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 POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) RESIDUAL RISK 

AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

August 10, 2010 
2

SUPPORTING STATEMENT 

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY SECTOR 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (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 Petroleum 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 collection 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 Administrator, 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 Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report, the Oil and Gas Journal, and EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory. However, these sources of information do not contain all of the details 

(unit-specific operating capacity, emission source design, types of crude oil and other 

intermediate materials processed, emissions collection and control systems, regulatory 

alternatives used, and emissions test data) necessary to completely characterize petroleum 

refinery affected sources for purposes of NSPS 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 available sources for previously 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 soliciting 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 survey will be sent to all petroleum refineries in 

the EIA 2009 Refinery Capacity Report. The 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 (Enclosure 2). Enclosure 1 (the questionnaire) will 

require the owner/operator of each petroleum refinery to complete a survey about their facility 

and process information, develop and provide an emissions inventory, submit cost data, provide 

copies of recent emissions test reports and CEMS/CMS data, and conduct crude oil sampling and 

analysis. Emissions sources to be tested according to Enclosure 2 will be selected 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 industry of the electronic information collection 

(gathering, entering, and performing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) checks of data 

submitted in response to the survey for 152 respondents and emissions testing for 92 emissions 

sources) will be 47,000 hours and $23 million, which includes $912 in operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs for postage for mailing hard copy test reports and confidential survey 

responses to EPA. The average burden per respondent is 308 hours and $150,000. 

The owner/operator of each petroleum refinery will be required to enter all data through 

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

the data entered into the website. 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) establishing proper chain of custody for each crude oil 

sample; iii) describing the QA/QC procedures followed in preparing each crude oil sample for 

analysis and performing the required analysis; and 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) documenting 
4

that each emissions test was conducted in accordance with an approved testing protocol; and ii) 

setting forth the results of each emissions test. 

All records required under the proposed information 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 includes petroleum refinery-specific 

process units, such as fluid catalytic cracking units and catalytic reforming units, as well as units 

and processes found at other manufacturing facilities, 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 Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, 

Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007 (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Ja), 

-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum 

Refineries (40 CFR part 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 pollutant emissions, including particulate matter 

(PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO), from fluid 

catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and sulfur recovery 

plants. The NSPS subpart Ja also regulates criteria 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. The NESHAP subpart UUU (Refinery MACT 2) regulates HAP from 

sulfur recovery units and from catalyst regeneration 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 petroleum refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) 
5

were promulgated in 1974, amended in 1976, and reviewed in 2008; as part of the 2008 review, 

EPA promulgated amendments to the existing standards 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 section 111(b)(1)(B). 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category 

subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and determine if 

additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks. The CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk 

review is to be done once, within 8 years of promulgation of the MACT standard. 

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards, as 

necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. 

The CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 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 promulgated 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, some 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 and control configurations. Further, in light of the statutory requirements 

for reviewing emission standards under CAA sections 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 technology 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 set 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 refineries 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, there 
6

are some petroleum refineries for which no Refinery MACT 1 and/or Refinery MACT 2 data are 

currently available in the NEI. 

Preliminary risk analysis results for the petroleum refinery sector (based on the 2005 

NATA NEI data sets) indicate that some refineries are projected to present risk above the 

thresholds for further consideration under the residual risk process. However, inconsistency in 

reporting methodologies makes it difficult to draw proper conclusions when different emissions 

estimates and performance levels are identified. Additional refinery-specific information would 

allow EPA to better characterize emissions sources, refine the risk analysis, 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 information needed for rulemaking regulatory 

analyses would be derived from the ICR. Information collected directly 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 industry when estimating emissions that are not 

directly monitored. This will ensure that the data 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 associated with different inventory and permit review 

cycles (e.g., where the currently available inventory does not yet reflect recent changes in control 

devices).1

CAA section 114(a) states that the Administrator 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 intervals, 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 time” 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, the 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 promulgation of the standards. The MACT 

standards contain a number of compliance alternatives that allow for a variety of control devices 

and process changes to be used to meet the emission 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 for 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 complete 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 reviews 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, SO2, and NOX), which are regulated under section 111. The data would 

also allow EPA to evaluate compliance options for startup and shutdown periods 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 Waste 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 regulatory reviews. The emissions test data (test reports, continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) data, and continuous monitoring systems (CMS) data) 

collected will be used to verify the performance of existing control measures, examine variability 
8

in emissions, evaluate emission limits, determine the performance of the most effective control 

measures considered for purposes of reducing residual 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 emission unit details, to consider options for best 

demonstrated technology (BDT) under the NSPS review, consider subcategories for further 

regulation, and estimate the environmental and cost 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 successor, the Emissions Inventory 

System (EIS). Including this information in the 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 refinery industry trade groups that may find the information useful 

for their ongoing data gathering, analyses, and publications. 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 emissions inventories, operating permits applications, initial 

notification forms, and compliance reports. However, 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 emissions 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 format 
9

files (pdfs), many States do not provide electronic versions of their issued title V permits. Even 

when the permit is available, the unit-specific operating data are often not contained within the 

permit. Some of the initial notifications, compliance 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 reports 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 available 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 information from these reports (which 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 existing 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 the greatest practical utility for purposes of 

performing the NSPS review and RTR that are due to be completed under CAA sections 111(b), 

112(d), and (f)(2). 

(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 

This ICR is being submitted for public review as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA) and the subsequent rule issued 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 affected industry regarding the procedures for 

developing their RTR emissions inventory, and their comments are being considered. An 

opportunity for detailed comments on the electronic survey will be provided by the Federal 

Register notice concerning the availability 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 regulatory 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 capacities), 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 under 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 information 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 confidentiality 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 claims of confidentiality, the emissions data 

provided may be made available to the public. Therefore, 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/operators of petroleum refineries, all of 

which are expected to be “major sources” of HAP emissions.2

 Based on the Energy Information 

Administration’s Refinery Capacity Report 2009, there are 152 operable 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 Islands. The North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code for respondents affected by the information collection is 32411. 

(b) Information Collected 

(i) Data Items. The proposed data-gathering effort has two components: i) a 

questionnaire to be completed by all 152 petroleum refineries (Enclosure 1) and ii) emissions 

testing to be completed in accordance with an EPA-approved protocol for 92 selected emissions 

sources (Enclosure 2). The following paragraphs provide additional details about the 

components of the survey and the testing requirements contained in those enclosures. 

Enclosure 1 will require the owner/operator of each petroleum refinery to complete a 

survey about their facility and process information, develop and provide an emissions inventory, 

submit cost data, provide copies of recent emissions 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 applicable 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 section 114 letter. 

Enclosure 2 provides instructions 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 specified standardized electronic format within 6 months of the 

 

2

 As defined in 40 CFR Part 63, subpart 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, unless the Administrator establishes a lesser quantity, or in the 

case of radionuclides, different criteria from those specified in this sentence. 
12

receipt of the CAA section 114 letter. Specified QA/QC procedures will be required for each 

part of the emissions data collection effort. For this effort, EPA believes it is highly advisable 

for each emissions source subject to emissions testing under Enclosure 2 of the ICR to devise a 

quality assurance test plan that is specific to each facility. Such a plan could include the project 

elements as enumerated in chapter 3 of the EPA quality assurance document. The existence of 

such a plan would provide a means to verify that the quality assurance protocols 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 needed for regulatory reviews under sections 

111 and 112 of the CAA, EPA has designed the information 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 (thereby reducing respondent burden to locate and import their facility’s 

NEI data). A table containing the only the relevant and current source classification codes (SCC) 

will be provided to ensure that valid NEI codes 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 existing 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 consistent and reliable treatment of the data 

(e.g., with respect to data averaging and non-detects). 

(2) Respondents may provide electronic or hard copy versions of existing emissions test 

reports, whichever they find 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 many 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 and process changes of 

particular interest for purposes of the NSPS review or RTR. The Agency expects cost 
13

information obtained from the industry to be some of the most reliable and valid information 

available since the cost data would be specific to petroleum refinery applications. In addition, 

collection of cost information from the industry (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 presented in Attachment 2. These include: i) read 

instructions; ii) provide information on each affected source through electronic survey; iii) 

submit hard or electronic copies of previous emissions 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 testing; iii) develop and deploy a website for data 

entry from facilities; iv) answer respondent questions; 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 Methodology and Management 

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA will use 

personal computers and applicable spreadsheet and 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 accuracy and completeness of the collected information by reviewing 

each submittal. The Agency may place follow-up calls to refineries should questions remain 

after reviewing all materials submitted. Following QA/QC of each submittal, the information 
14

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 input 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 reports. In addition, CEMS data would be uploaded in 

a database for analysis of emissions variability. Petroleum refineries asked to complete 

emissions testing will be instructed to provide their results through 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 simpler 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 format of the questionnaire in order 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 status of a facility. This question will help to 

identify, quantify, and consider ways to minimize the burden on small entities during the 

NESHAP and NSPS review and rulemaking processes. 

(d) Collection Schedule 

The Agency anticipates issuing the CAA section 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 survey (including providing an updated emissions 

inventory, submitting cost data, providing copies 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 refinery emissions sources selected to conduct 

emissions testing will, in the same letter, be required to: i) submit 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) commence emissions testing by the date specified in 
15

the EPA-approved facility-specific schedule; and iii) complete emissions testing within 6 months 

of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter. The Agency 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 for 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 benefits but do not include the cost of overhead. An 

overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs. The fully-burdened hourly wage 

rates used to represent respondent labor costs 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 Government would incur are presented in Attachment 3. The 

Agency labor rates are from the Office of Personnel 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 include fringe benefits and overhead. The fullyburdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are: clerical at $26.05, technical at 

$54.94, and managerial at $76.38. 

(c) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 

The potential respondent universe consists of an estimated 152 petroleum 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 the industry for 152 respondents is 47,000 hours and 

$23 million. No capital or annualized costs are applicable 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 manner as the industry burden and cost. The estimated burden and 

cost for 152 respondents is 17,900 hours and $957,000, which includes $3,500 in O&M costs to 

send certified CAA section 114 letters to all respondents with electronic return receipt, printing 

costs for the CAA section 114 letters and enclosures, costs to maintain a website to provide 

electronic copies of the questionnaire, and computer storage 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 disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 

includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 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 respond 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 CFR 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 estimated for postage to mail hard copy test 

reports and confidential survey responses to EPA. 

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA has established a docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in 

hard copy at EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 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 docket 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 available 
18

electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number 

identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 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 POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) RESIDUAL RISK 

AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW 

Part B of the Supporting Statement 

1. Respondent Universe 

Estimates based on the EIA 2009 Refinery Capacity 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 electronic 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 the questionnaire. Attachment 2 lists the various portions of the 

survey in detail and provides an estimated number of refineries required to complete each portion 

of the survey. For the emissions sources not present 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 criteria pollutants and five groups 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 receipt of the CAA section 114 letter requiring information be submitted or 

testing be conducted does not constitute a final Agency applicability determination related to the rule under 

development. Similarly, units not receiving a CAA section 114 letter may ultimately 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 fluoride (HF)), mercury and other metallic 

HAP, and reduced sulfur compounds. For those units 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 test before any “dilution” 

by gases from a separately-controlled unit. Under certain circumstances, however, testing after a 

common control device or at the 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 numbers 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 unit1 2 

Fluid coking unit 2 

Delayed coking unit 

With oil scrubber vent2 4 

Without oil scrubber vent2 4 

Catalytic reforming unit 

Continuous 4 

Cyclic 4 

Semi-regenerative 4 

Catalytic hydrocracking unit 4 

Hydrogen production unit3 6 

Asphalt blowing unit 6 

Sulfur recovery unit4 6 

Fuel gas system 

With a flexicoking unit1,5 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 emissions sources in the industry. 2

 Assumes that there are four delayed coking units with oil scrubbers in the industry. If there are not, these numbers 

will be adjusted to reflect current control configurations, and the total number of delayed coking units will 

remain at eight. 

3

 Assumes that all hydrogen production units are steam methane reforming units; if there are other types in use in the 

industry, EPA will include those other types in the six tests. 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 industry. If there are not, this number will be adjusted to 

reflect current configurations, and the total number of fuel gas systems will remain at 20. 
22

 

3. Response Rates 

Since the information will be requested pursuant 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 Costs 
Attachment 1. 

Draft Questionnaire Content 
Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. 
2-1 

Attachment 2. Industry Burden and Costs for Responding to the Questionnaire 

Respondent Activity (A) Hours per 

Occurrence 

(B) Occurrences/ 

Respondent/ 

Year 

(C) Hours/ 

Respondent/ 

Year (A x B) 

(D) 

Respondents/ 

Year1

(E) Technical 

Hours/Year 

(C x D) 

(F) 

Ho

(

1. APPLICATIONS (Not Applicable) 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES (Not Applicable) 3. ACQUISITION, INSTALLATION, AND UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEMS (Not Applicable) 4. REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

A. Read Instructions 12 1 12 152 1,824 B. Required Activities 

a. Complete and submit survey (Enclosure 1) 

Part I: General Facility Information 6 1 6 152 912 Part II: Process and Emissions Information 

Section 1. Energy Management 2 1 2 152 304 Section 2. Process Heater Data 2 1 2 152 304 Section 3. Equipment Leaks 2 1 2 152 304 Section 4. Storage Tanks 2 1 2 152 304 Section 5. Catalytic Cracking Unit 2 1 2 101 202 Section 6. Fluid Coking Unit 2 1 2 5 10 Section 7. Delayed Coking Unit 2 1 2 58 116 Section 8. Catalytic Reforming Unit 2 1 2 116 232 Section 9. Sulfur Recovery Unit 2 1 2 111 222 Section 10. Hydrogen Plant Vent 2 1 2 54 108 Section 11. Other Atmospheric Vents 2 1 2 152 304 Section 12. Flares 2 1 2 152 304 Section 13. Cooling Water Systems 2 1 2 152 304 Section 14. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 2 1 2 152 304 Section 15. Solid Waste Management 2 1 2 50 100 Section 16. Loading and Unloading Operations 2 1 2 152 304 Annex A. Emissions Inventory Data 120 1 120 152 18,240 

Part III: National Response Center Notifications 2 1 2 152 304 Part IV: Complete and submit cost spreadsheet2 10 1 10 91.2 912 Part V: Emissions Monitoring and Source Test Data 

 Gather/scan/copy existing test reports3,4 1.5 2 3 60.8 182 Fill out Source Test Summary Table (Attachment 3)3 1 2 2 60.8 122 Submit existing reports3,5 1 2 2 60.8 122 Fill out CEMS data (Attachment 4)6 1 6 6 136.8 821 

Part VI: Crude Oil Composition Analysis7 2 145 

Subtotal for Enclosure 1 b. Testing Requirements (Enclosure 2)8

Read Test Plan provided by EPA for testing 0.7 1 0.7 92 64 Procure contractor to perform testing 20 1 20 224 4,480 Plant personnel for testing oversight 16 2 32 224 7,168 
2-2 

Respondent Activity (A) Hours per 

Occurrence 

(B) Occurrences/ 

Respondent/ 

Year 

(C) Hours/ 

Respondent/ 

Year (A x B) 

(D) 

Respondents/ 

Year1

(E) Technical 

Hours/Year 

(C x D) 

(F) 

Ho

(

Review the test report data 5 1 5 224 1,120 Submit stack test results through the ERT 2 1 2 224 448 QA/QC entered data on website 1 1 1 224 224 Emissions tests 

Organic compounds (group “a” stack tests for CRU) 12 Organic compounds (group “a” stack tests for other units) 42 Dioxin/furan HAP (group “b” stack tests) 36 Acid gases and reduced sulfur (group “c” stack tests) 8 Mercury and metallic HAP (including Cr+6 and ammonia) (group “d” stack tests 

for FCCU, FCU) 10 

Mercury and metallic HAP (group “d” stack tests for other cracking, other coking, and reforming units) 26 Acid gases (group “e” stack tests) 28 Reduced sulfur (group “f” stack tests) 12 NOX and SO2 (group “e” stack tests) 12 Organic compounds, reduced sulfur, and other parameters in refinery fuel gas 20 Analysis via Texas El Paso stripping columns 12 Wastewater treatment systems 6 

Subtotal for Enclosure 2 

C. 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 

TOTAL ANNUAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 

total hours = 46,769 avg. hr/ refinery = 

ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS (Not Applicable) ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS (Not Applicable) TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (O&M)9 TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS (Annualized capital + O&M costs) TOTAL LABOR AND O&M COSTS 1 The number of respondents per year is based on the counts listed in Part B, Section 1 - Respondent Universe. 2 Assumes that 60% of refineries will provide cost information. 3 It is estimated that 40% of refineries will submit two previous reports. 4 It is estimated that it would take 1.5 hours to locate and scan or copy each test report. 5 Existing reports include source tests, qualified CEMS data, biological treatment units data, and ambient or remote sensing data. 6 Assumes 90% of refineries will fill out six CEMS/CMS forms. 7 Assumes that 152 refineries will sample and test two types of crude oil (or intermediate feed). 8 Some 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 emissions sou

(224 tests/92 emissions sources = 2.4 tests per emissions source, 92 refineries). 

9 Postage Costs for mailing survey responses to EPA are estimated at $6 for Federal Express letter size envelope flat rate (1 per respondent). 
3-1 

Attachment 3. Agency Burden and Costs 

Agency Activity 

(A) EPA Hours/ 

Occurrence 

(B) Occurrences/ 

Respondent/Year

(C) EPA 

Hours/Respondent/ 

Year (A x B) 

(D) 

Respondents/Year1

(E) EPA 

Technical Hours/ 

Year (C x D) 

Develop/revise questionnaire spreadsheets and instructions2 400 1 400 1 400 Develop survey website 10 1 10 1 10 Gather NEI data for each refinery3 1 1 1 142 142 Mail out questionnaire4 0.7 1 0.7 152 106 Answer respondent questions via phone, email, and/or frequently asked questions posted on website5 1 1 1 38 38 Handle and review responses for confidentiality6 1 1 1 38 38 Review and analyze responses (including follow-up) 

Survey 12 1 12 152 1,824 Emissions inventory data 20 1 20 152 3,040 CEMS/CMS data7 8 6 48 136.8 6,566 Cost data8 8 1 8 91.2 730 Review/analyze/input existing emissions test data9 7 2 14 60.8 851 

Review/analyze electronically submitted emissions test data10 8 2.4 19.5 92 1,792 Total Annual Hours 15,538  Expenses (O&M)11

Printing letter and enclosures Postage Computer storage of data & website usage 

Total Expenses TOTAL ANNUAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 1 The number of respondents per year is based on the refinery counts listed in Part B, Section 1 - Respondent Universe. 2 Includes determining which emissions sources will be required to complete emissions testing. 3 The number of respondents per year excludes approximately 10 refineries that are not already included in the NEI. 4 Mailout package includes section 114 letter with standard enclosures and hard copy of survey instructions. Assumes EPA will mail one questionnaire per facility. 5 Assumes that 25% of the facilities will have questions. 6 Assumes that 25% of facilities will have confidential data. 7 Assumes 90% of refineries will populate six CEMS spreadsheet forms with CEMS and/or CMS data. 8 Assumes that 60% of refineries will provide cost information. 9 Assumes that 40% of refineries will submit two previous reports. 10 Based on 224 total groups of tests on 92 total emissions sources, assuming the 92 emissions sources are at 92 different refineries (224 tests/92 emissions sources = 2.4 tests per em11 Copy costs are estimated for 70 pages at $0.05/page. Postage Costs are estimated at $6 for Federal Express letter size envelope flat rate. Data storage estimated at $21/GB/mo, as

estimated at $85/mo for 6 months.