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 Department of Public Health, Air Management 

Services (AMS) proposed changes to the Philadelphia portion 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 Available 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 major sources of VOC and/or NOx located in 

Philadelphia, and to certify that certain other 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 set forth by the Clean Air Act under the 1997 8-

Hour Ozone NAAQS. 45 Pa.B. 4781. 

A public hearing on these proposed actions 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 Division, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III (EPA) 

2. Francis Steitz 

Director, Division of Air Quality, 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 Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and 

Marketing, LLC, Philadelphia Refinery (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 based on an emissions rate of 50 part per 

million volumetric dry (ppmvd), at 0 percent (%) oxygen (O2) on a 7-day rolling 

average. AMS indicates that this limit was proposed by PES in February 2015 in 

order to comply with a Federal Consent 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 Federally (sic) enforceable at this time. 

o In addition, the proposed RACT technical 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 ppmvd, 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 with 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. 2nd 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 . . . [or 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 technical 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-term limit should be 30 ppmvd at 0% O2 on 

a 7-day rolling average. EPA requests AMS 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 requirements 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 Guideline (CTG) requirements for controlling 

VOC fugitive emissions from petroleum refinery equipment. See 78 FR 75902, 

December 13, 2014. For further clarification 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 Kinder 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 operations are subject to 

different RACT requirements when processing organic liquids with different 

vapor pressure. Loading of organic materials 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 disposal 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 the 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 RVP of less than 4.0 psi. As 

indicated in the proposed SIP revision, there is a limited number of positions at 

the tank car/truck loading operations that are currently connected to the existing 

thermal oxidizer and are therefore allowed 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 Plan 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 control of VOC emissions from tank 

car/truck loading operations the Kinder Morgan facility in the proposed 05003 RACT 

Plan Approval are practically enforceable 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 operate the unit when loading cumene. AMS 

first states that “the Permittee 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 obligated to use the MVCU for cumene loading 

only.” AMS must clarify the contractual obligations 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 unreasonable without further justification. In 
8 

order to support this determination, AMS must evaluate annual incremental costs 

for operating the existing MVCU for controlling VOC emissions from loading 

any organic liquids with vapor 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 currently marine loads cumene at the Kinder 

Morgan facility. Kinder Morgan is contractually bound to provide exclusive use of the 

existing Marine Vapor Control Unit (MVCU) to this customer for the marine loading of 

cumene. See Final 05003 RACT Technical 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 MVCU to control emissions 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 tpy 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 RACT level of control for KM’s marine loading 

operations. AMS should provide additional information to justify this annual NOx 

(sic) emissions limit as RACT. EPA recommends 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 rolling average VOC emissions limit for 

marine loading activities originated from the 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 effectiveness of technically feasible emissions 

controls for marine loading operations pursuant to a case by case RACT analysis for the 

Kinder Morgan facility under the 1997 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 application 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 average 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 materials 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 materials decreases in response to customer 

demand. VOC emissions may also increase significantly 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 requirements in AMR V Section XIII supersede 

the case-by-case RACT requirements approved into the SIP for the [Kinder 

Morgan] facility’s fugitive VOC emissions. 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-backsliding issues, EPA recommends AMS to 

replace the existing case-by-case requirements in the RACT Plan Approval with a 

permit condition requiring PES VOC fugitive 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 technical 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 SIP-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 residual 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 Technical 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 emissions arise from the transfer of recovered oil stored in the 

two (2) recovery tanks, as opposed 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 loading at the [Plains Product Terminals 

facility] recovery tanks, originally located in Maritank, is subject to the 

requirements of 25 Pa Code 129.60 pertaining to bulk gasoline plants as 1-hour 
10 

ozone RACT. However, the loading at the 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 recover vapor from the organic material 

loading of trucks” and Condition 3.A “The 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 suggested 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 defined under Pennsylvania SIP).” 

AMS Response: AMS has reviewed the proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo and 

revised its analysis as it relates to the two (2) recovery tanks in question. The combined 

VOC PTE for uncontrolled recovery tank truck 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 from five (5) recovery 

tanks with a functioning vapor recovery system. Accordingly, VOC emissions from 

current truck loading operations at the two (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 benefits, and is not economically reasonable. 

See Final 05013 RACT Technical Memo at pgs 4-5. 

 

 “AMS also incorrectly indicates 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 tanks were addressed in the Maritank RACT 

Plan Approval issued in 1995 and approved 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 Technical Memo at pg. 7.

 “AMS indicates that the truck loading operations at both North and South 

Terminals 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 to the appropriate permit or regulation.” 

AMS Response: The Plains Product Terminal facility, North Terminal truck loading 

capacity originated from a Title V/State Operating 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. These 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 indicates 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 providing 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 the 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 lbs /1000 gallons initially referenced in the 

proposed 05013 RACT Technical Memo was 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 technical 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 following information for each tank [at the 

Plains Product Terminals facility]: Unit identification number, maximum storage 

capacity, location in the facility, vapor pressure under storage conditions, type of 

roof, and detailed description of the 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 explain 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 pertaining to the storage tanks. See Final 05013 

RACT Technical Memo at pgs. 1-2. Additional revisions to the 05013 RACT Technical 

Memo have been made to clarify other storage 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 removed 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. Similarly, the twenty three (23) storage tanks 

with a capacity < 4,725,000 gallons are only used to store materials with a vapor pressure 

of 1.5 psia or less. Accordingly, the requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 129.56, which pertain 

to the storage of VOCs with a vapor pressure > 1.5 psia, do not apply to these twenty 

three (23) tanks. 

2. Written Comments Submitted by New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP)

 “[NJDEP urges AMS to adopt lower NOx emission limits as RACT for certain 

emission sources.] Specifically, New Jersey’s NOx 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 lower than the corresponding AMS’ proposed 

source-specific emission limits for: 

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

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

Comparison of NJ NOx RACT Emission Limits and AMS Proposed Source-Specific 

NOx 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/MMBtu1,2 

(daily limit during ozone season) 

 Philly – Veolia (Schuylkill Station), 

(1) 795 MMBtu/hr boiler (uncontrolled) and 

(1) 761 MMBtu/hr boiler (Low NOx 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/MMBtu1,3 

 (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 RACT 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 additional 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 significant capacity restrictions. Please see the 

discussion in the respective RACT Technical Memos, specifically 04903 RACT 

Technical Memo for Exelon Richmond Station and 04942 RACT Technical Memo for 

Veolia Schuylkill Station for further details. 

 

3. Written Comments Submitted by Clean Air Council

 “[The installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Ultra-low NOx

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 impossible 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 the 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 and location in an urban area that is 

currently in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard warrants further 

reduction of these NOx 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 facility in question is located within the City and County of 

Philadelphia. Effective April 25, 2012, EPA classified 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, specifically 25 Pa § 129.92(b)(1)-(4), AMS must 

evaluate both the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of proposed emission 

controls as part of the case-by-case RACT analysis. Installation of technically feasibly 

emissions controls may not be deemed to be RACT for a specific source if such controls 

are not also cost effective. As explained in detail in the 1501 RACT Plan Approval for 

the PES facility, as revised, installation of ULNB and/or SCR as additional controls to 

existing heaters and boilers was found to be either technically infeasible or not cost 

effective. 

 “[AMS should evaluate whether installation of additional technically feasible 

emissions controls, specifically ULNB for 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 agency with delegated authority to 

implement an air pollution control program that “at a minimum, meets the requirements 

of the . . . [Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act], the Clean Air Act,” AMS is required 

to follow Pennsylvania RACT regulations and policies adopted by the Commonwealth. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 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 were referenced in 01501 RACT Technical 

Memo and was included in the RACT documentation. Note, emissions reduction 

potential was also evaluated for each case by case source. 

 

 “[Clean Air Council believes that technical infeasibility determinations for 

various additional controls for PES Heaters 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. 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 

infeasible. Additionally, PES could provide information about the technical 

details of the re-design and how much such a re-design or expansion of the 

facility to fit the physical footprint of these control technologies would cost.” 

AMS Response: Given this comment, AMS has conducted a further investigation and 

determined that the installation of additional 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 included, but not limited to, an 

onsite inspection of the facility, 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 controls. 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, installation 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 appropriately sized ULNB and LNB burners would 

be too long to fit safely within the fireboxes of the heaters in compliance with the 

appropriate industrial and engineering standards. 

Finally, installation of ULNB or LNB with Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) 

on Units 210-13H1, 860-2H4, 864-PH1, 864-PH11, and 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 pertaining to these 

determinations can be found in the Final 01501 RACT Technical Memo. See Final 

01501 RACT Technical Memo at pgs. 10-12. Copies 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. Accordingly, AMS has summarized these comments for 

brevity. 

General Comments (Summarized) and Responses

 The Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) facility contains old equipment, and 

workers at the facility have been pressured to operate the facility in an unsafe 

manner. The PES facility should be updated 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 air 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 controls to fulfill RACT requirements if such 

controls are not technically feasible and cost effective. Id.

 The proposed SIP revisions and attendant RACT Plan Approval appear to 

constitute a relaxation of air pollution requirements for the PES facility. 

 

AMS Response: The proposed SIP revision and attendant RACT Plan Approval for the 

PES facility does not relax any existing air pollution requirements. 

 Additional supporting information is needed to justify changes 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 deficiencies. 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 multiples times for air pollution violations. PES’s 

current permits should be revoked, and no new permits should be issued.

AMS Response: The SIP revisions, and attendant RACT Plan Approvals, are being 

proposed by AMS to satisfy requirements established 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 burners and flue gas recirculation as 

achieving 55 percent efficiency. EPA standards 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 equipment being declared as RACT.” 

AMS Response: AMS has determined that implementing low-NOx burners and flue gas 

recirculation for the referenced sources at PES 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% control efficiency. The cost per ton NOx 

removed, assuming a 72% control efficiency, would only drop to $5,000. This would 

still exceed the cost effectiveness benchmarks established by the Commonwealth. 

 

 “For VOC control technology PES's RACT update states that VOC emission 

reduction using flares range up to 98 percent 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 usually only achieves 95 percent destruction 

efficiency. Why wasn't flare 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 efficiency. 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 mentioned 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 efficiency 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 existing heaters / boilers, cooling towers, and 

catalytic cracking units at the facility subject to case by case RACT under 25 Pa § 129.92 

is not technically feasible. Id. at 20-23. 

Using flares to control VOC emissions from 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 uncontrolled Point Breeze marine / barge 

loading operation is also not cost effective. Assuming a 100% control efficiency, each 

additional ton of VOC emissions 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 because it is covered by 25 PA code 129.58 

requires more supporting explanation. Section 129.58 only requires quarterly 

monitoring for, quote, compressor seals, pipe line valves in gaseous service and 

pressure relief valves in gaseous service. 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 sources for fugitive emissions, at the same or 

shorter intervals under 25 Pa. Code § 129.58 requirements, 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 selective catalytic reduction combined with 

ultra-low-NOx burners control technology is technically infeasible, often citing 

that SCR would not physically fit the plot space or that there is not adequate 

pressure to overcome the SCR pressure drop. More information about the 

dimensions and pressure drop requirements 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 RACT requirements using SCR and low-NOx 

burners as the control technology for its boilers' refinery fuel gas. At a rate -- the 

fact that SCR combined with low-NOx burners is technically feasible for smaller 

refineries operating under similar condition calls into question why the same 

technology would not be feasible 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 Implementation Plan to Meet Requirements of 

Reasonably Available Control Technology Set 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 updates Philadelphia’s Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (“RACT”) demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (“NAAQS”).

Clean Air Council is a non-profit environmental organization headquartered at 135 South 

19th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. For almost 50 years, the Council has 

fought to improve air quality across Pennsylvania. The Council has members throughout the 

Commonwealth who support its mission to protect 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 (“NOx”) 

since the refinery’s potential NOx emissions are greater than 100 tons per year, which is the 

major source threshold in Philadelphia County applicable to NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. PES is also a major source of volatile 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 require Philadelphia County to submit SIP 

revision to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) demonstrating that Philadelphia 

has implemented all necessary RACT controls on all major sources of VOCs and NOx. RACT is 

defined as “the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 
2 

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 updates of their kind since 

the refinery was wholly owned by Sunoco. Changes to the RACT are important because if 

approved they would validate PES’s proposed emission controls as compliant with the Clean Air 

Act.

The purpose of updating PES’s RACT demonstration is to establish new control 

technology that will result in reduced ambient concentrations of ground-level ozone. Reducing 

NOx and VOC pollution will help prevent the formation of ground-level ozone. The health 

benefits associated with reduced ground-level ozone pollution are reduced “incidences of 

hospital admissions for respiratory ailments including asthma” and the improvement of “the 

quality of life for citizens overall.”2 Children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems 

stand to benefit the most, but “even healthy individuals may experience increased respiratory 

ailments and other symptoms” during period of physical exertion if exposed to high levels of 

ground-level ozone.3

Operation of the PES refinery negatively impacts the air quality for all Philadelphians. 

PES has not been a good neighbor. Indeed it chronically exceeds its permit requirements to the 

detriment of public health. Regulators should review with intense scrutiny 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, Air Management Services and EPA 

should require PES to install the most 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 County’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 later 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 Philadelphia County’s RACT demonstration. The 

additional time for analysis afforded to PES because of this delay, in combination with PES’s 

consistent violation of the Clean Air Act, should 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 NOx

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 NOx RACT Requirements 

The “NOx RACT Update Summary” (See Table 1-2) shows the “Current NOx RACT 

Control” versus the “NOx RACT Control Update” for each source that required a case-by-case 

RACT analysis. The “Current NOx RACT Control” practices are “combustion tuning” (CT), 

ultra-low NOx 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 NOx RACT Control, have CT currently installed, and have CT 

proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.7

 Two (2) sources have CT as the current NOx

RACT Control, have ULNB currently installed, and have UNLB proposed as the NOx RACT 

Control Update.8 Two (2) sources have CT as the current NOx RACT Control, have SCR 

currently installed, and have SCR proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.9

 Two (2) sources 

have UNLB as the current NOx RACT Control, have ULNB currently installed, and have ULNB 

proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.10 Three (3) sources have UNLB as the current NOx

RACT Control Update, have UNLB & FGR currently installed, and have UNLB & FGR 

proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.11 Five (5) sources have N/A as the current NOx

RACT Control, have N/A currently installed, and have “good combustion” proposed as the NOx 

RACT Control Update.12 One (1) source has N/A as the current NOx RACT Control, has SCR 

currently installed, and has SCR proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.13 One (1) source 

has good combustion as the current NOx RACT Control, has a Low NOx CO Combustion 

Promoter currently installed, and has Low NOx CO Combustion Promoter proposed as the NOx

RACT Control Update.14 Three (3) sources have N/A as the “current NOx RACT Control,” have 

ULNB currently installed, and have ULNB proposed as the NOx RACT Control Update.15

The control technologies that achieve the greatest emission reductions are Selective 

Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Ultra-low NOx 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 NOx 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; Point Breeze 860-2H2 Heater; Point Breeze 860-2H3; Point Breeze 860-2H4; 

Point Breeze 860-2H5; Point Breeze 860-2H7; Point Breeze 864-PH1; Point Breeze 864-PH11; Point 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; Point Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-005; Point 

Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired RICE IC-006; Point Breeze/Girard Point Diesel-Fired 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-H02 Heater; Point Breeze 859-1H1 Heater

16 PES RACT Cost Effectiveness Update 7-24-15
4 

is “the most effective post-combustion NOx control technology.”17 The Council believes that 

these technologies should be installed on each of the case-by-case sources listed above, unless it 

is technically impossible for PES to operate SCR 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 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 and location in an urban area that is currently in nonattainment for the 

1997 ozone standard warrants further reduction of these NOx emissions. 

Although SCR and ULNB are the best emission 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 unit 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 update analysis relating to cost-effectiveness and 

technical feasibility with which the Council disagrees or for which the Council would like more 

information.

 B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed RACT Requirement Updates

By definition, when determining RACT for a source, the cost of installation and 

operation of control technologies is taken into account. EPA comments addressing PA DEP’s 

Proposed Amendments to RACT Emissions Limitations (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 cautions PA DEP not to rigidly apply a benchmark 

as low as $2,500 per ton to exclude consideration 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-effectiveness should be similar to New York’s. 

Specifically, EPA believes that, for a cost-effectiveness 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 should not use a “rigid ‘benchmark’ to reject 

consideration of controls.”21 Additionally, EPA has stated that other factors, besides costeffectiveness, should be integrated 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-effectiveness should be closer to $5,000 

per ton, there appears to be at least three units, Girard Point Unit Heater 137 F-1, and Point 

Breeze Unit Heaters 210-13H1 and 860-2H4, that would qualify for ULNB control technology. 

These units’ proposed NOx Update technology are “combustion tuning.”23 However, PES 

estimates that the cost-effectiveness 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 would 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 have either SCR or ULNB proposed as the “NOx

RACT Control Update.” This request for more a more detailed explanation of the rationale 

behind the cost-effectiveness analysis echoes EPA’s June 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 installing SCR or UNLB in its cost-effectiveness 

analysis. 

The next section addresses PES’ claims that SCR and ULNB are technically 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 control technology options are evaluated for 

technical feasibility. This evaluation “shall be based on physical, chemical and engineering 

principles.”27 Additionally, “a determination 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 sources that have a “summary of technical 

infeasibilities for NOx 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 was 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 because it “would not physically fit the plot space,” 

or because “installation would require the installation of mechanical 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 LLC, “RACT Update Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,” “Table 

3-5: Case-by-Case NOx RACT Cost Effectiveness 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 appropriately 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 Analysis,””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-PH12
6 

not suitable for this heater” and because “the floor of the heater is too low to physically allow the 

installation.” 

 The reasons provided for deeming SCR and ULNB infeasible appear to fall under either 

“physical” or “engineering” principles. PES states 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 SCR and ULNB on the relevant heaters and process heaters are 

conclusory. PES declares that these control technologies would not “physically fit” or would 

require a “major re-design.” No supporting details are provided for these determinations, 

preventing meaningful review of PES’s decisions. 

The Council requests more information be provided 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 infeasible. Additionally, PES could provide information 

about the technical details of the re-design and how much such a re-design or expansion of the 

facility to fit the physical footprint of these control technologies 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. Philadelphia Energy Solutions should 1) install SCR 

and/or ULNB on all sources of NOx emissions, regardless of cost; 2) provide more information 

about its cost-effectiveness process and calculate cost-effectiveness for processes previously 

deemed technically infeasible without adequate explanation; 3) provide more information 

regarding its determination that SCR and ULNB are infeasible control technologies for 

individual case-by-case sources. Air Management Services should not approve the RACT 

Update to the SIP revision unless more information 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.org



UNITED 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, 2nd 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 andprocess ~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~'i g potentialto-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 ifthis 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 ofthe Consent Decree for the 868 FCtU. Page 15 

ofthe 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 ofthe 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 fromlpetroleum 
refinery 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 oforganic 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 

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 

2 

I 

the MVCU is technically feasible only for controlling VOC emissions frof loading non~ cumene organic liquids with vapor pressures ofless 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 ifthe 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 3 
plants 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 ofthe 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 ofroof, 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 

\ 

I 
explain 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