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



### STATEMENT OFTHE AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ON THE PROPOSED REFINERYRISKAND TECHNOLOGY REVIEWRULE JULY 16, 2014AFPM appreciates the opportunity today to discuss our views onthe EPA's proposedrefinery Risk and Technology Reviewrule. The AmericanFuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM") is a national trade association ofmore than 400 companies, including virtually all U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers. AFPM members operate 122 U.S. refineries comprising approximately 98% ofU.S. refining capacity. Air quality has improved significantly inthe United States overthe pastthree decades and our industry has been a significant contributorto this improvement. Since 1990, our industry has invested $137 billion to reduce emissions from ourplants and make cleaner fuels. Onthe air toxics side, we have also made great strides in reducing emissions. Total hazardous air pollutants from the refining sectorhave beenreducedbynearly two-thirds since 1990, while fugitive HAPs have beenreduced by 79 percent and point-source HAP emissions have been reduced by nearly 40 percent1• Despite these significant reductions, EPA is proposing some requirements inthis rule that simply
are notjustifiedbythe level ofrefinery risk that the Agency found inits analysis. EPA in its previous Risk and Technology Review rulemaking in 2008 determined that the risks posed bythe refining industry to be acceptable and therefore no further actions were required. Although signed bythe EPA Administrator, due to a change in administrations, thatrule was never published in the Federal Register and was subsequently withdrawn. After EPA conducted a massive and unprecedented industry data collection effort from refiners in 2011, the risk levels

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

### 2found by EPA in its most recent analysis, performed for this rule, are similar to those found in 2008, still within an acceptable range. One quarter oftherefineries had maximum individual risk levels below one in a million and two-thirds had risk levels below 10 in a million. To give a perspective on risk levels, the odds ofbeing hit by lightning in a given year are one in 960,000 (National Weather Service). According to the National Safety Council the odds ofdying in a passenger car in a single year are one in 21,132 and the odds ofdying as a pedestrian in a lifetime
are one in 623. Unfortunately, we are faced with a rule with significant costs but with little or no health or environmental benefits. EPA estimates thatthis rule will cost $240 million, but our members estimate that it will cost inexcess ofa billion dollars. Ofeven greater concern is that the health benefit gains are insignificant by anymeasure, meaningthis rule will have financial impacts to the economy with essentially no measureable benefits. Every refinery will be required to install fenceline monitors at significant on-going cost. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, many ofthese refineries have very lowlevels ofrisk. We don't understand how imposing this one-size fits all approach to every refinery will improve public health, particularly when according to EPA analysis a number ofthese refineries pose no health risk to the surrounding communities
. The EPArule proposes a rolling annual average benzene concentration action level of2.8 parts per billion (ppb) at the refinery fence line, measured every two weeks from 20-30 samples collected around the refinery fenceline perimeter. Exceeding this "threshold" would trigger a root
cause analysis and corrective action and could be deemed a violation by EPA. However, the
3threshold value is not an indicator ofrisk- the stated purpose ofthis monitoring is to check EPA's modeling offugitive emissions. We fail to see how it can achieve this goal. Further, EPA's own studies inthe mid-1990s confirmed no effect on personal exposure ofliving close to major fixed sources ofbenzene including oil refineries, chemical plants and storage tanks2

. We have concerns with the flaring provisions in this rule. The recently adoptedNSPS Ja flare rules resulted in instrumentation costs onthe order ofmillions ofdollars per flare and will result in significant overall reductions in already very limited flaring emissions. This proposal would require significant additional costs over and above those from the Jarule and yet has few synergies with the earlier Ja investments and results 

### in very little incremental benefit. Any proposed flare combustion efficiency standards should (1) only address steam-assisted flares, (2) focus onoversteaming and (3) limit the need for the wasteful addition ofnatural gas to the flares. Pressure reliefvalves (PRVs) are designed to protectplantpersonnel, the public and equipment, and EPA should not change the MACT floor workpractice for PRVs. PRVs relieve very infrequently and for shortperiods oftime withvery little total HAP emissions. While monitoring such releases to ensure that PRVs have properly closed makes sense and most companies already do so, prohibiting atmospheric releases will require routing PRVs to additional new flares. This will require massive investments both for these newflares and for flare headers to control releases ofrare events. EPA has greatly overstated the risks that coking units pose, and the proposed depressurization requirements go well beyond the new requirements set by the recently promulgated refinery

2Lance Wallace, EPA, "Environmental Exposure to Benzene: An Update," EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, Vol. 1 04, Supplement 6, December 1996 4NSPS rule. EPA has greatly underestimated the costs ofcontrolling these emissions, controls that result invirtually no benefit. One final note regarding process. EPA reached a settlement agreement earlierthis yearthat requires the rule to be completed 11 months after the rule was proposed in May. This simply does not allow enough time for everyone to properly reviewrisk information and for EPAto finalize a rule that is defensible. In 2007-2008, EPAneeded more than 18 months to complete the refinery RTRrule once itwas proposed. Developing a goodrule that properly determines risk and addresses solutions to lower that risk is more importantthan meeting an artificial deadline. We hope thatthe Agency and the plaintiffs will reconsider the tight timeframe and suggest that the rule be finalized at a later date in 2015. This will make for a betterresult for everyone. Thank you again for this opportunityto speak and I am happy to answer any questions.



### 5