American Fuel &Petrochemical Manufacturers 1667 KStreet, NW Suite700 Washington, DC 20006



### STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FUEL & 

### PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ONTHE PROPOSED REFINERYRISKAND TECHNOLOGYREVIEWRULE AUGUST 5, 2014AFPM appreciates the opportunity today to discuss our views on the EPA's proposed refinery Risk and Technology Reviewrule. The AmericanFuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM") is a national trade association ofmore than400 companies, including virtually all U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers. AFPM members operate 122 U.S. refineries comprising approximately 98% ofU.S. refming capacity. Air quality has improved significantly inthe United States overthe past three decades and our industry has been a significant contributorto this improvement. Since 1990, our industry has invested $137 billion to reduce emissions from our plants and make cleaner fuels. On the air toxics side, we have also made great strides inreducing emissions. Total hazardous air pollutants from the refining sector have been reduced by nearly two-thirds since 1990, while fugitive HAPs have been reduced by 79 percent and point-source HAP emissions have been reduced by nearly 40 percent1• The results in Texas arejust as encouraging. According to TCEQ, nitrogen oxide levels have been reduced by 63 percent and sulfur dioxide levels have been reduced by 50 percent from stationary sources from 2000-2012. Furthermore, 91 percent of benzene ambient monitors that were in operation from 2000 through 2012 have shown decreases overall. Despite these significant reductions, EPAis proposing some requirements inthis rule that simply

are notjustified by the level ofrefinery risk thatthe Agency found in its analysis. EPAin its previous Risk and Technology Review rulemaking in 2008 determined that the risks posed by the

1 Thomas P. Nelson, Sage Environmental Consulting, L.P, "An Examination ofHistoricalAirPollutant Emissions from US Petroleum Refineries," November 29, 2012

. 2refining industry to be acceptable and therefore no further actions were required. Although signed by the EPA Administrator, due to a change in administrations, that rule was never published inthe Federal Register and was subsequently withdrawn. After EPA conducted a massive and unprecedented industry data collection effort from refiners in 2011, the risk levels found by EPAinits most recent analysis, performed for this rule, are similarto those found in 2008, still within an acceptable range. One quarter ofthe refineries had maximum individual risk levels below one in a million and two-thirds had risk levels below 10 in a million. To give a perspective on risk levels, the odds ofbeinghitby lightning in a given year are one in 960,000 (National Weather Service). According to the National Safety Council the odds ofdying in a passenger car in a single year are one in 21,132 and the odds ofdying as a pedestrianin a lifetime

are one in 623. Unfortunately, we are faced with a rule with significant costs but with little or no health or environmental benefits. EPA estimates that this rule will cost $240 million, but our members estimate that it will cost in excess ofa billion dollars. Ofeven greater concern is that the health benefit gains are insignificant by any measure, meaning this rule will have financial impacts to the economy with essentially no measureable benefits. Every refinery will be required to install fenceline monitors at significant on-going cost. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, many ofthese refineries have very low levels ofrisk. We don't understand how imposing this one-size fits all approach to every refinery will improve public health, particularly when according to EPA analysis a number oftheserefineries pose no health risk to the surrounding communities. 

### 3The EPArule proposes a rolling annual average benzene concentration action level of2.8 parts perbillion (ppb) at the refinery fence line, measured every two weeks from 20-30 samples collected around the refinery fenceline perimeter. Exceeding this "threshold" would trigger a root

cause analysis and corrective action and could be deemed a violation by EPA. However, the threshold value is not an indicator ofrisk- the stated purpose ofthis monitoring is to check EPA's modeling offugitive emissions. We fail to see howit can achieve this goal. Further, EPA's own studies in the mid-1990s confirmed no effect onpersonal exposure ofliving close to major fixed sources ofbenzene including oil refineries, chemical plants and storage tanks2• Wehave concerns with the flaring provisions inthis rule. The recently adopted NSPS Jaflare rules resulted in instrumentation costs onthe order ofmillions ofdollars per flare and will result in significant overall reductions in already very limited flaring emissions. This proposal would require significant additional costs over and above those from the Ja rule and yet has few synergies with the earlier Jainvestments and results invery little incremental benefit. Any proposed flare combustionefficiency standards should (1) only address steam-assisted flares, (2) focus on oversteaming and (3) limitthe need for the wasteful addition ofnatural gas to the flares. Pressure reliefvalves (PRVs) are designed to protectplantpersonnel, the public and equipment, and EPA should not change the MACT floor workpractice for PRVs. PRVs relieve very infrequently and for shortperiods oftime with very little total HAP emissions. While monitoring such releases to ensure that PRVs have properly closed makes sense and most companies already do so, prohibiting atmospheric releases will require routing PRVs to additional new flares. This

2Lance Wallace, EPA, "Environmental Exposure to Benzene: An Update," Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 104, Supplement 6, December 1996 4will require massive investments both for these new flares and for flare headers to control releases ofrare events. EPAhas greatly overstatedthe risks that coking units pose, and the proposed depressurization requirements go well beyondthe newrequirements set by the recently promulgated refinery NSPS rule. EPAhas greatly underestimated the costs ofcontrolling these emissions, controls that result invirtually no benefit. As part ofthis suite ofproposedrules, EPA has attempted to implementthe 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals vacatur ofthe startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions found in the MACT regulations. Unfortunately, EPA has interpreted the court ruling to meanthat all instances of SSM must adhere to the same emission standards established for normal operations. Particularly inthe case ofmalfunctions, this is a physical impossibility, and the enforcementthat would result from this approach is the equivalent ofhaving the police waiting for people at the auto repair shop everytime something goes wrong with their car. We strongly urge the agency to re-assess their obligationto address SSM emissions by eitherrevising the existing standards, which are not currently based on SSM events, orto craft separate standards to address those circumstances outside ofnormal operations. One final note regarding process. EPA reached a settlement agreement earlierthis year that requires the rule to be completed 11 months after the rule was proposed in May. This simply does not allow enough time for everyone to properly reviewrisk information and for EPAto finalize a rule that is defensible. In 2007-2008, EPA needed more than 18 months to complete the refinery RTRrule once it was proposed. Developing a good rule that properly determines risk and 5addresses solutions to lower thatriskis more importantthanmeeting an artificial deadline. We hope that the Agency andthe plaintiffs will reconsider the tighttimeframe and suggestthat

### the rule be finalized at a later date in 2015. This will make for a betterresult for everyone. Thank you again for this opportunityto speak and I amhappyto answer any questions.

6