EPA Workshop for Environmental Justice Communities 

on Proposed Updates to Emission Standards for 

Refineries

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

9:00 am – 4:30 pm (8:30 am check-in)

The California Endowment’s Oakland Conference Center

1111 Broadway, 7th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607

Workshop Objectives

• Provide an in-depth review of the proposed refinery emission standards rule (refinery rule) with a 

focus on technical issues.

• Provide EPA staff with a better understanding of key community concerns about the refineries.

• Enhance the effectiveness of the public engagement process during this rulemaking. 

Tuesday July 1, 2014

8:30 am – 9:00 am Arrival and Registration

9:00 am – 9:20 am Welcome, Introductions and Overview

Welcome and Introductions

-Laura McKelvey, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

-Deldi Reyes, U.S. EPA, Region 9

Rules of Engagement During the Open Comment Period

-Laura McKelvey, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Workshop and Agenda Overview and Ground Rules

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

9:20 am – 9:50 am Experiences and concerns of fenceline communities and the potential for 

communities and advocates to impact the refinery rule

-Dr. Henry Clark, West County Toxics Coalition

-Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment

-Patrice Lee, Alaskan Community Action on Toxics

9:50 am – 10:50 am Context and Evolution of the Proposed Refinery Rule

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

• Background for the proposed refinery rule

 -Laura McKelvey, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

 -Brenda Shine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

- Clean Air Act and the evolution of the refinery rule

- Purpose of the refinery rule

- EPA’s EJ policies

• Overview of the Clean Air Act authorities and refinery rule

• Brief synopsis of the proposed amendments in the refinery rule

- Flares

- Delayed cokers
- Storage tanks

- Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) exemptions

- Fenceline monitoring

• Discussion of other technical issues related to the refinery rule 

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

• Prioritizing the issues for “Drilling Down on Key Issues” dialogue

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

10:50 am – 12:00 pm Drilling Down on Key Issues (two-way facilitated dialogue about key issues and 

concerns identified in previous session)

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

• Discussion topics

- EPA rationale for rule change

- How would proposed rule change the identified key issues?

• Question and answer dialogue

• Presentations by participants, as relevant to the issue

12:00 pm – 12:45 pm BREAK/LUNCH

12:45 pm – 3:30 pm Drilling Down on Key Issues (continued)(two-way facilitated dialogue about key 

issues and concerns)

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

3:30 pm – 4:15 pm Next Steps

Facilitator: Vernice Miller-Travis, Skeo Solutions

• Public hearing and commenting process

• What happens to comments submitted by the public?

4:15 – 4:30 pm Wrap-up and Conclusion
Attendee List 7‐9‐14

Last Name First Name Organization Affiliation Email Address Address

Bailey Diane NRDC dbailey@nrdc.org 111 Sutter St. 20th Floor, San Francisco, California 94002

Bardet Marilyn Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community mjbardet@comcast.net Benicia, California 94510

Bird Kate Skeo Solutions kbird@skeo.com 1313 6th Avenue, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601

Clark Dr. Henry West County Toxics Coalition henryc11@prodigy.net 305 Chesley Avenue, Richmond, California 94801

Cort Paul Earthjustice pcort@earthjustice.org San Francisco, California 94131

Engelbert Bruce Skeo Solutions bengelbert@skeo.com San Diego, California 0Griffith Tamhas Martinez Environmental Group tamhas@gmail.com Martinez, California 94553

Grow Richard US EPA grow.richard@epa.gov 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105

Gunkelman Jay (independent of any organization) qeegjay@sbcglobal.net 2210 Prune Street, Pinole, California 94564

Kang Helen Golden Gate University, Environmental Law and

Justice Clinic

hkang@ggu.edu San Francisco, California 94105

Karras Greg Communities for a Batter Environment gkarras@cbecal.org Oakland, California 94612

Kent Michael Contra Costa Health Services michael.kent@hsd.cccounty.us 597 Center Ave., Suite 100, Martinez, California 94553

Kerridge Kathy Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Environment salfano@skeo.com Benicia, California 94510

Larson Denny Global Community Monitor denny@gcmonitor.org PO Box 1784, Richmond, California 94805

Lee Patrice Citizens for Clean Air (CCA); Alaska Community Action

on Toxics (ACAT)

patricelee3294@gmail.com Fairbanks, Alaska 99712

Marquez Jesse Coalition for a Safe Environment jnm4ej@yahoo.com 1601 N. Wilmington Blvd. Ste. B, Wilmington, California

90744

Miller‐Travis Vernice Skeo Solutions vmiller‐travis@skeo.com Bowie, Maryland 20721

Newell Brent Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment bnewell@crpe‐ej.org 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 650, Oakland, California 94612

Penn Paul California Environmental Protection Agency paul.penn@calepa.ca.gov 1001 I st, Sacramento, California 95812

Reyes Deldi US EPA reyes.deldi@epa.gov 75 Hawthorne St, San Francisco, California 94105

Zamora Abraham CRPE abe_zamora@berkeley.edu 1932 Hearst Ave, Apt F, Berkeley CA 94709

Bandrowski Mike US EPA Region 9 bandrowski.mike@epa.gov

Davidson Ken US EPA Region 9 davidson.ken@epa.gov

Stewart Kathleen US EPA Region 9 stewart.kathleen@epa.gov

McKelvey Laura EPA OAQPSShine Brenda EPA OAQPSKelly Shaheerah US EPA Region 9 kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

Law Nicole US EPA Region 9 law.nicole@epa.gov

Solomon Gina California Environmental Protection Agency gina.solomon@calepa.ca.gov

Hayes Kevin CRPE khayes@crpe.orgTammru Biruk NRDC btammru@nrdc.org
A Brief Overview of the: CAA authorities 

Proposed Refinery Residual Risk and 

Technology Review

Public Outreach Presentation

July 1, 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC
Purpose

► Provide background information on the rulemaking 

process

► Inform the public on Proposed Petroleum Refinery 

Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source 

Performance Standards that were signed by the 

Administrator on May 15, 2014. Describe how written 

comments can be submitted to the docket.

► Note: This webinar is intended to be an educational 

overview of the proposal and does not cover all of the 

proposal details. We will not be taking comments on 

the rule during this webinar. Please refer back to the 

proposal when crafting your written comments.

2
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

Overview

► Establishes requirements for setting national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

► A hazardous air pollutant is defined as “any air pollutant listed pursuant 

to subsection (b) of this section [CAA section 112]”

► There are currently 189 pollutants on the HAP list (the complete list is 

available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/overview.html)

► Stationary sources are broken down into two categories: major and 

area

► A major source “means any stationary source or group of stationary sources 

located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or 

has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per 

year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of 

any combination of hazardous air pollutants” 

► An area source “means any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants 

that is not a major source”
Regulation of Toxic Pollutants

► The Clean Air Act listed 189 (now 183) toxic air pollutants 

(that may cause cancer or serious health problems)

► There are literally thousands of sources of toxic air 

pollutants (also called hazardous air pollutants or HAPs)

► Sources range from gigantic oil refineries to the dry cleaner 

on the corner, as well as mobile sources (cars, trucks, 

planes, trains)

► Clean Air Act requires EPA to set standards for specific 

source types
Clean Air Act Requirements

► New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) 

► CAA section 111(b) requires EPA to set and 

periodically review, emission standards for new 

sources of criteria air pollutants (CAP), volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and other pollutants 

► Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) 

► CAA section 112 requires EPA to:

• Set emission standards for toxic air pollutants 

from stationary sources reflecting the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) based on 

the best performing facilities in an industry

• Conduct residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTR) of these MACT standards 

5
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

Emission Standards

► Per section 112(d), “the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 

establishing emission standards for each category or subcategory of 

major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for 

regulation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section in accordance 

with the schedules provided in subsection (c) and (e) of this section”

► Emission standards “require the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of the hazardous air pollutants...the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions that is deemed achievable for new sources in 

a category or subcategory shall not be less stringent than the 

emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source, as determined by the Administrator”

► The above is speaking to the maximum achievable control 

technology or MACT program
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

MACT Program

► Under the MACT program emission limits for existing sources are 

established by:

► Examining “the average emission limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the 

Administrator has emissions information)... or by examining “the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources 

(for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emission 

information) in the category or subcategory for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources)

► For area sources the Administrator may “elect to promulgate 

standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories 

or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available 

control technologies or management practices by such sources to 

reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants” 
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

Risk and Technology Review (RTR)

► Residual risk review and technology review required within 8 years of 

promulgation of MACT standards

► 2-step risk analysis

1. Determine if risk is acceptable considering health information only, and if not 

acceptable, tighten standards so risks are acceptable

2. Determine if standards provide an ample margin of safety, which considers 

health info, costs and feasibility

► Risk review includes inhalation risk assessment (cancer and noncancer) and screens to assess multipathway, whole facility, acute and 

environmental risks

► Can perform refined multipathway assessments in limited cases if screens 

show potential multipathway human health risk

► Technology review takes into account new developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies considering cost and feasibility

► We also consider previously unregulated processes and HAP, and we 

make technical corrections
Available Resources

► Overview of section 112 (this includes the list of HAPs): 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/overview.html

► For further explanation of major and area sources and a list of source 

categories please visit:

 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html

► For a listing of all of the NESHAP/MACT final rules please visit: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnlalph.html

► For an overview of the risk and technology review program please visit: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html

► Plain English guide to Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/

► State, local, tribal and federal partnerships: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/stprogs.html
Clean Air Act Requirements (cont.) 

►EPA is required to conduct two reviews and update the 

existing standards, if necessary

• Residual Risk Assessment: To determine whether 

additional emission reductions are warranted to protect 

public health or the environment; this is a one-time 

requirement 

• Technology Reviews: To determine if better emission 

control approaches, practices or processes are now 

available; required every eight years

10
Past Rulemakings On the Refinery Sector

NSPS

► 1974 NSPS – covers fuel gas combustion devices, FCCU and sulfur plants

► 2008 and 2012 NSPS – covers same above and delayed cokers, flares and 

process heaters specifically

MACT

► Promulgated 2 MACT standards for refineries

► 1995 MACT (known as MACT 1) covers non-combustion or evaporative sources, such 

as equipment leaks, tanks, wastewater, miscellaneous process vents; amended to 

cover heat exchange systems, including cooling towers

► 2002 MACT (known as MACT 2) covers combustion sources: catalytic cracking units, 

catalytic reforming units and sulfur recovery units

Risk and Technology Review (RTR)

► 2007 – proposed risk and technology review amendments for non-combustion sources

► 2009 – withdrew amendments related to risk review due to insufficient data; amendments 

promulgated for heat exchanger systems and amended in 2013

11
100% 

% Increase 

of sulfur in 

GAS OIL 

80 

Q) 

Cl 

c: 60 111

.::: 

(.)

-

c: 

Q) 

(.)

... 40 Q) 

c. 

20 

1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 

i.tcrease delvmtlncd us;ng 

of 1 9'JO avere9e 
EPA Pit 1-Louisiana 

EPA Pit 2-Texas 

EPA Pit 3-lndlana 

EPA Pit 4-California 

EPA Pit 5-Virgin Is. 

EPA Pit 6-Hawaii 

EPA Pit 7-Loulsiana 

SCAQMD Pit E- CA 

SCAQMD Pit D- CA 

EPA Pit 8-lllinois 

SCAQMD Pit A-CA 

SCAQMD Pit C-CA 

Chevron-Richmond 

EPA Pit 9-Pennsylv. 

SCAQMD Pit B-CA 

I H 


70 80 

Minimum!/ 

&maximum 

lbs/1,000 bbls 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

FCC particulate matter emissions (lbs/1 ,000 barrels oil feed) 

950 

• 

-­

annual 

average 

observation 

model 

>: 

ns 

~ c:: 

0 

~ 

900 

650 

800 

confidence 

Interval 

(Mean 95%) 

~ 

E 

c::

:; 

.c 

750 

700 

-­

confidence 

Interval 

(Obs. 95%) 

~ 0 

0 

650 

600 

550 

R2 = 0.925 

p <0.0001 

55,000 65,000 75,000 

oil feed rate (barrels/day) 
Coalition For A Safe Environment 

Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review 

& 

New Source Performance Standards 

Public Comments 

6-30-2014 

1. 	 Community Fenceline Monitoring 

a. 	 Mandatory Real-Time 24/7 Fenceline Monitoring. 

b. 	 Mandatory Fenceline Monitoring Data posted on Federal/State/ AQMD agency websites in real 

time. 

c. 	 Mandatory website on-line capability to print and download reports of each facility per Flare 

incident, weekly, monthly, annually and 5, 10, 20 year reports. 

d . 	 Mandatory that all air emissions and chemicals be monitored not as select few. 

2. 	 Flaring 

a. 	 Mandatory MACT to prevent Flaring. 

b. 	 Mandatory MACT to eliminate and reduce Flaring such as Vapor Recovery Systems. 

c. 	 Ban on Routine Flaring. 

d. 	 Mandatory Flaring Reduction Plan . 

e. 	 Annual review of Flaring Reduction Plan. 

f . 	 Mandatory Enforcement Program & Penalties for failure to achieve Flare Reduction Plan 


requirements. 


g. 	 Mandatory Combustion Efficiency Standards . 

h. 	 Mandatory back-up power to prevent Flaring. 

i. 	 Mandatory accurate reporting of Flaring incident emissions. 

j. 	 Mandatory Public Health & Environmental Mitigation Fund based on $ 500,000. per metric ton of 

released chemical emissions. 

k. 	 Prohibition of annual averaging of emission data to hide significant emission release spikes and 

public exposure to major flaring incidents, fires and explosions. 

3. 	 More Stringent Pollution Control From All Sources 

a. 	 Identify all oil refinery emission sources. 

b. 	 Identify the MACT for each emission source. 

c. 	 Mandatory MACT for each emission source. 

d. 	 Mandatory that all oil refinery emission sources be monitored in Real-Time 24/7. 

e. 	 Mandatory inventories of all emission sources. 

f. 	 Mandatory Maintenance & Parts Replacement Plan & Schedule. 

g. 	 Incorporation of the 3-Strikes Rule for reoccurring parts and systems breakdowns. 
4 . 	 Close All Unlawful Loopholes 

a. 	 Void all existing exemptions and waivers. 

b. 	 Eliminate Startup, shutdown & malfunction exemptions. 

c. 	 Eliminate all storage tank pressure rel ief valves and bypass exemptions. 

5. 	 Need Public Health Impacts Research Data On All Chemicals 

a. 	 Determination of all carcinogenic public health impacts. 

b. 	 Determination of all neurological public health impacts. 

c. 	 Determination of all non-carcinogenic public health impacts . 

d. 	 Determination of all bio-cumulative public health impacts. 

6. 	 Phase-Out Plan Of Highly Dangerous Chemicals 

a. 	 Identification of the most hazardous and toxic chemicals. 

b. 	 Mandatory Hazardous & Toxic Chemical Phase-Out Plan. 

7. 	 Public Health & Safety Limits Of All Chemicals Per National Academy of Sciences 

a. 	 Mandatory public health exposure limit on all chemicals. 

b. 	 Mandatory public safety limit on all potential hazard scenarios. 

8. 	 Public Health Cumulative Risk Assessments 

a. 	 Mandatory Health Impact Assessment (HIA) & Public Health Survey to be included in Health Risk 

Assessments at every oil refinery . 

b. 	 Mandatory Up-Dated Health Risk Assessments every four years. 

c. 	 US EPA sponsorship of public health research on oil refinery fenceline communities. There is little 

to no public health research on US oil refinery communities. Ban petroleum industry sponsored 

public health studies. 

9. 	 Current Risk Assessment Deficiencies 

a. 	 Mandatory assessment of extra harm and risk to highly vulnerable sensitive receptors such as 

children, seniors, pregnant woman, persons with pre-existing health conditions and Environmenta l 

Justice Communities. 

b. 	 Mandatory inclusion of inhalation risk from all chemicals. Currently excluded arsenic & nickel etc. 

c. 	 A Life Time Cancer Risk of 100 in 1 million is not acceptable for any single chemical or cumulative 

chemicals. 

d. 	 The USEPA's use of the term I/degree of uncertainty/' is unacceptable. The USPEA must provide a 

method or sponsor a research entity to establish the most accurate certainty, based on the best 

available scientific research . The USEPA must incorporate the Precautionary Principle when in 

doubt. 

Coalition For A Safe Environment 


1601 N. Wilmi ngton Blvd., Ste.B, Wilmington, CA 90744 


JesseN. Marquez jnm4ej@yahoo.com 310-704-1265 

Overview of the Clean Air Act and the 

Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk 

and Technology Review and New Source 

Performance Standards 

Public Outreach Presentation

San Francisco, CA

July 1, 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC
Purpose

► Today’s presentation is part of EPA’s overall outreach strategy to 

stakeholders; today, we will:

► Provide information on the Clean Air Act requirements

► Describe previous EPA regulations done for the refining sector 

► Inform the public on Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and 

Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards that 

were signed by the Administrator on May 15, 2014.

► Note: This presentation is intended to be an educational overview 

of the proposal and does not cover all of the proposal details. We 

will not be taking comments on the rule during this presentation. 

However, if you plan to submit comments, please follow the 

guidelines outlined in the upcoming public/written comment 

period sections of this workshop.

2
Overview

► Clean Air Act Requirements

► Overview of the Refinery Source Category 

► Refineries Emit a Wide Range of Pollutants

► Health Effects of Specific Pollutants 

► HAP Emitted with Existing Controls in Place

► Past Rulemakings on the Refining Source Category 

► Overview of Proposed Rule

► Proposed Amendments

► What Does a Residual Risk Analysis Show? 

► What is Environmental Justice?

► Demographic Analyses

► Fenceline Monitoring Case Study

► Q&A

3
Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements

► New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) 

► CAA section 111(b) requires EPA to set and 

periodically review, emission standards for new 

sources of criteria air pollutants (CAP), volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and other pollutants 

► Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) 

► CAA section 112 requires EPA to:

• Set emission standards for toxic air pollutants 

from stationary sources reflecting the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) based on 

the best performing facilities in an industry

• Conduct residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTR) of these MACT standards 

4
Clean Air Act Requirements (cont.) 

►EPA is required to conduct two reviews and update the 

existing standards, if necessary

• Residual Risk Assessment: To determine whether 

additional emission reductions are warranted to protect 

public health or the environment; this is a one-time 

requirement 

• Technology Reviews: To determine if better emission 

control approaches, practices or processes are now 

available; required every eight years

5
Overview of Refinery Source Category

► There are currently 142 large (major sources) and 7 small (area source) 

petroleum refineries in the United States

► There are 36 small businesses that own petroleum refineries

► Refineries are responsible for 20,000 tons per year hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions

► In 2011 EPA completed first-ever comprehensive information collection 

request

► This proposed rulemaking includes both MACT and NSPS standards

• Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for MACT CC and MACT UUU

• Technical corrections to NSPS Ja resulting from issues raised by API

6
Refineries Emit a Wide Range of Pollutants 

► Criteria Air Pollutants (CAP)

► Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

► Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 

► Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

► Particulate Matter (PM) 

► Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

► Organic compounds that are photochemically reactive 

► Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)

► Carcinogenic HAP, including benzene, naphthalene,1,3- butadiene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

► Non-carcinogenic HAP, including hydrogen fluoride (HF) and 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

► Persistent bioaccumulative HAP, including mercury

► Other Pollutants

► Greenhouse gases (GHG)

► Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

7
Health Effects of Specific Pollutants

8

Compound Acute Chronic

Benzene Neurological effects, 

irritation of the eye, skin and 

respiratory tract

Blood disorders (reduced 

number of red blood cells 

and aplastic anemia), cancer

PAHs Skin disorders, depression of 

the immune system

Skin disorders (dermatitis,

photosensitization), 

depression of the immune 

system, damage to the 

respiratory tract, cataracts, 

cancer

Nickel Damage to the lungs and 

kidneys, gastrointestinal 

distress, disfunction of the 

immune system

Dermatitis, asthma like 

syndrome, decreased lung 

function, disfunction of 

immune system, cancer

Hydrogen Cyanide Eye irritation, headaches, 

confusion, gastrointestinal 

distress, death

Eye irritation, headaches, 

fatigue, chest pains, 

nosebleeds
How much HAP do these sources emit with 

existing controls in place?

11

Combustion

9%

FCCU

25%

Storage

10%

Wastewater

14%

Equipment Leaks

15%

Flares

6%

Cooling Towers

10%

Miscellaneous

11%

Petroleum Refinery HAP Emissions: 20,145 TPY
Past Rulemakings On the Refinery Sector

NSPS

► 1974 NSPS – covers fuel gas combustion devices, FCCU and sulfur plants

► 2008 and 2012 NSPS – covers same above and delayed cokers, flares and 

process heaters specifically

MACT

► Promulgated 2 MACT standards for refineries

► 1995 MACT (known as MACT 1) covers non-combustion or evaporative sources, such 

as equipment leaks, tanks, wastewater, miscellaneous process vents; amended to 

cover heat exchange systems, including cooling towers

► 2002 MACT (known as MACT 2) covers combustion sources: catalytic cracking units, 

catalytic reforming units and sulfur recovery units

Risk and Technology Review (RTR)

► 2007 – proposed risk and technology review amendments for non-combustion sources

► 2009 – withdrew amendments related to risk review due to insufficient data; amendments 

promulgated for heat exchanger systems and amended in 2013

10
Leading Up to this Proposal....

► Finalized flare minimization requirements in NSPS Ja in 2012

► Most refinery flares will be affected in the next few years

► In addition to minimization, requires flow and sulfur monitors on 

flares

► Recent PFTIR tests indicate reasonable operating envelope for 

good combustion efficiency for flares

► Peer review in 2012

► ICR effort in 2011 to collect data on 

► Processes, Equipment, & Controls

► Emissions Inventories

• Development and public comment on emission estimation protocol 

CY2010

► Feed (crude oil) sampling characteristics

► Emissions Source Testing

11
Overview of Proposed Rule

► The EPA is proposing:

► Emission control requirements for storage tanks, 

flares and delayed coking units at petroleum refineries

► Fenceline standard that sets a benzene action level 

and monitoring of the fenceline as a development in 

practices for managing emissions of toxic pollutants 

from fugitive sources 

► To eliminate exemptions during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction

► Technical corrections and clarifications to the 2008 

Petroleum Refinery New Source Performance 

Standards 

12
Proposed Amendments

► Flares: Establish more stringent operating requirements to ensure 

good combustion is achieved. These operating requirements will 

require facilities to:

• Measure & monitor the flow of waste gas going to the flare

• Measure & monitor the content of the waste gas going to the flare

• Measure & monitor any air or steam added into the flare

► Storage Tanks: Upgrade storage tank controls and lower 

applicability thresholds

• Upgrade roof deck fitting controls (gasketed covers for roof openings, sleeve and 

wipers for guide poles)

• Require control of tanks >20,000 gal and >1.9 psi or >40,000 gallons and >.75 psi

• Reference Part 63 Subpart WW and SS (standard standards)

► Delayed Cokers (DCU): Do not allow emissions to the 

atmosphere from the steam vent until the drum pressure is below 

2 psig (pounds per square inch gauge)

13
Proposed Amendments

► Fenceline Monitoring: 

► Deploy passive monitors surrounding the refinery at the fenceline

► Using 2 week average concentration readings, calculate annual 

average benzene concentration and compare against action level

► Conduct root cause analysis and corrective action upon 

exceedances of the action level; 9 μg/m3

14

► Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM)

► Propose to remove SSM exemptions and add 

limits for certain sources during startup and 

shutdown

► Bypasses and discharges of toxic emissions 

through pressure relief devices are a violation of 

standard; requirements to monitor discharges via 

direct monitoring or monitoring of operating 

conditions
What Does a Residual Risk Analysis Show? 

15

► Risk deemed to be “acceptable” under CAA Section 112(f)

► Highest maximum individual risk (MIR) is estimated at 60 in a 

million (actuals) and 100 in a million (allowables)

► Sector-wide population at risk greater than 1 in 1 million is 

predicted at 5,000,000; Highest MIR driven by equipment leaks 

from naphthalene and benzene; cancer incidence of 0.3 

cases/year driven by PAHs from DCU

► Analysis estimates that maximum Hazard Index (HI) of 0.9 from 

HCN from FCCU 

► Maximum acute non-cancer risk predicted a hazard quotient (HQ) 

of 5 due to emissions of nickel from FCCU

► Analysis estimates that proposed amendments for DCU and 

storage tanks result in 1.4 MM fewer people with risks greater 

than 1-in-1 million and reduce cancer incidence about 18%
Cancer Incidence By Source By HAP

16

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.180

Cancer Incidence (cases per year)

Refinery Source

Actuals vs Post-processed Allowables Cancer Incidence Comparison

Other

Arsenic compounds

Chromium (VI) compounds

Formaldehyde

Ethyl benzene

Ethylene dibromide

1,3-Butadiene

Benzene

Nickel compounds

2-Methylnaphthalene

Naphthalene

PAH
What Is Environmental Justice?

► EPA defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as “the 

fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin or 

income with respect to the development, 

implementation and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations and policies” 

► Executive Order Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

[E.O. 12898] was signed by President Clinton on 

February 16, 1994, and calls for federal agencies 

 “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 

law, to identify . . . and address . . . as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of agency programs, 

policies and actions on minority populations and 

low income populations” 

17
Demographic Analyses

► To determine potential EJ issues, demographic analyses of the minority, 

low-income and indigenous populations were conducted

► Percentages of different social, demographic and economic groups 

within populations living near facilities were compared with total 

percentages of demographic groups nationwide 

18
Demographic Analysis (cont.)

19

Nationwide

Population with 

Cancer Risk at or 

Above 1-in-1 Million 

(pre-controls)

Population with Cancer 

Risk at or Above 1-in-1 

Million 

(post controls)

Total Population 312,861,265 5,204,234 3,765,225

Race by Percent

White 72 50 49

All Other Races 28 50 51

Race by Percent

White 72 50 49

African American 13 28 31

Native American 1 1 1

Other and Multiracial 14 21 19

Ethnicity by Percent

Hispanic 17 29 24

Non-Hispanic 83 71 76

Income by Percent

Below Poverty Level 14 21 22

Above Poverty Level 86 79 78

Education by Percent

Over 25 and without 

High School Diploma 15 23 23

Over 25 and with a 

High School Diploma 85 77 77

*There is no population with a Chronic Hazard Index above 1
Q&A

20
Key Issues and Considerations in the 

Proposed Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk 

and Technology Review and New Source 

Performance Standards 

Public Outreach Presentation

New Orleans, LA

June 26-27, 2014

Andrew Bouchard

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC
Overview

►Refinery Flow Diagram

►Technical Considerations

• Storage Vessels (Tanks)

• Flares

• Delayed Coking Units

• Fenceline Monitoring

►More Information

22
Refinery Flow Diagram

23
Storage Vessels (Tanks) 

► Refinery MACT CC currently requires control of existing storage 

vessels:

► ≥177 m3 (46,760 gallons) by volume

► Stored-liquid max. true vapor pressure (VP) ≥1.5 psia

► Proposal would change these thresholds to also require control 

for:

► Smaller tanks (≥20,000 gallons) storing liquids with VP ≥1.9 psia

► Tanks with capacities >40,000 gallons storing liquids with VP ≥0.75 

psia

► Proposal also requires additional equipment requirements for 

tanks with floating roofs

► Guidepole controls

► Fitting controls

► Represents 40% reduction in the baseline emissions for tanks

24
Flares

25

Vent 

Stream

Gas Collection Header

Knockout 

Drum

Drain

Purge 

Gas

Liquid 

Seal

Ignition 

Device

Air Line

Gas Line

Flare Tip

Pilot Burner

Stack Seal

Flare Stack

To Fuel Gas System

Flare Gas 

Recovery 

Compressor

Steam Line
Clear flames can cause poor 

combustion efficiency and emit 

hydrocarbon and CO pollutants

 Operating range may be tighter

 Additional supplemental fuel may be needed

Preferred Flame 

(Luminous color)

Black, smoky discharge 

indicates particulate 

emissions

Flare Operating Envelope

Courtesy of John Zink 26
Delayed Coking Unit Vent Diagram

27

Blowdown 

Off-gas Compressor

Steam

Blowdown 

Settling 

Drum

Blowdown 

Condenser

Blowdown 

Tower

To Main Fractionator

Coke to Pit

To Wet Gas 

Compressor

Light Slop Oil to 

Main Frac

Coke Drum Steam Vent

Sour Water to Sour 

Water Stripper
Delayed Coker Steam Vent

28
Low cost 

sensor 

networks

Different technologies and approaches to detect and measure

pollutants over extended areas and time 

Mobile 

inspection 

systems 

(GMAP)

Monitoring for Assessment of Fugitives

Cost and Feasibility of Widespread Deployment 

Spatial and temporal resolution 

Auto GC 

networks

Open-path 

optical 

systems
N

Low-Cost Sensors Can Provide 24-7 Observation and 

Enable New Regulatory Approaches

Passive Sampling Facility fenceline monitoring

• Locate passive samplers around the 

perimeter of each refinery

• Calculate annual average concentration

• If rolling average concentration exceeds 

benzene concentration standard (the action 

level), initiate tiered approach to positively 

identify facility contribution and conduct 

corrective action to reduce emissions
Passive Monitor Locations (FHR, 633, 634)

Solar Estates (633)

FHR Fenceline

Oak Park (634)

Inner Harbor (631)

N

31
Comparison of Passive and Auto GC at Solar Estates 

(site 633)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Benzene Concentration (pptv)

Sampling Period 

633 passive

633 GC

32
Wi

nd

Emerging low cost sensors provide a variety of 

new solutions for 24-7 coverage

 Fenceline with passive sensors

 In-plant sensor networks

 Community monitoring
More Information

► Consolidated Petroleum Refinery Rulemaking Website

► http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petref.html

► EPA Contact Information

► Brenda Shine, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(919) 541-3608 or at shine.brenda@epa.gov

► Andrew Bouchard, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(919) 541-4036 or at bouchard.andrew@epa.gov

34
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Resources 

The links below provide more information on the proposed rule:

Consolidated Petroleum Refinery 

Rulemaking Repository

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petref.html

Proposed Rule http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/20140515fr.pdf

Fact Sheet http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/20140515factsheet.pdf

Submitting Comments 

EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682, may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov - follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov - include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682 in the subject line 

of the message.

• Fax: (202) 566-9744

• Mail: Send your comments to:

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

• Express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier: Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries 

of boxed information. Deliver your comments to:

EPA Docket Center, Room 3334

EPA WJC West Building

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

The public comment period is anticipated to begin on June 30, 2014. Once the public comment period begins, 

the comment period will remain open for 60 days. 

 

Proposed Rule Information

EPA Workshop for Environmental Justice Communities

on Proposed Updates to Emission Standards for Refineries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Upcoming Hearings and Events 

The EPA will be holding two public hearings on the refineries rule: 

• July 16, 2014, Banning’s Landing Community Center, 100 E. Water Street, Wilmington, CA 90744

• August 5, 2014, Alvin D. Baggett Recreation Building 1302 Keene Street in Galena Park, TX, 77547

The hearings be held from 9 AM to 8 PM with a lunch break from 12 to 1 PM and a dinner break from 5 to 6 

PM.

Points of Contact

For questions about the proposed rule

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Brenda Shine

Phone: (919) 541-3608

Email: shine.brenda@epa.gov

To register for the public hearings

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Virginia L. Hunt 

Phone: (919) 541-0832

Email: hunt.virginia@epa.gov

For general questions about the public 

hearings 

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Angela Hackel

Phone: (919) 541-5262

Email: hackel.angela@epa.gov

For questions about facilities in your area

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9, Air Program

Mike Bandrowski

Phone: (415) 947-4194

Email: bandrowski.mike@epa.gov