) or greater are subject to the RACT requirements

### 7 of 25 PA Code 129.59, which provides for control of VOC emissions by operation of a vapor collection and dis posal system. KM operates a thermal oxidizer for loading of liquids with RVP of 4.0 psi or greater to comply with 25 PA Code 129.59. In contrast, to avoid th e control requirement of 25 PA Code 129.59 any loading position not connected to the control (i .e., uncontrolled loading position) is restricted to process liquids with RV P of less than 4.0 psi. As indicated in the proposed SIP revision, th ere is a limited number of positions at the tank car/truck loading ope rations that are currently connected to the existing thermal oxidizer and are therefore allowe d to process liquids with RVP greater than or equal to 4.0 psi. These positions are identified per loading rack in the RACT memo, but not in the proposed RACT Plan Approval. EPA strongly recommends identifying in the RACT Pl an Approval the loading positions that are connected to the existing control, to ensure practical enforceability of the proposed requirements.”

AMS Response: The conditions pertaining to the c ontrol of VOC emissions from tank car/truck loading operations the Kinder Mo rgan facility in the proposed 05003 RACT Plan Approval are practically en forceable as proposed. See Final 05003 RACT Plan Approval Conditions 2, 3, 5, and 6. AMS will be able to determine whether emission controls were required during tank car / tank loading at any given loading position by referring to records of the products loaded, and their respective vapor pressures. Id. at Condition 6.

 “Kinder Morgan is currently required to control VOC emissions from marine vessel cumene loading by operation of a marine vapor control unit (MVCU). AMS indicates that the facility operates the MVCU to control cumene emissions, an organic chemical that is both a VOC and a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), with the purpose of ensuring compliance with a facility-wide HAP emissions limit. AMS also indicates that the facility has a contract with a customer that purchased the MVCU which obligates KM to opera te the unit when loading cumene. AMS first states that “the Permittee is contract ually obligated to have the Marine Vapor Combustion Unit available for the customer who paid for it,” but then states that “the facility is contract ually obligated to use the MVCU for cumene loading only.” AMS must clarify the contractual obl igations between the facility and the client regarding the ownership and use of the existing control, in order to properly evaluate whether the existing MVCU can be used for controlling VOC emissions from loading other non-cumene organic chemicals.

 “Regardless of AMS previous statements regarding the contractual agreements of the existing MVCU [at Kinder Morgan’s facility], AMS has evaluated for RACT purposes the operation of the existing control for VOC emissions from noncumene marine loading. AMS has determined that the MVCU is technically feasible only for controlling VOC emissions from loading non-cumene organic liquids with vapor pressures of less than 0.4psi, since the control was designed to handle a maximum vapor pressure of 0.4 psia. Then, AMS concluded that the existing MVCU is economically unreasonabl e without further ju stification. In

### 8 order to support this dete rmination, AMS must evaluate annual incremental costs for operating the existing MVCU for c ontrolling VOC emissions from loading any organic liquids with va por pressures under 0.4 psi.”

AMS Response: As in indicated in Section B.4. a.(1)(b) of the 05003 RACT Technical Memo as revised, only one customer curr ently marine loads cumene at the Kinder Morgan facility. Kinder Morg an is contractually bound to pr ovide exclusive use of the existing Marine Vapor Control Unit (MVCU) to this customer for the marine loading of cumene. See Final 05003 RACT Technica l Memo at Pg 26. See also Affidavit of Kinder Morgan Commercial Director Mathew Cardillo, Dated January 22, 2016 included as Attachment G to the Final 05003 RACT Technical Memo. Accordingly, for the purposes of 1998 8-Hour Ozone RACT the use of the MV CU to control emissi ons at the facility associated with the marine loading of VOCs with vapor pressures < 0.4 psi generally is technically infeasible.

 “AMS indicates that the actual emissions of VOC from KM’s marine loading operations were approximately 25 t py during 2012 and 2013. The actual VOC emissions from marine loading operations are significantly less (more than half) than the NOx (sic) limit of 59 tpy being proposed as RACT for the marine loading operations. In light of this information alone, EPA believes that the 59 tpy does no (sic) longer represent a RA CT level of control for KM’s marine loading operations. AMS should provide additional in formation to justify this annual NOx (sic) emissions limit as RACT. EPA recomm ends to further evaluate historical emissions data to determine the highest annual emissions level produced by the facility’s loading operations in order to propose a more appropriate RACT limit for marine loading operations.”

AMS Response: The 59 tons per 12 month rollin g average VOC emissions limit for marine loading activities originated from th e 1-Hour RACT Plan Approval for the Kinder Morgan facility that was previously SIP’d in 2001. See e.g. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NOx RACT Determinations, 66 Fed. Reg. 43502 (August 20, 2001) . This emission limit was used as a restrictive PTE when evaluating the cost eff ectiveness of technically feasible emissions controls for marine loading operations pursu ant to a case by case RACT analysis for the Kinder Morgan facility under the 19 97 8-Hour Ozone Standard. See e.g. Final 05003 RACT Technical Memo at pgs. 23, 27-29. As indicated in the Technical Memo, the emissions reductions anticipated from the app lication of a technically feasible control, thermal oxidation, was not cost effective. Id. Although no controls were required pursuant to this analysis, Kinder Morgan has since agreed to take an emission limit of 51 tons of VOC per 12 month rolling aver age for marine loading operations. Id . See also Final RACT 05003 Plan Approval Condition 3.C. Note, the cost / per ton VOC reduction, assuming a baseline of 51 tons VOC as opposed to 59 tons VOC before control, would still exceed the $5,500 / per ton VOC reduced threshold established by PADEP.

The approximate 25 tons per year of VOCs emitted in 2012 and 2013 notwithstanding, the combined emissions of all organic materi als from marine loading operations at the

### 9 Kinder Morgan facility ranged between 37.9 tons to 55.4 tons from 2010-2014. Organic materials that are not considered VOCs by EPA currently make up a substantial fraction of these materials. Total VOC emissions at the Kinder Morgan facility may increase substantially if the fraction non-VOC organic ma terials decreases in response to customer demand. VOC emissions may also increase si gnificantly if the main VOC product, fuel grade ethanol (RVP of 2.3 psi) were replaced by a VOC material with a RVP closer to the allowable limit of 4.0 psi.

 “AMS indicates that the RACT requireme nts in AMR V Section XIII supersede the case-by-case RACT requirements appr oved into the SIP for the [Kinder Morgan] facility’s fugitive VOC emissi ons. EPA recognizes that AMR V Section XIII has been certified as RACT for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to satisfy CTG requirements for controlling VOC fugitive emissions from gasoline tank trucks and vapor collection systems. See 78 FR 75902, December 13, 2014. For further clarification and to avoid any anti-bac ksliding issues, EPA recommends AMS to replace the existing case-by-case requiremen ts in the RACT Plan Approval with a permit condition requiring PES VOC fugitiv e emissions to comply with AMR V Section XIII.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05003 RACT Plan Approval and made the recommended changes. See Final 05003 RACT Plan Approval at Condition 3.D.

C. EPA Comments Pertaining to Plains Product Terminals, LLC (PLID 05013), 3400 S 67th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19153

 “In Page 2 of the proposed RACT techni cal memo [for Plains Product Terminals facility], AMS explains that the water treatment plant and barge cleaning plant, which were existing VOC sources at the time of the 1-hour ozone RACT determination, have shut down. The SI P-approved RACT Plan Approval for Maritank also identified the truck loading at recovery tanks as a VOC source and described this activity as loading of resi dual material recovered from the cleaning plant into the trucks. EPA requests AMS to clarify if the truck loading operations in the recovery tanks are currently in operation, since the cleaning plant has shut down.”

AMS Response: As noted in the 05013 RACT Technica l Memo pertaining to the Plains Product Terminals facility as revised, the North Terminal operates two (2), 8,814 recovery tanks that are used to store No. 2 and No. 6 Oil from a historic, ground water remediation project. VOC emissi ons arise from the transfer of recovered oil stored in the two (2) recovery tanks, as oppos ed to residual material from the cleaning plant, into trucks. AMS has revised 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pages 4-5 to clarify this.

 “AMS incorrectly indicates that the lo ading at the [Plains Product Terminals facility] recovery tanks, originally lo cated in Maritank, is subject to the requirements of 25 Pa Code 129.60 pertaini ng to bulk gasoline plants as 1-hour

### 10 ozone RACT. However, the loading at th e recovery tanks is subject to case-bycase requirements under 25 Pa Code 129.91- 94, as approved in the RACT Plan Approval (PA-51-5013) dated December 28, 1995 and into the Pennsylvania SIP under the facility’s former name (66 FR 54947, October 31, 2001).

o The following are the applicable source-specific RACT requirements: Condition 2.E “The facility will connect its present vapor collection system to its 5 recovery tanks in order to reco ver vapor from the organic material loading of trucks” and Condition 3.A “T he facility will connect its vapor recovery system to its 5 recovery tanks by May 15, 1995.” These requirements, as currently worded, are not limited to gasoline loading, and thus shall not be suspended, as suggest ed by AMS, when the facility ceased loading gasoline or similar materials (i .e., organic liquids with RVP greater than or equal to 4.0 psi, as de fined under Pennsylvania SIP).”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo and revised its analysis as it re lates to the two (2) recovery tanks in question. The combined VOC PTE for uncontrolled recovery tank tr uck loading operations, assuming a worstcase annual throughput from the loading of recovered No. 2 Oil, the highest VOC emitting material, calculated pursuant to the loading loss equation in Section 5.2 of AP42 is 1.2 lbs / year. This is far lower than the combined, 400 lbs / year VOC PTE used in the 1-Hour RACT analysis for truck loading of recovered solvents fr om five (5) recovery tanks with a functioning vapor recovery sy stem. Accordingly, VOC emissions from current truck loading operations at the tw o (2) recovery tanks at the Plain Product Terminals facility absent any controls are de minimis, and do not represent an increase in VOC emissions. Maintaining the vapor recovery system for recovery tank truck loading operations has negligible environmental bene fits, and is not economi cally reasonable. See Final 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pgs 4-5.

 “AMS also incorrectly indicat es that the five recovery tanks [at the Plains Product Terminals facility] “were identified in a 1999 RACT plan (approval).” As explained earlier, the five recovery ta nks were addressed in the Maritank RACT Plan Approval issued in 1995 and a pproved into the SIP in 2001.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo and made the recommended changes. See Final 05013 RACT Tec hnical Memo at pg. 7.

 “AMS indicates that the truck loadin g operations at both North and South Terminals are subject to re strictions on distillate lo ading usage on a rolling 12- month basis. AMS must provi de evidence that these restrictions are federally enforceable by citing to the appr opriate permit or regulation.”

AMS Response: The Plains Product Terminal facil ity, North Terminal truck loading capacity originated from a Title V/State Op erating Permit application filed by the then owner / operator of the facility, Maritank, back in 1997. The South Terminal limit is in

### 11 Title V/State Operating Permit No. V10-025. Th ese references have been added to the Final 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pg. 7.

 “AMS has proposed for the marine loading a RACT emissions limit of 6.6 tons per year of VOC [for the Plains Product Terminals (PTT) facility]. The proposed limit relies on a VOC emissions factor of 2.6 pounds per 1000 gallons estimated for number 2 fuel oil, which AMS indi cates is based on EPA’s methodology for loading losses provided in Chapter 5 of AP-42 Manual. EPA requests that AMS indicates the specific methodology and any assumptions used for evaluating the emissions factor, in addition to providi ng the capacity of the marine loading operations at PPT.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo and has added additional details pertaining to th e derivation of the proposed marine loading VOC limit. See Final 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pg. 5.

Note: The listed VOC emission factor of 2.6 lb s /1000 gallons initially referenced in the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo wa s incorrect. The 05013 RACT Technical Memo, as revised, now provides the correct VOC emissions factor of 0.012 lbs / 1000 gallons loaded. Note, with the corrected emissions factor, the VOC PTE for marine loading at the facility remains 6.6 tons / year. The proposed RACT VOC emission limit of 6.6 tons / 12 month rolling period for marine loading operations at the facility remains unchanged.

 “In the first page of the proposed RACT t echnical memo [pertaining to the Plains Product Terminals facility], AMS lists a total of 43 storage tanks for petroleum/organic products described by location on the facility and storage capacity.

 AMS did not evaluate the 7 storage tanks with capacities less than or equal to 40,000 gallons located in North Terminal [of the Plains Product Terminals facility].

 EPA requests that AMS provide the follo wing information for each tank [at the Plains Product Terminals facility]: Un it identification number, maximum storage capacity, location in the facility, vapor pr essure under storage conditions, type of roof, and detailed description of th e applicable RACT requirement.

 AMS identified 23 storage tanks [at Plains Product Terminals facility] each with a capacity of less than 4,725,000 gallons and has determined each tank to be de minimis source for RACT. AMS must explai n why these tanks are not subject to the RACT control requirements of 25 Pa Code 129.56, as each of their capacities exceed 40,00 gallons.”

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo and has added the requested information pe rtaining to the storage tanks. See Final 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pgs. 1-2. Additi onal revisions to the 05013 RACT Technical Memo have been made to clarify other storag e tank requirements. In particular, five (5) of the seven (7) storage tanks with capacities less than or equal to 40,000 gallons at North

### 12 Terminal have been shut down and are rem oved from the memo. The other two (2) tanks are recovery tanks used to store materials with vapor pressures < 1.5 psia. These storage tanks, collectively have been determined de minimis sources, as described on pg. 7 of the 05013 RACT Technical Memo as revised. Simila rly, the twenty three (23) storage tanks with a capacity < 4,725,000 gallons are only used to store materials w ith a vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or less. Accordingly, the requi rements of 25 Pa. Code § 129.56, which pertain to the storage of VOCs with a vapor pressu re > 1.5 psia, do not a pply to these twenty three (23) tanks.

2. Written Comments Submitted by New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

 “[NJDEP urges AMS to adopt lower NOx emission limits as RACT for certain emission sources.] Specifically, New Jersey’s NO x 

### RACT limits for No. 6 fuel oil-fired boilers and No. 2 fuel oil-fired simple cycle turbines that serve electric generating units are substantially lowe r than the corresponding AMS’ proposed source-specific emission limits for:

 two No. 6 oil-fired boilers at Ve olia – Schuylkill Station; and

 two No. 2 oil-fired simple-cycle turb ines at Exelon – Richmond Station.

Comparison of NJ NO x 

### RACT Emission Limits and AMS Proposed Source-Specific NO x 

### RACT Emission Limits for Existing Units that Generate Electricity

1. No. 6 Fuel Oil-Fired Boilers

 NJ – any boilers serving electric generating units

 Limit 0.20 lb/MMBtu 1,2 

### (daily limit during ozone season)

 Philly – Veolia (Schuylkill Station), (1) 795 MMBtu/hr boiler (uncontrolled) and (1) 761 MMBtu/hr boiler (Low NO x 

### Burners)

 Limits 0.34 lb/MMBtu, and 0.41 lb/MMBtu, respectively
2. No. 2 Fuel Oil-Fired Simple Cycle Turbines

 NJ – 15 MW or greater

 Limit 0.16 lb/MMBtu 1,3 

### (high electric demand day unit)

 Philly – Exelon (Richmond Station), (2) 66 MW simple-cycle CTs (uncontrolled)

Limit 0.68 lb/MMBtu each, 15% capacity factor

1 

### On and after May 1, 2015

### 13 2 

### Conversion from 2.00 lb/MWh
3 

### Conversion from 1.60 lb/MWh”

AMS Response: AMS performed a case by case RA CT analysis, as required by 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.91-94, for the referenced sources at the Veolia Schuylkill Station and Exelon Richmond Station facilities. No add itional controls for these sources were found to be both cost effective and technically feasible. AMS notes that the uncontrolled sources at the respective facilities have signi ficant capacity restrictions. Please see the discussion in the respective RACT T echnical Memos, specifically 04903 RACT Technical Memo for Exelon Richmond Sta tion and 04942 RACT Technical Memo for Veolia Schuylkill Statio n for further details.

3. Written Comments Submitted by Clean Air Council

 “[The installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Ultra-low NO x 

### Burners (ULNB) should be designated as RACT controls for all heaters and boilers at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) facility.] [T]hese technologies should be installed . . . , unless it is technically im possible for PES to operate SCR or ULNB on the unit. SCR, ULNB, or ideally SCR in tandem with ULNB, should be installed on all heaters and boilers at th e refinery. PES has openly stated that these technologies are effective, the facility has already installed these systems piecemeal on its heaters and boilers in the past, and the facility’s close proximity to the surrounding community a nd location in an urban area that is currently in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard warrants further reduction of these NO x 

### emissions.”

AMS Response: It should be noted that commenter’ s contention that the PES facility is “located in an urban area that is currently in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard” is erroneous. The PES facili ty in question is located w ithin the City and County of Philadelphia. Effective April 25, 2012, EPA classi fied Philadelphia as being in attainment with the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard or NAAQS. See 77 Fed. Reg. 17341 (March 26, 2012).

Under Pennsylvania RACT regulations, speci fically 25 Pa § 129.92(b)(1)-(4), AMS must evaluate both the cost effectiveness and t echnical feasibility of proposed emission controls as part of the case-by-case RACT an alysis. Installation of technically feasibly emissions controls may not be deemed to be RA CT for a specific source if such controls are not also cost effective. As explained in detail in the 1501 RA CT Plan Approval for the PES facility, as revised, installation of ULNB and/or SCR as additional controls to existing heaters and boilers wa s found to be either technica lly infeasible or not cost effective.

 “[AMS should evaluate whether installation of additional technically feasible emissions controls, specifically ULNB fo r Girard Point Unit Heater 137 F-1, and Point Breeze Unit Heaters 210-13H1 and 860-2H4 at the PES facility, would be

### 14 cost effective.] [I]n making its cost -effectiveness determination . . . [AMS] should not use a “rigid ‘benchmark’ to reject consideration of controls.”

AMS Response: As local air pollution control agen cy with delegated authority to implement an air pollution control program th at “at a minimum, meets the requirements of the . . . [Pennsylvania Air Pollution Contro l Act], the Clean Air Act,” AMS is required to follow Pennsylvania RACT regulations and policies adopted by the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Department of Envir onmental Protection (PADEP) used a NOx emission cost-effectiveness upper-bound of $2,800 per ton NOx controlled for case by case RACT determinations. Installation of ULNB for the Girard Point Unit Heater 137 F-1, and Point Breeze Unit Heaters 210-13H1 and 860-2H4 was found to be not cost effective because the cost of installing ULNB at each of the units, per ton of expected NOx reduction, exceeded $2,800.

Details of the cost-effectiveness calculations for possible emission controls, such as SCR and ULNB, for each case-by-case source we re referenced in 01501 RACT Technical Memo and was included in the RACT doc umentation. Note, emissions reduction potential was also evaluated for each case by case source.

 “[Clean Air Council believes that techni cal infeasibility determinations for various additional controls for PES H eaters Unit 210-13H1; Unit 860-2H2; Unit 860-2H3; Unit 860-2H4; Unit 860-2H5; Unit 860-2H7; Unit 864-PH1; Unit 864- PH11; Unit 864-PH12 are insufficient. ] [ The] Council requests more information be provided about the cost of retrofitting the PES facility to physically accommodate SCR and ULNB. PE S could provide blueprints of the units to directly demonstrate the physica l infeasibility. PES could also provide information about how they determined the threshold for a “major re-design” because that finding is the only support gi ven for why Flue Gas Recirculation is infeasible. Additionally, PES could provi de information about the technical details of the re-design a nd how much such a re-design or expansion of the facility to fit the physical footprint of these control technol ogies would cost.”

AMS Response: Given this comment, AMS has conducted a further investigation and determined that the installation of additiona l NOx emissions controls for the referenced heaters and boilers of Units 210, 860, and 864 at the facility remain either technically infeasible or were not cost effective. This investigation include d, but not limited to, an onsite inspection of the facili ty, conducted on October 15, 2015, and a review of the blue prints of the respective process units.

Specifically, AMS determined that there is insufficient room around heaters at Units 210, 860 and 864 to install SCR or FGR emission c ontrols. Such additional controls would take up space around the respective units needed to bring in equipment to conduct routine maintenance activities, or to otherwise respond to an emergency, such as a fire, at each of the respective Units. Similarly, installati on of ULNB and LNB burners in Units 860- 2H2, Unit 860-2H3, Unit 860-2H5, and Unit 860-2H7 is technically infeasible because

### 15 the length of the flame produced by appropr iately sized ULNB and LNB burners would be too long to fit safely within the fire boxes of the heaters in compliance with the appropriate industrial and e ngineering standards.

Finally, installation of ULNB or LNB with Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) on Units 210-13H1, 860-2H4, 864-PH1, 864-PH11, a nd 864-PH12 is technically feasible. However, the installation of such controls is not cost effective; the cost per ton NOx reduced by installing such controls exceeded the cost thresholds established by the Commonwealth by a significant margin. Further discussion pe rtaining to these determinations can be found in the Final 01501 RACT Technical Memo. See Final 01501 RACT Technical Memo at pgs. 10-12. C opies of the relevant blueprints and technical drawings have been added as Attachment B to the same.

Testimony at Public Hearing

Note: The testimony of many of the commenters at the public hearing contain similar or otherwise identical comments. Accordingl y, AMS has summarized these comments for brevity.

General Comments (Summarized) and Responses

 The Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) f acility contains old equipment, and workers at the facility have been pressured to operate the facility in an unsafe manner. The PES facility should be upda ted to the best technology available considering that it is a large source of air pollution that can negatively affect public health and is located in a densely populated area.

AMS Response: AMS recognizes concern about ai r pollution generated by various activities at the PES facility. Nonetheless, in proposing revisions to the SIP and attendant RACT Plan Approvals, AMS must consider the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of various emissions controls. See e.g. 25 Pa § 129.92(b)(1)-(4). AMS cannot require the installation of emissions contro ls to fulfill RACT requirements if such controls are not technically feas ible and cost effective. Id.

 The proposed SIP revisions and attenda nt RACT Plan Approval appear to constitute a relaxation of air pollution requirements for the PES facility.

AMS Response: The proposed SIP revision and atte ndant RACT Plan Approval for the PES facility does not relax any existing air pollution requirements.

 Additional supporting informati on is needed to justify ch anges to the SIP and the RACT Plan approval as it applies to the PES facility. The supporting documents as provided are difficult to understand and are unclear.

AMS Response: As noted in the various responses to comment included in this document, where necessary AMS has gone back to revise 01501 RACT Technical Memo

### 16 and made changes to the proposed RACT Plan Approval for the PES facility to correct for identified errors and other deficienci es. AMS acknowledges that much of the information contained in the 01501 RACT Technical Memo, and supporting documents can be difficult to understand. AMS will investigate avenues for making such information more accessible.

 The PES refinery has been cited multiple s times for air pollution violations. PES’s current permits should be revoked, a nd no new permits should be issued.

AMS Response: The SIP revisions, and attendant RACT Plan Approvals, are being proposed by AMS to satisfy requirements es tablished by EPA. In particular, AMS committed to submit SIP revisions to EPA that included RACT determinations for the PES facility. See 78 FR 75902 (December 13, 2015). It should be noted that PES settled its most recent air pollution violations on October 19, 2015. PES, as of this writing, does not have any open air pollution violations.

Specific Comments Raised by Clean Air Council and Responses

 “Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) RACT update document lists the NOx emission control technology of low-NOx bur ners and flue gas recirculation as achieving 55 percent efficiency. EPA st andards for performance for petroleum refineries states that a combination of low-NOx burners and flue gas recirculation can achieve efficiency between 50 and 72 percent. Therefore, PES may have underestimated the efficiency of this NOx control technology, which could have led to the incorrect equipmen t being declared as RACT.”

AMS Response: AMS has determined that implemen ting low-NOx burners and flue gas recirculation for the referenced sources at PE S would not be cost effective. All cost effectiveness evaluations for low-NOx burners with flue gas recirculation were over $7,000 per ton of NOx removed, assuming 55% cont rol efficiency. The cost per ton NOx removed, assuming a 72% control efficienc y, would only drop to $5,000. This would still exceed the cost effectiveness benchm arks established by th e Commonwealth.

 “For VOC control technology PES's RA CT update states that VOC emission reduction using flares range up to 98 percen t efficiency. PES assumes this level of efficiency despite the fact that flare gas recovery technology is not discussed as an emission reduction option in the RACT update. EPA guidance has found that the average efficiency for refinery flare usua lly only achieves 95 percent destruction efficiency. Why wasn't flar e gas recovery considered as an emission control technology for PES? EPA guidance has also stated that site specific data should be used when calculating flare efficienc y. Was site-specific data used to reach RACT's update assumption of 98 percent flare efficiency?”

AMS Response: AMS Response: The commenters appear to be referencing the stated 98% control efficiency for flares menti oned in the RACT analysis control VOC emissions from marine loading operations at the PES facility. See Final 01501 RACT

### 17 Technical Memo at pg. 21-22. AMS conducted additional research and concluded that 98% VOC destruction / control e fficiency would be expected for such flares generally. However, as explained in the 01501 RACT Technical Memo, use of flares as an additional VOC emissions control for existi ng heaters / boilers, cooling towers, and catalytic cracking units at the facility s ubject to case by case RACT under 25 Pa § 129.92 is not technically feasible. Id. at 20-23.

Using flares to control VOC emissions fr om existing Girard Point and Point Breeze marine / barge loading operations at the PES facility subject to case by case RACT is technically feasible. Id. However, the Girard Point marine / barge loading operation is already equipped with VOC emissions control, a thermal incinerator, that is as effective as any flare. Id. Similarly, adding a flare to the un controlled Point Breeze marine / barge loading operation is also not cost effective. Assuming a 100% control efficiency, each additional ton of VOC emissi ons avoided would have cost over $19,254 dollars per ton – well in excess of the $5,500 / per ton VOC RACT threshold adopted by PADEP.

 “In terms of specific changes listed for pieces of equipment for monitoring processes of PES, the proposal to delete a quarterly leak detection and repair requirements for fugitive emissions b ecause it is covered by 25 PA code 129.58 requires more supporting explanation. Section 129.58 only requires quarterly monitoring for, quote, compressor seals, pi pe line valves in gaseous service and pressure relief valves in gaseous serv ice. What specific language is being removed because PES views it as duplicative. Furthermore from a community's perspective, leak detection and repair is an incredibly important way of reducing pollution that goes into the community.”

AMS Response: AMS has proposed changes to certain PES leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements pursuant to EPA’s recommendations. AMS notes PES will be required to monitor the same universe of sour ces for fugitive emissions, at the same or shorter intervals under 25 Pa. Code § 129.58 requ irements, as is currently required. This is not considered a relaxation of the current LDAR requirements.

 “The RACT cost effect in the summary of PES's RACT update repeatedly lists SCR selective catalytic reduction and selec tive catalytic reduction combined with ultra-low-NOx burners control technology is technically infeasible, often citing that SCR would not physically fit the plot spa ce or that there is not adequate pressure to overcome the SCR pressure drop. More information about the dimensions and pressure drop requirement s of potential SCR systems are needed to verify this claim. SCR's systems have been previously installed in similar facilities at similar firing rates under RACT requirements. Valero and its Delaware City refinery satisfies RA CT requirements using SCR and low-NOx burners as the control technology for its boile rs' refinery fuel gas. At a rate -- the fact that SCR combined with low-NOx burne rs is technically feasible for smaller refineries operating under similar cond ition calls into question why the same technology would not be feasib le for a larger refinery on the eastern seaboard.”

### 18 AMS Response: This comment mirrors the written comments submitted by Clean Air Council. Please see AMS’s response to Clear Air Council’s written comments as addressed above.1 

### Comments Of

Clean Air Council

September 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC AND STANDARD MAIL

Air Management Services Attn: Debra Williams 321 University Avenue, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: Proposed Revision to the State Implem entation Plan to Meet Requirements of Reasonably Available Control Technology Se t Forth by the Clean Air Act Under the 1997 8-hour NAAQS

Dear Ms. Williams,

Clean Air Council (“Council”) submits the following comments to the Philadelphia Department of Health, Air Management Services (“AMS”) on the proposed State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) revision that updat es Philadelphia’s Reasonably Available Control Technology (“RACT”) demonstration for the 19 97 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”).

Clean Air Council is a non-prof it environmental organization headquartered at 135 South 19th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvani a 19103. For almost 50 years, the Council has fought to improve air quality across Pennsylvania. The C ouncil has members throughout the Commonwealth who support its mission to prot ect everyone’s right to breathe clean air.

Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC (“PES”) owns and operates a petroleum refinery at 3144 Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19145. The refinery was previously owned by Sunoco, Inc. (R&M). PES is a major source of oxides of nitrogen (“NO x 

### ”) since the refinery’s potential NO x 

### emissions are greater than 100 tons per year, which is the major source threshold in Philade lphia County applicable to NO x 

### RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. PES is also a major source of vo latile organic compounds (“VOCs”) since the refinery has potential VOC emissions greater than 50 tons per year, which is the major source threshold in Philadelphia County applicable to VOC RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 re quire Philadelphia County to submit SIP revision to the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency (“EPA”) demonstrating that Philadelphia has implemented all necessary RACT cont rols on all major sources of VOCs and NO x 

### . RACT is defined as “the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is ca pable of meeting by the2 

### application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 1



### The proposed changes to PES’s RACT plan approval and the associated proposed revisions to the State Implementation Plan RACT Update are the first upda tes of their kind since the refinery was wholly owned by Sunoco. Cha nges to the RACT are important because if approved they would validate PES’s proposed emissi on controls as compliant with the Clean Air Act.

The purpose of updating PES’s RACT demons tration is to establish new control technology that will result in reduced ambient concentrations of ground-level ozone. Reducing NO x 

### and VOC pollution will help prevent the fo rmation of ground-level ozone. The health benefits associated with reduced ground-leve l ozone pollution are re duced “incidences of hospital admissions for respiratory ailments in cluding asthma” and the improvement of “the quality of life for citizens overall.” 2 

### Children, the elderly, and thos e with respiratory problems stand to benefit the most, but “even healthy i ndividuals may experience increased respiratory ailments and other symptoms” during period of phys ical exertion if exposed to high levels of ground-level ozone. 3



### Operation of the PES refinery negatively imp acts the air quality for all Philadelphians. PES has not been a good neighbor. In deed it chronically exceeds its permit requirements to the detriment of public health. Regulators should revi ew with intense scruti ny anything requested by PES particularly because (1) it is a large facility located in a densely populated area and (2) because of its historic inability to meet its compliance requirements under the Clean Air Act. 4


### Given PES’s consistent status as a High Priority Violator, Ai r Management Services and EPA should require PES to install the mo st protective pollution controls.

II. Timeliness of Submission

EPA required that AMS submit the proposed SIP updates for PES on December 13, 2013, when it conditionally approved Philadelphia Co unty’s 1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration provided in the 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions. 5 

### That conditional approval required AMS to submit the proposed SIP revisions for PES to EPA “no la ter than twelve months from today’s final conditional approval.” 6 

### Based on the original deadline for public comment to which these comments are responding, AMS is more than nine months behind the scheduled due date of 12/13/14 for proposing the final SIP update to Ph iladelphia County’s RACT demonstration. The additional time for analysis afforded to PES b ecause of this delay, in combination with PES’s consistent violation of the Clean Air Act, s hould result in intense scrutiny by AMS of the reasoning and data that PES uses to support its proposed RACT updates in its SIP revision.

1 See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979)
2 Proposed Rulemaking, Environmental Hearing Board. “Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO
x and VOCs”
3 Id.
4 See https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000336994 (EPA ECHO).
5 See 78 FR 75902, 75903 (December 13, 2013)
6 Id.3 

### III. Questions Regarding Proposed Update to the RACT Demonstration

A. Proposed 8-Hour Case-by-Case NO x 

### RACT Requirements

The “NO x 

### RACT Update Summary” (See Table 1-2) shows the “Current NOx RACT Control” versus the “NO x 

### RACT Control Update” for each sour ce that required a case-by-case RACT analysis. The “Current NO x 

### RACT Control” practices are “combustion tuning” (CT), ultra-low NO x 

### burners (ULNB), “good combustion,” or “not applicable,” (N/A) depending on the individual source. There are 30 sources listed in Table 1-2. Eleven (11) of the sources at the plant have CT as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, have CT currently installed, and have CT proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 7 

### Two (2) sources have CT as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, have ULNB currently inst alled, and have UNLB proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 8 

### Two (2) sources have CT as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, have SCR currently installed, and ha ve SCR proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 9 

### Two (2) sources have UNLB as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, have ULNB currently installed, and have ULNB proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 10 

### Three (3) sources have UNLB as the current NO x 

### RACT Control Update, have UNLB & FGR cu rrently installed, and have UNLB & FGR proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 11 

### Five (5) sources have N/A as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, have N/A curren tly installed, and ha ve “good combustion” proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update. 12 

### One (1) source has N/A as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, has SCR currently installed, and has SCR proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 13 

### One (1) source has good combustion as the current NO x 

### RACT Control, has a Low NO x 

### CO Combustion Promoter currently installed, and has Low NO x 

### CO Combustion Promot er proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 14 

### Three (3) sources have N/A as the “current NO x 

### RACT Control,” have ULNB currently installed, and ha ve ULNB proposed as the NO x 

### RACT Control Update. 15



### The control technologies that achieve the greatest emission reductions are Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Ultra-low NO x 

### Burners (ULNB). According to PES’s most recent RACT Cost Effectiveness Update, a combination of ULNB and SCR on the same unit results in 96% control efficiency for NO x 

### emissions, SCR has a control efficiency of 85% on its own, and ULNB ranges from 50% to 86% control efficiency on its own. 16 

### PES agrees that SCR

7 Point Breeze 210-13H1 Heater; Po int Breeze 860-2H2 Heater ; Point Breeze 860-2H3; Point Breeze 860-2H4; Point Breeze 860-2H5; Poin t Breeze 860-2H7; Poin t Breeze 864-PH1; Point Br eeze 864-PH11; Po int Breeze 864- PH12; Girard Point 137 F-1 Heater; Girard Point 137 F-2 Heater
8 Girard Point Unit 137 F-3 Heater; Girard Point Unit 1332 H-2 Heater
9 Girard Point Unit 1332 H-400 Heater; Girard Point 1332 H-401 Heater
10 Girard Point Unit 433 H-1 Heater; Girard Point 1232 B-104 Heater
11 Girard Point #3 Boilerhouse Boiler #37; Girard Point #3 Boilerhouse Boiler #39; Girard Point #3 Boilerhouse Boiler #40
12 Point Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-002; Po int Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-005; Point Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-006; Point Br eeze/Girard Point Diesel-F ired RICE IC-007; Point Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-008
13 Girard Point 1232 FCCU
14 Point Breeze 868 FCCU
15 Point Breeze 870-H01 Heater ; Point Breeze 870-H0 2 Heater; Point Br eeze 859-1H1 Heater
16 PES RACT Cost Effectiveness Update 7-24-154 

### is “the most effective post-combustion NO x 

### control technology.” 17 

### The Council believes that these technologies should be inst alled on each of the case-by-case s ources listed above, unless it is technically impossible for PES to operate S CR or UNLB on the unit. SCR, ULNB, or ideally SCR in tandem with ULNB, should be installed on all heaters and boilers at the refinery. PES has openly stated that these tec hnologies are effective, the fac ility has already installed these systems piecemeal on its heaters and boilers in the past, and the facility’s close proximity to the surrounding community and location in an urban area that is curre ntly in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard warrants further reduction of these NO x 

### emissions.

Although SCR and ULNB are the best emi ssion reducing technologies, PES does not propose one or the other as RACT for every case-by-case source addressed in this SIP update. This is because determining RACT for each un it involves weighing the cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility of each control technology as it relates to individual sources. The following sections address aspects of the PES’s RACT upda te analysis relating to cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility with whic h the Council disagrees or for wh ich the Council would like more information.

B

. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Pr oposed RACT Requirement Updates

By definition, when determining RACT for a source, the cost of installation and operation of control technologies is taken in to account. EPA comments addressing PA DEP’s Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Li mitations (44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014) provide guidance for this RACT update. 18 

### Addressing Pennsylvania’s proposed RACT emission limitations, EPA has stated that it “strongly cauti ons PA DEP not to rigidly apply a benchmark as low as $2,500 per ton to exclude consider ation of technically feasible controls.” 19 

### EPA’s comments also compare Pennsylvania’s proposed RACT cost-effectiveness threshold to New York’s and determined that PA’s cost-eff ectiveness should be similar to New York’s. Specifically, EPA believes that, for a cost-effectiv eness analysis, “a reasonable average could be currently around $3,200 per ton and the upper bound around $5,500 per ton.” 20 

### Therefore, in making its cost-effectiveness determination, PES s hould not use a “rigid ‘benchmark’ to reject consideration of controls.” 21 

### Additionally, EPA has stated that other factors, besides costeffectiveness, should be integrat ed into a RACT analysis; for example, “emission reductions and environmental impacts should be considered.” 22

17 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” (pg. 27)
18 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014] (One Page Summary), ( http://www.irrc.state.pa.us/docs/3052/COMMENTS_PUBLIC/3052%2007-02- 14%20EPA%20REGION%203.pdf )
19 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014] (pg. 12)
20 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014] (One Page Summary)
21 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014](One Page Summary)
22 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014] (pg. 12)5 

### Since EPA believes that an upper bound of cost-effectivenes s should be closer to $5,000 per ton, there appears to be at least three units, Girard Poin t Unit Heater 137 F-1, and Point Breeze Unit Heaters 210-13H1 and 860-2H4, that w ould qualify for ULNB control technology. These units’ proposed NO x 

### Update technology are “combustion tuning.” 23 

### However, PES estimates that the cost-eff ectiveness of ULNB would be $4,331 per ton, $3,151 per ton, and $2,999 per ton for each heater respectively. 24 

### Additionally, PES does not claim that there is any technical infeasibility that w ould prevent installation of ULNB on all three of these heaters. 25


### The Council would like more information on how PES evaluated the cost -effectiveness of SCR and ULNB for case-by-case sources that do not ha ve either SCR or ULNB proposed as the “NO x 

### RACT Control Update.” This request for more a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind the cost-effectivene ss analysis echoes EPA’s J une 27, 2014 comments on proposed amendments to Chapters 121 and 129 relating to “additional RACT requirements for Major Sources of NOx and VOCs.” 26 

### Finally, PES should specifically include the emission reduction potential and environmental impacts of inst alling SCR or UNLB in its cost-effectiveness analysis.

The next section addresses PES’ claims that SCR and ULNB are te chnically infeasible for many of the case-by-case RACT update sources addressed in this proposed SIP update.

C. Control Technology Feasibility Analysis

During a RACT analysis, the available c ontrol technology options are evaluated for technical feasibility. This evaluation “shall be based on physical, chemical and engineering principles.” 27 

### Additionally, “a determinati on of technical infeasibility shall identify technical difficulties which would preclude the successful use of the control option on the affected source.” 28 

### There are nine (9) case-by-case RACT sour ces that have a “summary of technical infeasibilities for NO x 

### Controls.” 29 

### The technologies deemed infeasible for the sources, which are all heaters or process heaters, 30 

### are either only SCR; SCR and Flue Gas Recirculation (“FGR”); or SCR, ULNB, and FGR. SCR wa s deemed infeasible because it “would not physically fit the plot space,” or because “there is not adequate pressure to overcome the SCR pressure drop.” FGR was deemed infeasible beca use it “would not physically fit the plot space,” or because “installation would re quire the installation of mechan ical draft burners, which is a major re-design of the unit.” ULNB were deemed infeasible because its “flames are longer and

23 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” Table 1-2: “NOx RACT Update Summary,” (pg. 6).
24 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LL C, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” “Table 3-5: Case-by-Case NOx RACT Cost Eff ectiveness Based on Potential Emissions”
25 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” “Attachment B: Case-by-Case RACT Cost Effectiveness Analysis,” (pg. 3)
26 EPA Comments on the Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations [44 Pa.B. 2392, April 19, 2014] (pg. 12) (“EPA believes Pennsylvania needs to appr opriately explain its cost-effectiveness calculations)
27 25 Pa. Code § 129.92(b)(2)
28 Id.
29 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” “Attachment B: Case-by-Case RACT Cost Effectiveness An alysis,””NOx RACT Control Cost Effectiveness,” p. 3
30 Unit 210-13H1; Unit 860-2H2; Unit 860-2H3; Unit 860-2H4; Unit 860-2H5; Unit 860-2H7; Unit 864-PH1; Unit 864-PH11; Unit 864-PH126 

### not suitable for this heater” and because “the floo r of the heater is too low to physically allow the installation.”

The reasons provided for deem ing SCR and ULNB infeasible appear to fall under either “physical” or “engineering” principles. PES st ates in its “ranking of NOx control options” explanation that if an internal combustion modification (i.e., SCR or ULNB) was deemed infeasible then “no cost effectiveness calculation was performed.” 31 

### The reasons PES gives for infeasibility of installing S CR and ULNB on the relevant he aters and process heaters are conclusory. PES declares that these control t echnologies would not “phy sically fit” or would require a “major re-design.” No supporting deta ils are provided for these determinations, preventing meaningful revi ew of PES’s decisions.

The Council requests more information be pr ovided about the cost of retrofitting the PES facility to physically accommodate SCR and ULNB . PES could provide blueprints of the units to directly demonstrate the physical infeasibility. PES could also provide information about how they determined the threshold for a “major re-design” because that finding is the only support given for why Flue Gas Recirculation is infeas ible. Additionally, PES could provide information about the technical details of th e re-design and how much such a re-design or expansion of the facility to fit the physical footprint of these control techno logies would cost.

IV. Conclusion

In sum, the Council stresses the importance of holding refineries accountable to the communities they affect and ensuring that robust regulatory oversight is carried out, particularly in areas such as Philadelphia, which is part of the Ozone Transport Region and has been subjected to decades of poor air quality. Phila delphia Energy Solutions should 1) install SCR and/or ULNB on all sources of NOx emissions, re gardless of cost; 2) provide more information about its cost-effectiveness pro cess and calculate cost -effectiveness for processes previously deemed technically infeasible without adequate explanation; 3) provi de more information regarding its determination that SCR and UL NB are infeasible c ontrol technologies for individual case-by-case sources . Air Management Services should not approve the RACT Update to the SIP revision unless more in formation about these conditions is provided.

Sincerely,

__/s/_________ Joseph O. Minott Executive Director Clean Air Council 135 South 19th Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 567-4004 joe_minott@cleanair.org

31 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” Section 3.1.5: Combustion Sources: Ranking of NOx Control Options,” (pg. 27).7 

### __/s/_________ Ben Hartung Staff Attorney Clean Air Council 135 South 19th Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 567-4004 bhartung@cleanair.orgUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**AGENC~** REGION III • 1650 Arch street

. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029



## SEP 15 2015

Ms. Debra Williams Air Management Services Department of Public Health City of Philadelphia 321 University Avenue, 2 nd Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Dear Ms. Williams:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed "Reasonably A tailable Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)," published on August

### 1~, 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments are provided in the enclosure to this
letter. 

### I

I We look forward to working with you to resolve these comments. Please dq not hesitate

to contact me, or have your staff person contact Ms. Emlyn Velez-Rosa of my stam at (215) 814­ 2038, for any questions pertaining to these comments.

.

Sincerely, 

### I

# :J)\CLVlO_~ Diana Esher,

. Director 

### I
Air Protection Division,

Enclosure

cc: Thomas Huynh, Director Thomas Hanlon, Chief, Facilities Permitting Edward Wiener, Chief, Source Registration Henry Kim, Chief, Program Services



# o Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process

# ~hlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

### Solutions Refinin and Marketin

868 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)

• AMS should only consider Federally enforceable emission rates in

### estimat~' g potentiali to-emit (PTE) for the emissions sources evaluated subject to RACT. The trogen oxides (NOx) PTE for 868 FCCU is based on an emissions rate of 50 part per mill'on volumetric dry (ppmvd), at 0 percent (%) oxygen (02) on a 7-day rolling average. AMS indicates that this limit was proposed by PES in February 2015 in order to comply**w~th** a Federal
Consent Decree between Sunoco, Inc. and EP A, several states, and the Citylof Philadelphia (Civil Action No.05-02866).

. I o Please clarify if this limit is Federally enforceable at this time. •

o In addition, the proposed RACT technical memo provides two

### differe~t proposed
NOx emissions rates as a result of the Consent Decree for the 868 FCtU. Page 15
of the RACT memo indicates that the proposed NOx emissions limit for 868 FCCU
is 50 ppmvd, at 0% 02 on a 7-day rolling average, whereas page 16 inpicates that it is 100 ppmvd, at 0% 02 on a 7-day rolling average. As noted above, tre cost-

. effectiveness calculations provided by AMS for evaluating NOX: contrpls for this

I unit are based on the 50 ppmvd NOx limit. Although the proposed RACT memo does not support the 100 ppmvd NOx limit, the limit is being proposed as RACT
for the 868 FCCU. AMS must clarify which is the proposed limit. I

1232 FCCU

,

• In table 7 of the proposed RACT technical memo, AMS lists the following *Ox limits for 1232 FCCU: 40 ppmvd at 0% 02 on a 7-day rolling average and a**208.2~** tons per
year, on a 365 day**rollin~** average. However, on Page 16 AMS proposes RAtCT for 1232 FCCU to be the 30 ppmvd at 0% 02 on a 7-day rolling average as well as th tons per
year limit. AMS also proposed the 30 ppmvd as a RACT limit in its RACT ,Plan Approval. According to the facility's Title V Permit, the applicable shorter.Jterm limit
should be 30 ppmvd at 0% 02 on a 7-day rolling average. EPA requests At1S to correct what appears to be a typographical error in Table 7 of the RACT memo. I
Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks

• AMS indicates that the RACT requirements in 25 PA Code 129.58 supersedf. the caseby-case RACT requirements approved into the SIP for the facility's fugitive emissions of
volatile organic compound (VOC). EPA recognizes that 25 PA Code 129.5S has been
certified as RACT for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to satisfy the Control Teqhnology
Guideline (CTG) requirements for controlling VOC fugitive emissions fromlpetroleumrefinery equipment. 

### See 78 FR 75902, December 13,2014. For further clarification and

to avoid any anti-backsliding issues, EPA recommends AMS to replace**th~** existing case· by-case requirements in the RACT Plan Approval with a condition reqUirirg PES VOC fugitive emissions to comply with 25 PA Code 129.58. I

Kinder Morgan Liqnids Terminals, LLC- Philadelphia Terminal (KM) (Plant ID- 05003)

Tank Car/Truck Loading Operations •

• In the proposed RACT technical memo, AMS explains that the tank car/t!k loading operations are subject to different RACT requirements when processing 0 anic liquids
with different vapor pressure. Loading of organic materials with Reid vap. r pressure (RVP) of 4.0 pounds per square inch (psi) or greater are subject to the RAq:T requirements of25 PA Code 129.59, which provides for control ofVOC**e~issions** by operation of a vapor collection and disposal system. KM operates a therm oxidizer for loading of liquids with RVP of 4.0 psi or greater to comply with 25 PA Co e 129.59. In
contrast, to avoid the control requirement of25 PA Code 129.59 any loadi g position not connected to the control (Le., uncontrolled loading position) is restricted 

# tJ process liquids with RVP of less than 4.0 psi. As indicated in the proposed SIP

### re~ision, there is

a limited number of positions at the tank car/truck loading operations that!. e currently connected to the existing thermal oxidizer and are therefore allowed to pro ess liquids
with RVP greater than or equal to 4.0 psi. These positions are identified p r loading rack
in the RACT memo, but not in the proposed RACT Plan Approval. EPA 

### s rongly
recommends identifying in the RACT Plan Approval the loading positions Ithat are connected to the existing control, to ensure practical enforceability of the woposed requirements. 

# t

Marine Vessel Loading Operations

• Kinder Morgan is currently required to control VOC emissions from marine vessel

cumene loading by operation of a marine vapor control unit (MVCU). AMS indicates
that the facility operates the MVCU to control cumene emissions, an orgg'c chemical that is both a VOC and a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), with the purpose f ensuring compliance with a facility-wide HAP emissions limit. AMS also indicates that the facility has a contract with a customer that purchased the MV CU which ob igates KM to operate the unit when loading cumene. AMS first states that "the Permitte<p is contractually obligated to have the Marine Vapor Combustion Unit available for the

customer who paid for it," but then states that "the facility is contractually
f.. bligated to

use the MVCU for cumene loading only." AMS must clarify the contractu 1 obligations between the facility and the client regarding the ownership and use of the e isting control, in order to properly evaluate whether the existing MVCU can be u ed for controlling VOC emissions from loading other non..:cumene organic chemiyals.

• Regardless of AMS previous statements regarding the contractual agreements of the existing MVCU, AMS has evaluated for RACT purposes the operation Ofre existing
control for VOC emissions from non-cumene marine loading. AMS has dltermined that



### 2I the MVCU is technically feasible only for controlling VOC emissions frof loading

## non~
cumene organic liquids with vapor pressures of less than OApsi, since the control was designed to handle a maximum vapor pressure of 0.4 psia. Then, AMS cOhcluded that
the existing MVCU is economically unreasonable without further justification. In order

to support this determination, AMS must evaluate annual incremental**cost~** for operating
the existing MVCU for controlling VOC emissions from loading any orgwc liquids with

vapor pressures under 0.4 psi. 

### I

I • AMS indicates that the actual emissions ofVOC from KM's marine loadinlg operations

were approximately 25 tpy during 2012 and 2013. The actual VOC emissipns from
marine loading operations are significantly less (more than half) than the Npx limit of 59 tpy being proposed as RACT for the marine loading operations. In light otlthis
information alone, EPA believes that the 59 tpy does no longer represent a flACT level of
control for KM's marine loading operations. AMS should provide additionfU information

to justify this annual NOx emissions limit as RACT. EPA recommends to rrther
evaluate historical emissions data to determine the highest annual**emission~** level produced by the facility's loading operations in order to propose a more**ap~ropriate** RACT limit for marine loading operations.

Fugitive Emissions from Process Equipment

• AMS indicates that the RACT requirements in AMR V Section XIII supersJde the caseby-case RACT requirements approved into the SIP for the facility's fugitive! VOC emissions. EPA recognizes that AMR V Section XIII has been certified as tACT for
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to satisfy CTG requirements for controlling 

## vqc fugitive
emissions from gasoline tank trucks and vapor collection systems. See 78 FR 75902, December 13,2014. For further clarification and to avoid any**anti-backs1i~g** issues,
EPA recommends AMS to replace the existing case-by-case requirements inithe RACT Plan Approval with a permit condition requiring PES VOC fugitive emissio4s to comply
with AMR V Section XIII.

Plain Product Terminals, LLC (PPT) (Plant ID- 05013)

Recovery Tanks

• In Page 2 ofthe proposed RACT technical memo, AMS explains that the wa*r treatment plant and barge cleaning plant, which were existing VOC sources at the time pfthe 1­
hour ozone RACT determination, have shut down. The SIP-approved RACTiPlan Approval for Maritank also identified the truck loading at recovery tanks as aiVOC

source and described this activity as loading of residual material recovered fr9m the cleaning plant into the trucks. EPA requests AMS to clarify if the truck loadirg operations in the recovery tanks are currently in operation, since the cleaning plant has
shutdown. i

• AMS incorrectly indicates that the loading at the recovery tanks, originally loeated in Maritank, is subject to the requirements of25 Pa Code 129.60 pertaining to bJlk gasoline 

### I

I 

### I 3plants as I-hour ozone RACT. However, the loading at the recovery tanksiis subject to case-by-case requirements under 25 Pa Code 129.91-94, as approved in thd RACT Plan Approval (PA-51-50l3) dated December 28, 1995 and into the Pennsylvania SIP under
the facility's former name (66 FR 54947, October 31, 2001). I



### o The following are the applicable source-specific RACT requirements:\ Condition
2.E "The facility will connect its present vapor collection system to**it~** 5 recovery tanks in order to recover vapor from the organic material loading oftriIcks" and
Condition 3.A "The facility will connect its vapor recovery system to hs 5 recovery tanks by May 15, 1995." These requirements, as currently worded, ar¢ not limited

to gasoline loading, and thus shall not be suspended, as suggested by**~S,** when
the facility ceased loading gasoline or similar materials (i.e., organic liquids with
RVP greater than or equal to 4.0 psi, as defined under Pennsylvania SlIP).

• AMS also incorrectly indicates that the five recovery tanks "were identified in a 1999
RACT plan (approval)." As explained earlier, the five recovery tanks were addressed in
the Maritank RACT Plan Approval issued in 1995 and approved into the SIP in 2001. 

### I

I Truck Loading 

### I

• AMS indicates that the truck loading operations at both North and South Terbinals are subject to restrictions on distillate loading usage on a rolling 12-month basis.! AMS must provide evidence that these restrictions are Federally enforceable by citing td, the appropriate permit or regulation. I I Marine Loading 

### I

• AMS has proposed for the marine loading a RACT emissions limit of 6.6

### ton~ per year of
VOC. The proposed limit relies on a VOC emissions factor of2.6 pounds pet 1000 gallons estimated for number 2 fuel oil, which AMS indicates is based on EP..(\'s methodology for loading losses provided in Chapter 5 of AP-42 Manual. EPA requests that AMS indicates the specific methodology and any assumptions used for etaluating
the emissions factor, in addition to providing the capacity of the marine**loadi~g** operations at PPT. 

### I

Storage Tanks 

### I I

• In the first page of the proposed RACT technical memo, AMS lists a total of**~3** storage tanks for petroleum/organic products described by location on the facility and istorage capacity. i

o AMS did not evaluate the 7 storage tanks with capacities less than or**equ~l** to 40,000 gallons located in North Terminal. 

## i

o EP A requests that AMS provide the following information for each tank: iUnit
identification number, maximum storage capacity, location in the facility, ivapor

pressure under storage conditions, type of roof, and detailed description**o~** the applicable RACT requirement. \

o AMS identified 23 storage tanks each with a capacity of less than 

### 4,725,OQO gallons
and has determined each tank to be de minimis source for RACT. AMS**~ust**

4 \ 

### I

\ 

### Iexplain why these tanks are not subject to the RACT control

## requirem~nts of25 Pa Code 129.56, as each of their capacities exceed 40,00 gallons.



### 5