# NACAA

national association of clean airagencies

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Co-Presidents George S. Aburn, Jr. Maryland Merlyn Hough Springfield, OR
Co-Vice Presidents StuartA

. Clark Washington Thomas Huynh Philadelphia, PA
Co-Treasurers Barry R. Stephens Tennessee Ursula Kramer Tucson, AZ
Past Co-Presidents David J. Shaw New York Barry R. Wallerstein Los Angeles, CA
Directors Mark Asmundson Mount Vernon, WA Rick Brunetti Kansas Robert H. Colby Chattanooga, TN Richard Corey California Sandra Ely New Mexico Anne Gobin Connecticut David Klemp Montana BartA. Sponseller Wisconsin Richard A. Stedman Monterey, CA
Executive Director S. William Becker TestimonyofArturo Blanco on behalfofthe National Association ofClean Air Agencies onthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed RiskandTechnology ReviewStandardsfor

HazardousAir Pollutantsfrom Petroleum Refineries (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682) Galena Park,Texas August5,2014 

### Good Afternoon. My name is Arturo Blanco and Iam the Chief of the Bureau of Pollution Control and Prevention in the Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Iam heretoday on behalf ofthe National Association of Clean Air Agencies

- or NACAA

- of which I am a Past President. NACAA members include 42 state and 116 local air pollution control agencies that partner with EPA to implement and enforce the Clean Air Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify and to provide some initial reactions to EPA's recently proposed Risk and Technology ReviewStandardsforthe Petroleum RefinerySector.
NACAA has long been concerned aboutemissions of hazardousair pollutants from refineries. According to EPA, refinery emissions include benzene, 1-3-Butadiene, naphthalene and other compounds, which are associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological effects, blood disorders, damage to the liver, skin illnesses, depression of the immune system and other serious disorders. Additionally, because of their locations, many petroleum refineries pose special environmental justice concerns. NACAA believes these sources should be well controlled and that public health should be afforded the maximum protectionthe lawprovides.
In light of the serious public health concerns, and because the current standards for this source category are outdated, NACAA fully supports EPA's efforts to address emissions from petroleum refineries. We are pleased that EPA has proposed a rule that calls for additional measures for these sources, which include requirements related to fenceline monitoring; flaring; start-up, shutdown and malfunction; storage tanks;and delayed coking units. During the comment period, NACAA will continue to review the proposed rule and submit more complete written comments by the deadline. However, based on ourpreliminary review, today Iwould like to raise issues for further consideration and offer some suggestions to ensurethatthe proposed rule is successful.

444 North Capitol Street, NW • Suite307 • Washington, DC 20001 • phone 202.624.7864 • fax 202.624.7863 • www.4cleanair.orgFenceline Monitoring
EPA's proposal would require fenceline monitoring. Specifically, it includes an annual average benzene concentration to be measured using two-week passive samples placed atthe refinery's perimeter.
NACAA fully supports a fenceline monitoring requirement. However, our memberagencies have concerns aboutthe use of passive monitoring over atwo-week period, rather than using real-time monitoring. For example, it could be difficult to determinewhen aspike in emissions actuallyoccurred or, worse, emissions spikes may not be flagged at all ifthey are averaged within two weeks' worth of data. Additionally, there would be a lag time in the availability of the datato regulatory authorities and the public. We recommend EPA more thoroughly analyze the benefits and costs of realtime versus passive monitoring before issuing afinal rule. NACAA urges EPAto opt for the strategythat providesthe best information that is most accessibleforthe public, the regulators, and forthefacilities themselves, and provide a meansto approve alternative equivalentfenceline monitoring
While NACAA supports a benzene action level, we have concerns about the action level of 9 11g/m3 that EPA proposed. Benzene is a carcinogen associated with serious health effects. Houston conducted a study that concluded that average benzene concentrations at all monitors, including those in industrial areas near petroleum refineries, are considerably belowthe proposed action level (even beforethe background adjustment). So, NACAA members are concerned thatthe proposed action level is too high and will not provide any significant health protection to the public. We encourage EPAto examine all available data and reconsiderwhatthe best action level shouldbe.
RiskAssessment
NAACA shares EPA's goal of protecting public health. However, the proposal statesthat, using MACT-allowable emissions, the estimated maximum individual lifetime cancer risks are up to 100 in one-million and that the risks are "acceptable." We have serious concerns with this level of risk. Moreover, NACAA has repeatedly recommended improvements to EPA's risk assessment methodology during numerous rulemakings. If conducted properly, an improved risk assessment could show that the risks are even higherthan the already unacceptable levels EPA has estimated. We strongly recommend that EPA reevaluate the risks related to petroleum refinery emissions, based on our recommended parameters, and ensure that the final rule adequately protects public health consistent with the mandates of Section 112 of the CleanAirAct.
Ithankyou forthis opportunityto testify. As Istated earlier, these are NACAA's preliminary reactions and the association will submit additional comments by the deadline. Iam happyto answeranyquestionsyou have.
2