1 STANDARD FORM 83-I SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR OMB REVIEW OF EPA ICR No. 2411.01 :

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY SECTOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLL UTANTS (NESHAP) RESIDUAL RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

August 10, 20102 SUPPORTING STATEMENT INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY SECTOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLL UTANTS (NESHAP) RESIDUAL RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

Part A of the Supporting Statement

1. Identification of the Information Collection (a) Title of the Information Collection “Information Collection Request for Petroleu m Refinery Sector New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Residual Risk and Technology Review.” This is a new information colle ction request (EPA ICR

Number 2411.01 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW).

(b) Short Characterization

This information collection is being conducted by EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) to assist the EPA Administ rator, as required by sections 111(b), 112(d), and 112(f)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to reevaluate emission standards for this source category.

The information from this information collection request (ICR) would also be made available to the public.

This is a one-time information collection. Currently, information necessary to identify petroleum refineries is available from the De partment of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report, the Oil and Ga s Journal, and EPA’s National Emissions Inventory. However, these sources of information do not contain all of the details (unit-specific operating capaci ty, emission source design, ty pes of crude oil and other intermediate materials processed, emissions collection and control systems, regulatory alternatives used, and emissions test data) n ecessary to completely characterize petroleum refinery affected sources for purposes of NS PS and NESHAP regulatory analyses. Although some of the needed information may be included in title V or State air emissions permits, many permits do not contain all of the detail needed and are not readily available from any single source. Furthermore, there are no readily ava ilable sources for previ ously conducted emissions test results (since the mid-1990s) that will provide data for emissions of the variety of pollutants

under consideration.3 To obtain this information, EPA is solic iting information with a survey, under the authority of CAA section 114, from all potentially affected units. The Agency intends to administer the survey in electronic format. The surv ey will be sent to all petroleum refineries in the EIA 2009 Refinery Capacity Report. Th e information collection will contain two components: (i) a questionnaire to be completed by all petroleum refineries (Enclosure 1) and (ii) emissions testing to be completed in accordance with an EPA-approved protocol for 92 petroleum refinery emissions sources (Enclosu re 2). Enclosure 1 (t he questionnaire) will require the owner/operator of each petroleum refine ry to complete a survey about their facility and process information, develop and provide an emissions inventory, submit cost data, provide copies of recent emissions te st reports and CEMS/CMS data, and conduct crude oil sampling and analysis. Emissions sources to be tested according to Enclosure 2 will be se lected to ensure that representative data are collected for emissions sources for which EPA has little to no existing information. For example, if EPA has sufficient information on one type of cracking unit but not a second type, EPA will select cracking units of the second type for testing. If EPA has little to no information on an entire emissions source type, EPA will select a representative sample of those sources for testing. The Agency estimates the total cost to indus try of the electronic information collection (gathering, entering, and performi ng quality assurance/ quality control (QA/ QC) checks of data submitted in response to the survey for 152 resp ondents and emissions testing for 92 emissions sources) will be 47,000 hours and $23 milli on, which includes $912 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for postage for mailing ha rd copy test reports and confidential survey responses to EPA. The average burd en per respondent is 308 hours and $150,000. The owner/operator of each petroleum refine ry will be required to enter all data through

the website data collection tool , enter these data using prope r unit terminology, and to QA/QC

the data entered into the webs ite. The owner/operator of each petroleum refinery will be required to keep records: i) documenting that crude oil samples were obtained in accordance with an approved sampling protocol; ii) establis hing proper chain of custody for each crude oil sample; iii) describing the QA/QC procedures fo llowed in preparing each crude oil sample for analysis and performing the required analysis; an d iv) setting forth the results of the analyses performed on each crude oil sample. The owner/operator of each petroleum refinery emissions source required to conduct emissions testing will be required to keep records: i) documenting4 that each emissions test was conducted in accord ance with an approved testing protocol; and ii) setting forth the results of each emissions test. All records required under the proposed info rmation collection must be retained for 3 years.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection (a) Need/Authority for the Collection Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. This category incl udes petroleum refinery-specific process units, such as fluid catal ytic cracking units and catalytic reforming units, as well as units and processes found at other manufacturing facilitie s, such as storage vessels and wastewater treatment plants. The federal emission standards that are the subject of this information

collection include:

-- Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J),

-- Standards of Performance for Petrol eum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commen ced After May 14, 2007 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja),

-- National Emission Standards for Haza rdous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR pa rt 63, subpart CC), and

-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU). The NSPS subparts J and Ja regulate criteria po llutant emissions, including particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and carbon monoxide (CO), from fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re generators, fuel gas combustion devices, and sulfur recovery plants. The NSPS subpart Ja also regulates crite ria pollutant emissions from fluid coking units and delayed coking units. The NESHAP subpart CC (Refinery MACT 1) regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks, gasoline loading racks, marine tank vessel loading, and heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries. Th e NESHAP subpart UUU (Refinery MACT 2) regulates HAP from sulfur recovery units and from catalyst regene ration in catalytic cracking units and catalytic reforming units. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA mandates that EPA review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS every 8 years. The NSPS for petr oleum refineries (40 CF R part 60, subpart J)5 were promulgated in 1974, amended in 1976, and re viewed in 2008; as part of the 2008 review, EPA promulgated amendments to the existing sta ndards of performance and developed separate standards of performance for new process units (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja). However, the promulgated standards did not fully address EPA’s review under se ction 111(b)(1)(B). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA directs EPA to c onduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum achievable control tec hnology (MACT) standard s and determine if

additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks. The CAA secti on 112(f)(2) residual risk review is to be done once, within 8 years of promulgati on of the MACT standard. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to re view and revise the MACT standards, as necessary, taking into account de velopments in practices, proce sses, and control technologies. The CAA section 112(d)(6) technol ogy review is to be done every 8 years. Refinery MACT 1 was promulgated in 1995 and is due for review under CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). Likewise, Refinery MACT 2 was promulgated in 2002 and is also due for review. The data used as the basis for the originally promulgated Refinery MACT 1 are over 15 years old, and the data used as the basis for the originally promulgate d Refinery MACT 2 are over 10 years old. In addition, while efforts were made during the recent NSPS review process to update the NSPS data set developed in 1978, so me data for some types of processes and technologies remains unavailable. The Agency is aware that significant changes have been made in the intervening years in the number of affected facilities, in industry ownership practices, and

in emissions collection a nd control configurations. Further, in light of the stat utory requirements for reviewing emission standards under CAA sec tions 111(b), 112(f)(2), and 112(d)(6), EPA has concluded that obtaining updated information will be crucial to informing its decisions on the

NSPS review and the NESHAP risk and techno logy review (RTR) for petroleum refineries. The Agency has already begun assembling data for a preliminary residual risk assessment for the petroleum refinery NESHAP. A data se t derived from the EPA’ s 2005 National Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and supplemented with data supplied by about 20 individual refine ries were used for a previous residual risk assessment for Refinery MACT 1. However, there remain a number of petroleum refineries for which substantial updates of emissions release points and emissions estimates are important in order for EPA to accurately consider residual risk for the petroleum refinery NESHAP. In addition, there6 are some petroleum refineries for which no Refine ry MACT 1 and/or Refinery MACT 2 data are currently available in the NEI. Preliminary risk analysis results for the petroleum refinery s ector (based on the 2005 NATA NEI data sets) indicate that some refineries are projected to present risk above the

thresholds for further considera tion under the residual risk process. However, inconsistency in reporting methodologies makes it diff icult to draw proper conclusions when different emissions estimates and performance levels are identified. Additional refinery-spe cific information would allow EPA to better characterize emissions sources, refine the risk analys is, and to address any residual risk to ensure the public is protected with an ample margin of safety. An update of the 2005 NATA NEI data sets and more specific in formation needed for rulemaking regulatory analyses would be derived from the ICR. In formation collected dire ctly from petroleum refineries will have the greatest practical utility for purposes of performing the NSPS review and RTR, as information from the affected industry will contain the most up-to-date, accurate, and reliable equipment and operational data for each refinery. The Agency is also providing a protocol document to provide guidance to the in dustry when estimating emissions that are not directly monitored. This will ensure that the da ta collected are consistent and will allow direct comparisons and minimize uncertainty caused by different estimation techniques. The ICR will request that new information be supplied for a 2009 base year, and therefore, will not suffer from the considerable “lag time” that can be associat ed with different inventory and permit review cycles ( e.g. , where the currently available inventory doe s not yet reflect recent changes in control devices). 1

CAA section 114(a) states that the Admini strator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of the Act to: (A) Establish and maintain such records; (B ) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such inte rvals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in

1 There is a “lag time” associated with compiling large State or national emission inventories. For example, an updated version of the NEI database is compiled every three years, but the information contained in the NEI may be based on prior years if states do not submit current data. There can also be a “lag tim e” associated with posting of recent permits to State websites (particularly if permits are only posted every 5 years as they are reviewed).7 accordance with section 114(a)(3 ); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

(b) Use/Users of the Data As mentioned previously, th e data used for the originally promulgated NSPS and

NESHAP are outdated and do not reflect the significant changes in emissions collection and control configurations that have occurred since promulgati on of the standards. The MACT standards contain a number of comp liance alternatives that allow fo r a variety of control devices and process changes to be used to meet the emi ssion standards. At present, EPA does not have a full database reflecting the post- MACT configurations of petroleum refinery emission units and air pollution control systems and techniques. It is essential fo r EPA to have updated information to use in the regulatory analyses required under CAA sections 112( d) and 112(f)(2). In addition, this updated information will be used to comple te the final steps in the NSPS review required under CAA section 111(b). By conducting all of the CAA-required reviews at the same time ( i.e. , conducting the subpart CC and UUU RTR re views and completing the subpart J NSPS review), EPA can make use of a single collection of information to consider control strategies that are the most effective for both HAP, which are regulated under section 112, and criteria air pollutants (such as PM, SO 2 , and NO X ), which are regulated under section 111. The data would also allow EPA to evaluate compliance options fo r startup and shutdown pe riods and to consider ways to consolidate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements among the different rules under review. The data may also help EPA conduct reviews of other rules specific to petroleum refineries, including Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG), Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ), and

National Emission Standard for Benzene Wast e Operations (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF). The data collected will be used to update facility and emissions source information, develop new estimates of the population of affected units, and identify the control measures and alternative emission limits being used for compliance with the existing rules that are under review. This information, along with existing emission limits, will be used to establish a baseline for purposes of the regula tory reviews. The emissions te st data (test reports, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) data, a nd continuous monitoring systems (CMS) data) collected will be used to verify the performance of existing cont rol measures, examine variability8 in emissions, evaluate emission limits, determine the performance of the most effective control measures considered for purposes of reducing re sidual risk, and provide a basis for estimating

nationwide emissions from emissions sources for which EPA has little information. Emissions data will also be used, along with process and em ission unit details, to co nsider options for best demonstrated technology (BDT) under the NSPS re view, consider subcategories for further regulation, and estimate the environmental and co st impacts associated with any regulatory options considered. In addition to informing the CAA-required NSPS and RTR regulatory analyses for the petroleum refinery sector, it is EPA’s intent to include the information supplied through this

information collection in future versions of the NEI and its su ccessor, the Emissions Inventory System (EIS). Including this information in th e NEI is one method of making the data available to the States and the public . More information about the NEI can be found at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/neidb.html

. The non-confidential information collected with this ICR would also be available to the public, including petroleum refine ry industry trade groups that ma y find the information useful for their ongoing data gathering, analyses, and pu blications. In addition, such trade groups may

wish to use the data collected to review and verify EPA’s regulatory conclusions.

3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria (a) Non-duplication The Agency recognizes that some of the information requested in the information collection effort may already be included in the submittals made by individual companies, pursuant to State and national em issions inventories, operating permits applications, initial notification forms, and compliance reports. Howeve r, the complete extent of the data fields requested under this survey is not available in any consistent or usable format. Additionally, these sources do not provide detailed emissions test data. As mentioned previously, there is a lag

time associated with State and national emissions inventories, and permit review cycles. There is also a lag time associated with obtaining emi ssions test reports from State agencies ( i.e. , agencies may be reluctant to release emissions test results they have not yet processed). The Agency’s proposed information collection seeks up-to-date operational and control technique data for the 2009 operating year, and thus avoids the effects of any such lag time on data availability. Although some State permits are provided to the public as searchable portable document format9 files (pdfs), many States do not provide electronic versions of their issued title V permits. Even when the permit is available, the unit-specific op erating data are often not contained within the permit. Some of the initial notifications, co mpliance reports, and emissions test reports submitted are available in hard-copy only, whereas only the facility-level information (facility name, location, contact) is available in an electronic format. Such variation in the level of detail of permits, notifications, and re ports means that it would be extremely time-consuming for EPA to extract the level of process detail needed for regulatory analyses from existing documents (assuming that these documents were readily ava ilable to EPA), and that significant data gaps

would remain even after data from existing documents were compiled. To summarize, the information requested relevant to the current (post-MACT) emissions source operation, regulatory alternatives, emissions data, and the effectiveness of various control systems at removing HAP is not readily available from other sources. In the absence of an industry data collection, EPA would be forced to try to obtain permits, compliance reports, and emissions test reports from States; extract informa tion from these reports (w hich vary in detail); and then to fill data gaps where information is not available from the reports obtained. This process of acquiring and extracting data from ex isting reports would require more time than an industry data collection, and ultimately would be expected to yield incomplete and inconsistent information. Information collected directly from petroleum refineries would provide the most timely and complete post-MACT data set with th e greatest practical utility for purposes of performing the NSPS review and RTR that are du e to be completed under CAA sections 111(b), 112(d), and (f)(2).

(b) Public Notice Required Pr ior to ICR Submission to OMB This ICR is being submitted for public revi ew as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and the subsequent rule i ssued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 29, 1995 (60 FR 44978). The Agency will address public comments before submitting the ICR to OMB.

(c) Consultations

Initial feedback was received from the aff ected industry regarding the procedures for developing their RTR emissions inventory, and their comments are being considered. An opportunity for detailed comments on the el ectronic survey will be provided by the Federal Register notice concerning the ava ilability of the ICR for public review and comment.10 (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This ICR will require the owner/operator of each petroleum refinery to provide a full emissions inventory to be used for regulat ory purposes under CAA sections 111 and 112. In addition, refineries will be asked to complete an electronic survey of general facility information (production processes and capaci ties), equipment details, permit limits, emission control measures, and emissions test data (for previously conducted tests). Some refineries will be asked to complete emissions testing on a specific emissions source. The Agency expects the information requested in this survey to be a one-time effort.

(e) General Guidelines This ICR will adhere to the guidelines for Federal data requestors, as provided at

5 CFR 1320.6.

(f) Confidentiality Respondents will be required to respond unde r the authority of CAA section 114. If a respondent believes that disclosure of certain information requested would compromise a trade secret, it should be clearly identified as such and will be treated as confidential until and unless it is determined in accordance with established EPA procedure as set forth in 40 CFR Part 2 not to

be entitled to confidential treatment. All inform ation submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, entitled “Confidentiality of Business Information.” Any information subsequently determined to constitute a trade secret will be protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905. If

no claim of confidentiali ty accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice (40 CFR 2.203). Because CAA section 114(c) exempts emissions data from cl aims of confidentiality, the emissions data provided may be made available to the public. Th erefore, emissions data should not be marked confidential. A definition of what EPA considers emissions data is provided in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i).

(g) Sensitive questions This section is not applicable because this ICR will not involve matters of a sensitive

nature.11 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested (a) Respondents/NAICS Codes. Respondents affected by this action are owners/o perators of petroleum refineries, all of which are expected to be “maj or sources” of HAP emissions. 2 Based on the Energy Information Administration’s Refinery Capac ity Report 2009, there are 152 opera ble petroleum refineries in the United States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories. Petroleum refineries are located in 35 States, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Isla nds. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for respondents affect ed by the information collection is 32411.

(b) Information Collected (i) Data Items . The proposed data-gathering effo rt has two components: i) a questionnaire to be completed by all 152 petroleum refi neries (Enclosure 1) and ii) emissions testing to be completed in accordance with an EPA-approved protocol fo r 92 selected emissions sources (Enclosure 2). The following paragr aphs provide additional details about the components of the survey and the testing re quirements contained in those enclosures. Enclosure 1 will require the owner/operator of each petroleum refinery to complete a survey about their facility and process informa tion, develop and provide an emissions inventory, submit cost data, provide copies of recent em issions test reports and CEMS/CMS data, and conduct crude oil sampling and analysis. The survey will be administered electronically; a hard copy is provided in Attachment 1 at this time solely for the purposes of soliciting comments. Some questions about particular emissions sources will not be app licable to petroleum refineries that do not have those types of sources. The survey will require each facility to provide information to EPA within 90 days of the receipt of the CAA s ection 114 letter. Enclosure 2 provides instructi ons and guidance for emissions testing for those petroleum refinery emissions sources that are selected to complete emissions testing. This testing will be

done on one occasion. The results of each series of tests and analyses will be required to be reported to EPA by using a specifi ed standardized electronic form at within 6 months of the

2 As defined in 40 CFR Part 63, subpart A:

“ Major source ” means any stationary source or group of st ationary 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, unless the Administrator establishes a lesser quantity, or in the case of radionuclides, different criteria fr om those specified in this sentence.12 receipt of the CAA section 114 letter. Specifi ed QA/QC procedures wi ll be required for each part of the emissions data collection effort. Fo r this effort, EPA believes it is highly advisable for each emissions source subject to emissions te sting under Enclosure 2 of the ICR to devise a quality assurance test plan that is specific to e ach facility. Such a plan could include the project elements as enumerated in chapter 3 of the EP A quality assurance document. The existence of such a plan would provide a means to verify that the quality assurance pr otocols as contained in the various test methods are met. Note, however, that these quality assurance test plans will not be reviewed or approved by EPA. Although a large amount of information is n eeded for regulatory reviews under sections 111 and 112 of the CAA, EPA has designed the info rmation collection in a way to minimize the burden associated with supplying and processing this information. The survey will collect information to supply multiple regulatory actions in order to minimize the burden associated with multiple collections. The Agency will provide a copy of each refinery’s 2005 NATA NEI data set to be reviewed (there by reducing respondent burden to lo cate and import their facility’s NEI data). A table containing the only the releva nt and current source cl assification codes (SCC) will be provided to ensure that valid NEI c odes are used and to reduce respondent time associated with locating codes on the NEI website. The electronic survey files will be provided to refineries through a website, and respondents can use that same website to upload their nonconfidential survey responses. The electronic format will allow EPA to import the responses into database software, eliminating the time required for EPA to key-enter data. The burden

associated with collection of emissions test data has been reduced in several ways: (1) Respondents are required to submit existi ng emissions test reports in order for EPA (or EPA contractor personnel) familiar with extracting test data from test reports to enter the data in a manner that ensures cons istent and reliable treatment of the data ( e.g. , with respect to data averaging and non-detects). (2) Respondents may provide elec tronic or hard copy versions of existing emissions test reports, whichever they fi nd to be less burdensome. (3) Not all refineries will be required to conduct new emissions testing, and EPA plans to spread the required testing over as ma ny refineries as possible to minimize the burden to any one refinery.

Finally, EPA has minimized the collection of control measure cost information by focusing the collection of cost information on air pollution controls a nd process changes of particular interest for purposes of the NSPS review or RTR. The Agency expects cost13 information obtained from the industry to be so me of the most reliable and valid information

available since the cost data w ould be specific to petroleum refi nery applications. In addition,

collection of cost information from the industr y (as opposed to a separate collection from other sources such as vendors) would accelerate EPA’ s ability to analyze the cost impacts of regulatory options. (ii) Respondent Activities . The activities a respondent must undertake to fulfill the requirements of the information collection are presen ted in Attachment 2. These include: i) read instructions; ii) provide information on each a ffected source through electronic survey; iii) submit hard or electronic copies of previous em issions test reports and available CEMS or CMS data; and iv) conduct crude oil sampling and analysis . If one of the refinery’s emissions sources was selected for emissions testing, the respondent must additionally: i) review the emissions testing plan and procure a testing contractor; ii) monitor/supervise emissions testing; iii) review emissions sampling data for accuracy and completeness; and iv) submit emissions sampling data and test reports.

5. The Information Collected – Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management (a) Agency Activities A list of activities required of the Agency is provided in Attachment 3. These include: i) develop electronic questionnaire and packages for mailout; ii) determine which emissions sources will be required to complete emissions tes ting; iii) develop and de ploy a website for data entry from facilities; iv) answer respondent que stions; v) review and analyze responses and emissions data; vi) analyze requests for confidentiality; vii) review emissions test data for accuracy and completeness; and viii) analyze emissions test data.

(b) Collection Methodo logy and Management In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA will use personal computers and applicable spreadsheet a nd database software. To better facilitate uniformity in the format of the requested data , and, thus, increase the ease of database entry, standardized survey questions and electronic forms will be distributed to respondents. The Agency will ensure the accur acy and completeness of the coll ected information by reviewing each submittal. The Agency may place follow-up calls to refineries should questions remain after reviewing all materials submitted. Followi ng QA/QC of each submittal, the information14 from each refinery will be uploaded into a database for further analysis. Survey responses claimed as confidential business information (CBI) will be housed in a separate database from the non-CBI survey responses. In addition, a copy of the emissions inventories submitted will be

routed for inclusion in EPA’s residual risk i nput database, and it is EPA’s intent for this

information to be included in future versions of the NEI and its successor, the EIS. Existing emissions test report data will be entered into a database by EPA (or EPA contractor personnel) familiar with extracting test data from test report s. In addition, CEMS data would be uploaded in a database for analysis of emissions variabil ity. Petroleum refineries asked to complete emissions testing will be instru cted to provide their results th rough the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), and EPA will review those responses. The resulting databases will be checked for QA/QC prior to and as part of regulatory analyses.

(c) Small Entity Flexibility The Agency expects that a small percentage of the respondents may be small entities. These small entities are likely to have simple r refining operations and fewer petroleum refining processes, so they would likely have fewer portions of the survey to complete. The Agency also plans to use an electronic form at of the questionnaire in orde r to reduce the burden and improve the data accuracy from all respondents, including small entities. In addition, the survey will contain a question to determine the small entity stat us of a facility. This question will help to identify, quantify, and consider ways to mi nimize the burden on small entities during the NESHAP and NSPS review and rulemaking processes.

(d) Collection Schedule The Agency anticipates issuing the CAA sec tion 114 letters in the first quarter of 2011. These CAA section 114 letters would require the owner/operator of each petroleum refinery to complete the petroleum refinery sector surv ey (including providing an updated emissions inventory, submitting cost data, providing copi es of recent emissions test reports and CEMS/CMS data, and conducting crude oil sampling and analysis) within 90 days of receipt of the survey. The Agency will compile and analyze survey response data. The owner/operator of each of the refine ry emissions sources selected to conduct emissions testing will, in the same letter, be required to: i) subm it to EPA a schedule for completing the required emissions testing, along with any request to use a test method not supplied in the EPA-approved protocol; ii) commen ce emissions testing by the date specified in15 the EPA-approved facility-specific schedule; and iii ) complete emissions testing within 6 months of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter. The Ag ency will compile and analyze emissions testing data upon receipt.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection (a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs Attachment 2 presents estimated costs for the required data collection activities. Labor

rates and associated costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. Technical, management, and clerical average hourly rates fo r private industry workers were taken from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2010, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group,” available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm . Total compensation for three occupational groups are used as the basis for the labor rates as shown below:

Labor type Occupational group Total compensation ($ per hour worked) Technical Professional and related 46.29 Managerial Management, business, and financial 55.26 Clerical Office and administrative support 23.27

These rates represent salaries plus fringe benef its but do not include the cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account fo r these costs. The fully-burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor co sts are: technical at $97.21, management at $116.05, and clerical at $48.87. These estimates represent the one-time burden that will be incurred by the recipients.

(b) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

The costs the Federal Govern ment would incur are presen ted in Attachment 3. The Agency labor rates are from the Office of Pe rsonnel Management (OPM) 2010 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from Salary Table 2010-GS, available on the OPM website at http ://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/gs_h.asp . The government employee labor rates used in this analysis are shown below:16 Labor type Grade Step Hourly rate ($ per hour worked) Technical 13 1 34.34 Managerial 15 1 47.74 Clerical 7 1 16.28

These rates were increased by 60 percent to incl ude fringe benefits and overhead. The fullyburdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are: cleric al at $26.05, technical at $54.94, and managerial at $76.38.

(c) Estimating the Respondent Uni verse and Total Burden and Costs The potential respondent universe consists of an estimated 152 petrol eum refineries. All 152 of these refineries will be required to complete the first component of the ICR ( i.e. , the survey, emissions inventory, submittal of existing test reports, and crude oil sampling). The second component ( i.e. , the required emissions testing) will have, at most, 92 respondents (assuming that each emissions source required to be tested is located at a different refinery).

(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables (i) Respondent tally . The bottom line industry burden hours and costs, presented in Attachment 2, are calculated by summing the person-hours column and by summing the cost

column. The total burden and cost to th e industry for 152 respondents is 47,000 hours and $23 million. No capital or annualized costs are app licable because this is a one-time submittal. The O&M costs of $912 are estimated for postage to mail hard copy test reports and confidential survey responses to EPA. (ii) Agency tally . The bottom line Agency burden and cost, presented in Attachment

3 is calculated in the same ma nner as the industry burden and co st. The estimated burden and cost for 152 respondents is 17,900 hours and $95 7,000, which includes $3,500 in O&M costs to

send certified CAA section 114 letter s to all respondents with elec tronic return receipt, printing

costs for the CAA section 114 letters and enclosur es, costs to maintain a website to provide electronic copies of the que stionnaire, and computer st orage of data received. (iii) The complex collection . This ICR is a simple collection; therefore, this section does not apply. (iv) Variations in the annual bottom line . This section does not apply as this is a onetime collection.17 (e) Reasons for Change in Burden This is the initial estimation of burden for this information collection; therefore, this section does not apply.

(f) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disc lose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This

includes the time needed to revi ew instructions; develop, acquire , install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, valid ating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providi ng information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructio ns and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of info rmation; search data sources; co mplete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to re spond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CF R part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The total cost burden for the petroleum refineries data gathering effort is estimated to be 47,000 hours and $23 million (308 hours and $150,000 per respondent for 152 respondents). The O&M costs of $912 ($6 per respondent) are es timated for postage to mail hard copy test reports and confidential surv ey responses to EPA. To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for mini mizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has establis hed a docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682, which is available fo r online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in hard copy at EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA We st, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket Center is

202-566-1742. An electronic version of the public do cket is available at www.regulations.gov . This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available18 electronically. When in the sy stem, select “search,” then ke y in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budge t, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682 in any correspondence.19 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY SECTOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLL UTANTS (NESHAP) RESIDUAL RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

Part B of the Supporting Statement 1. Respondent Universe Estimates based on the EIA 2009 Refinery Capa city Report indicate that the potential respondent universe consists of 152 petroleum refineries. 3 All 152 of these refineries will be required to complete some portion of the electr onic survey. However, the EIA 2009 Refinery Capacity Report indicates that some refineries do not have all of the emissions sources for which the questionnaire requests information. Therefore, not all of the 152 refineries will be required to complete every section of th e questionnaire. Attachment 2 lis ts the various portions of the survey in detail and provides an estimated numb er of refineries required to complete each portion of the survey. For the emissions sources not pres ent at every refinery, estimates of the number of refineries operating that type of emissions source are as follows:

Total number of refineries with: Count catalytic cracking unit 101 fluid coking unit 5 delayed coking unit 58 catalytic reforming unit 116 sulfur recovery unit 111 hydrogen plant vent 54 solid waste management 50

2. Selection of Units to Conduct Emissions Testing Petroleum refinery emissions sources to be tested will be selected to provide representative emissions data from emissions sources for which EPA has little to no emissions data. The emissions testing will cover criteri a pollutants and five gr oups of HAP that may potentially be regulated. The groups of HAP are organic HAP, dioxin/furan organic HAP, acid-

3 Note that petroleum refineries have been identified to the best of EPA’s ability for the purpose of this ICR action only. Identification of any unit for r eceipt of the CAA section 114 letter re quiring information be submitted or testing be conducted does not constitute a final Agency applicability determination related to the rule under development. Similarly, units not recei ving a CAA section 114 letter may ultimate ly be determined to be subject to the final rule. Specific applicability definitions will be developed during the rulemaking process and will be subject to notice and comment.20 gas HAP ( e.g. , hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluorid e (HF)), mercury and other metallic HAP, and reduced sulfur compounds. For those un its required to complete stack testing, each facility is required to test after the last control device or at the stack if the last control device is

not shared with one or more other units. In this way, the facility would te st before any “dilution” by gases from a separately-control led unit. Under certain circum stances, however, testing after a

common control device or at th e common stack will be allowed. EPA will request testing of 92 petroleum refinery emissions sources. Sources to be tested will be selected to ensure that representative data are collected for emissions sources for which EPA has little to no existing information. The nu mbers of tests for various types of emissions

sources are listed in Table 1.21 Table 1. Number of Emissions Tests by Type of Emissions Source

Emissions Source Number of emissions sources to be tested Fluid catalytic cracking unit Complete combustion regeneration with continuous reformer 2 Partial combustion ( i.e. , with a CO boiler) with continuous reformer 2 Complete combustion regeneration without continuous reformer 2 Partial combustion ( i.e. , with a CO boiler) without continuous reformer 2 Thermal catalytic cracking unit 1 2 Fluid coking unit 2 Delayed coking unit With oil scrubber vent 2 4 Without oil scrubber vent 2 4 Catalytic reforming unit Continuous 4 Cyclic 4 Semi-regenerative 4 Catalytic hydrocracking unit 4 Hydrogen production unit 3 6 Asphalt blowing unit 6 Sulfur recovery unit 4 6 Fuel gas system With a flexicoking unit 1,5 3 With a fluid coking unit 1 With a delayed coking unit 8 With a catalytic hydrotreating unit but no coking units 2 With a thermal catalytic cracking unit but no coking units 1 With a fluid catalytic cracking unit but no coking units 3 With no cracking or coking units (“straight run”) 2 Cooling water system 12 Wastewater treatment system 6 Total 92

1 This number is expected to include all of these types of em issions sources in the industry.

2 Assumes that there are four delayed c oking units with oil scrubbers in the indu stry. If there are not, these numbers will be adjusted to reflect current control configura tions, and the total number of delayed coking units will remain at eight.

3 Assumes that all hydrogen production units are steam methan e reforming units; if there are other types in use in the industry, EPA will include those other types in the six test s. EPA may also distinguish by type of pressure swing absorption (PSA).

4 There are more than six types of tail gas treatment units (TGTU) in use in the refinery, so testing six emissions sources will not allow EPA to collect data from all types, but units will be selected to provide variety of sizes and TGTU types.

5 Assumes that there are three flexicoking units in the indust ry. If there are not, this number will be adjusted to reflect current configurations, and the total nu mber of fuel gas systems will remain at 20.22 3. Response Rates Since the information will be requested pur suant to the authority of CAA section 114, EPA expects that all respondents requested to submit information will do so.23 List of Attachments

1. Draft Questionnaire Content 2. Industry Burden and Costs for Responding to the Questionnaire 3. Agency Burden and CostsAttachment 1.

Draft Questionnaire ContentEnclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.2-1Attachment 2. Industry Burden and Costs for Responding to the QuestionnaireRespondent Activity (A) Hours perOccurrence(B) Occurrences/Respondent/Year(C) Hours/Respondent/Year (A x B)(D)Respondents/Year1(E) TechnicalHours/Year(C x D)(F) ManagerialHours/Year(E x 0.05)(G) ClericalHours/Year(E x 0.10)(H) Cost/Year1. APPLICATIONS (Not Applicable)2. SURVEY AND STUDIES (Not Applicable)3. ACQUISITION, INSTALLATION, AND UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGYAND SYSTEMS (Not Applicable)4. REPORT REQUIREMENTSA. Read Instructions12 1 12 152 1,824 91 182 $196,806B. Required Activitiesa. Complete and submit survey (Enclosure 1)Part I: General Facility Information 6 1 6 152 912 46 91 $98,403Part II: Process and Emissions InformationSection 1. Energy Management 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 2. Process Heater Data 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 3. Equipment Leaks 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 4. Storage Tanks 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 5. Catalytic Cracking Unit 2 1 2 101 202 10 20 $21,795Section 6. Fluid Coking Unit 2 1 2 5 10 1 1 $1,079Section 7. Delayed Coking Unit 2 1 2 58 116 6 12 $12,516Section 8. Catalytic Reforming Unit 2 1 2 116 232 12 23 $25,032Section 9. Sulfur Recovery Unit 2 1 2 111 222 11 22 $23,953Section 10. Hydrogen Plant Vent 2 1 2 54 108 5 11 $11,653Section 11. Other Atmospheric Vents 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 12. Flares 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 13. Cooling Water Systems 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 14. Wastewater Collectionand Treatment 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Section 15. Solid Waste Management 2 1 2 50 100 5 10 $10,790Section 16. Loading and Unloading Operations 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Annex A. Emissions InventoryData 120 1 120 152 18,240 912 1,824 $1,968,060Part III: National Response CenterNotifications 2 1 2 152 304 15 30 $32,801Part IV: Complete and submit cost spreadsheet210 1 10 91.2 912 46 91 $98,403Part V: Emissions Monitoring and Source Test DataGather/scan/copy existing test reports3,41.5 2 3 60.8 182 9 18 $19,681Fill out Source Test Summary Table (Attachment 3)31 2 2 60.8 122 6 12 $13,120Submit existing reports3,51 2 2 60.8 122 6 12 $13,120Fill out CEMS data (Attachment 4)61 6 6 136.8 821 41 82 $88,563Part VI: Crude Oil Composition Analysis72145$4,640,000Subtotal for Enclosure 1$7,570,984b. Testing Requirements (Enclosure 2)8Read Test Plan provided by EPA for testing 0.7 1 0.7 92 64 3 6 $6,949Procure contractor to performtesting 20 1 20 224 4,480 224 448 $483,383Plant personnel for testing oversight 16 2 32 224 7,168 358 717 $773,4132-2Respondent Activity (A) Hours perOccurrence(B) Occurrences/Respondent/Year(C) Hours/Respondent/Year (A x B)(D)Respondents/Year1(E) TechnicalHours/Year(C x D)(F) ManagerialHours/Year(E x 0.05)(G) ClericalHours/Year(E x 0.10)(H) Cost/YearReview the test report data 5 1 5 224 1,120 56 112 $120,846Submit stack test results through the ERT 2 1 2 224 448 22 45 $48,338QA/QC entered data on website 1 1 1 224 224 11 22 $24,169Emissions testsOrganic compounds (group “a” stack tests for CRU)12$1,560,000Organic compounds (group “a” stack tests for other units)42$4,317,600Dioxin/furan HAP (group “b” stack tests)36$1,368,000Acid gases and reduced sulfur (group “c” stack tests)8$363,200Mercury and metallic HAP (including Cr+6and ammonia) (group “d” stack testsfor FCCU, FCU)10$1,058,800Mercury and metallic HAP (group “d” stack tests for other cracking, othercoking, and reforming units)26$2,076,880Acid gases (group “e” stack tests)28$795,200Reduced sulfur (group “f” stack tests)12$388,800NOXand SO2(group “e” stack tests)12$374,400Organic compounds, reduced sulfur, and other parameters in refinery fuel gas20$740,000Analysis via Texas El Paso stripping columns12$372,000Wastewater treatment systems6$342,000Subtotal for Enclosure 2$15,213,978C. Create Information (Included in 4B)D. Gather Existing Information (Included in 4B)E. Write Report (Not Applicable)5. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS (Included in 4B)40,669 2,033 4,067$23,008,962TOTAL ANNUAL LABOR BURDEN AND COSTtotal hours = 46,769avg. hr/refinery =308avg. cost/respondent =$151,375ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS (Not Applicable)$ -ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS (Not Applicable)$ -TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (O&M)9$912TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS (Annualized capital + O&M costs)$912TOTAL LABOR AND O&M COSTS$23,009,8741The number of respondents per year is based on the counts listed in Part B, Section 1 - Respondent Universe.2Assumes that 60% of refinerieswill provide cost information.3It is estimated that 40% of refineries will submit two previous reports.4It is estimated that it would take 1.5 hoursto locate and scan or copy each test report.5Existing reports include source tests, qualified CEMS data, biological treatment unitsdata, and ambient orremote sensing data.6Assumes 90% of refineries will fill out six CEMS/CMS forms.7Assumes that 152 refineries will sample and testtwo types of crude oil (or intermediate feed).8Some units will be tested for more than one group of pollutants. Number of respondents based on 224 groups of tests on 92 total emissions sources, assuming the 92 emissionssources are at 92 different refineries(224 tests/92 emissions sources = 2.4 tests per emissions source, 92 refineries).9Postage Costs for mailing survey responses to EPA are estimatedat $6 for Federal Express letter size envelope flat rate (1 per respondent).3-1Attachment 3. Agency Burden and CostsAgency Activity(A) EPA Hours/Occurrence(B) Occurrences/Respondent/Year(C) EPAHours/Respondent/Year (A x B)(D)Respondents/Year1(E) EPATechnical Hours/Year (C x D)(F) EPAManagerialHours/Year(E x 0.05)(G) EPAClericalHours/Year(E x 0.10) (H) Cost, $Develop/revise questionnairespreadsheets and instructions2400 1 400 1 400 20 40 $24,547Develop survey website 10 1 10 1 10 1 1 $614Gather NEI data for each refinery31 1 1 142 142 7 14 $8,714Mail out questionnaire40.7 1 0.7 152 106 5 11 $6,530Answer respondent questions viaphone, email, and/or frequentlyasked questions posted on website51 1 1 38 38 2 4 $2,332Handle and review responses for confidentiality61 1 1 38 38 2 4 $2,332Review and analyze responses (including follow-up)Survey 12 1 12 152 1,824 91 182 $111,935Emissions inventory data20 1 20 152 3,040 152 304 $186,559CEMS/CMS data78 6 48 136.8 6,566 328 657 $402,967Cost data88 1 8 91.2 730 36 73 $44,774Review/analyze/input existing emissions test data97 2 14 60.8 851 43 85 $52,236Review/analyze electronically submitted emissions test data108 2.4 19.5 92 1,792 90 179 $109,971Total Annual Hours 15,538 777 1,554 $953,51117,868 hoursExpenses (O&M)11Printing letter and enclosures $532Postage $912Computer storage of data & website usage $2,042Total Expenses $3,486TOTAL ANNUAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST $956,9981The number of respondents per year is based on the refinerycounts listed in Part B, Section 1 - Respondent Universe.2Includes determining which emissions sources will be required to complete emissions testing.3The number of respondents per year excludes approximately10 refineries that are not already included in the NEI.4Mailout package includes section 114 letter with standard enclosures and hard copy ofsurvey instructions. Assumes EPA will mail one questionnaire per facility.5Assumes that 25% of the facilities will have questions.6Assumes that 25% of facilities will have confidential data.7Assumes 90% of refineries will populate six CEMSspreadsheet forms with CEMS and/or CMS data.8Assumes that 60% of refinerieswill provide cost information.9Assumes that 40% of refineries will submit two previous reports.10Based on 224 total groups of tests on 92total emissions sources, assuming the 92 emissions sources are at 92 different refineries (224 tests/92 emissions sources = 2.4 tests per emissions source, 92 refineries).11Copy costs are estimated for 70 pages at $0.05/page. PostageCosts are estimated at $6 for Federal Express letter size envelope flat rate. Data storage estimated at $21/GB/mo, assuming 25 MB per response. Website costestimated at $85/mo for 6 months.