Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0055-0009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-10-14T04:00Z

Results
of
Section
610
Review
of
the
Standards
for
Petroleum
Refineries
Background
On
August
18,
1995
(
60
FR
43244),
EPA
promulgated
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
petroleum
refineries
under
the
authority
of
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
These
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
standards
are
codified
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
at
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
CC.
During
the
development
of
these
standards,
EPA
considered
the
potential
impacts
on
small
businesses
and
therefore
established
standards
that
would
achieve
emissions
reductions
while
minimizing
impacts
on
small
businesses.
At
the
time
of
promulgation,
EPA
had
reduced
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
burden
by
25
percent
from
the
initial
proposal.
EPA
has
reviewed
these
standards
as
required
under
5USC
610.
This
review
was
announced
in
the
Regulatory
Agenda
on
June
28,
2004
(
69
FR
38184).
In
addition,
the
agency
solicited
comments
on
five
factors
that
are
addressed
below.
Two
comments
were
received.

1.
Continued
need
for
the
rule.

Under
section
610
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
the
Agency
must
consider
the
continued
need
for
the
rule.
The
agency
finds
that
there
is
a
continued
need
for
this
rule
because
it
is
mandated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
protect
public
health
by
reducing
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants.
The
NESHAP
for
petroleum
refineries
has
resulted
in
emissions
reductions
estimated
at
53,000
tons
per
year.
The
final
rule
mitigated
the
impact
on
small
refiners
by
allowing
refiners
more
time
to
comply
with
various
requirements
for
control
of
emissions
from
equipment
leaks
and
storage
tanks.

The
Agency
is
currently
conducting
a
separate,
parallel
review
of
the
1995
NESHAP
as
required
by
section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
section
requires
that
the
agency
assess
if
changes
to
the
NESHAP
are
necessary
based
on
technology
improvements
since
the
NESHAP
development.
Such
reviews
are
to
be
conducted
no
less
often
than
every
8
years.
The
agency
is
also
conducting
an
assessment
of
the
residual
risk
to
human
health
that
remains
after
the
application
of
NESHAP
controls,
as
required
under
section
112(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
While
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
are
not
necessary
as
it
relates
to
this
RFA
review,
the
Agency
will
assess
the
need
for
changes
under
the
authority
of
these
two
statutory
requirements.
As
we
conduct
these
two
Clean
Air
Act
reviews,
we
will
consider
the
comments
received
as
part
of
this
RFA
review,
and
we
will
continue
to
be
sensitive
to
small­
business
concerns.

2.
Nature
of
complaints
or
comments
received
concerning
the
rule.

There
were
two
comment
letters
received
during
the
public
comment
period
concerning
the
NESHAP
for
Petroleum
Refineries.
One
commenter
was
concerned
about
the
potential
adverse
impact
on
small
entities
by
the
residual
risk
rulemaking.
As
discussed
above,
the
Agency
is
currently
assessing
the
residual
risk
as
required
by
section
112(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
commenter's
concerns
are
more
appropriately
addressed
by
this
statutory
requirement
and
therefore
will
be
considered
as
part
of
that
review,
rather
than
this
RFA
review.
One
commenter
reported
problems
with
the
public
notice
and
comment
provisions
of
the
Title
V
permitting
provisions.
These
provisions
are
part
of
EPA's
Operating
Permits
Program
under
Section
502
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
are
mandated
under
that
program,
rather
than
under
the
1995
NESHAP.
The
Operating
Permits
program
is
currently
under
review,
and
we
have
passed
on
the
aforementioned
comment
to
the
appropriate
EPA
staff
for
consideration
as
part
of
that
review.
3.
Complexity
of
the
rule.

The
Agency
must
also
consider
the
complexity
of
the
rule.
The
Petroleum
Refinery
NESHAP
is
inherently
complex
for
two
reasons:
(
1)
Petroleum
Refineries
are
complex
facilities
with
thousands
of
potential
emission
points,
and
(
2)
EPA
has
provided
multiple
equivalent
compliance
options
in
response
to
comments
from
industry.
Thus,
simplifying
the
rule
by
removing
compliance
options
would
not
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
industry.
One
commenter
pointed
out
the
complexity
of
the
rule
but
did
not
request
simplification
of
the
rule
requirements.
For
the
purpose
of
the
RFA
review,
therefore,
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
based
on
rule
complexity
are
not
necessary,
because
we
believe
we
have
crafted
the
rule
to
minimize
complexity
to
the
extent
possible,
given
the
statutory
objectives,
the
inherent
complexity
of
the
industry,
and
the
added
complexity
attendant
to
the
multiple
compliance
options,
which
are
of
benefit
to
the
industry.

4.
The
extent
to
which
the
rule
overlaps,
duplicates,
or
conflicts
with
other
Federal,
State,
or
local
government
rules.

One
commenter
noted
that
refineries
are
subject
to
overlapping
requirements
and
that
the
reporting
frequencies
can
vary
between
regulations.
As
part
of
the
aforementioned
section
112(
d)(
6)
MACT
review,
EPA
will
review
the
current
reporting
frequencies
of
the
NESHAP
to
see
if
revisions
should
be
made
to
improve
consistency
between
regulations.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
instance
where
the
NESHAP
duplicates
or
conflicts
with
other
Federal,
State,
or
local
rules.

5.
The
degree
to
which
technology,
economic
conditions,
or
other
factors
have
changed
in
the
area
of
the
rule.

EPA
does
not
believe
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
are
necessary
for
the
purpose
of
this
RFA
review.
However,
EPA
will
continue
to
assess
advances
in
technology
as
part
of
the
review
of
the
NESHAP
that
is
required
by
section
112(
d)(
6)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

Conclusion
The
NESHAP
for
petroleum
refineries
has
been
effective
in
reducing
HAP
emissions.
Although
there
is
some
labor
burden
for
small
businesses
imposed
by
certain
monitoring
and
recordkeeping
requirements
within
the
rule,
these
requirements
are
necessary
to
ensure
ongoing
compliance
with
the
rule,
and
to
make
possible
the
multiple
compliance
options
desired
by
the
industry.
Based
on
these
factors,
and
on
the
comments
received
and
addressed
above,
the
Agency
finds
that
revisions
to
the
NESHAP
for
the
purpose
of
the
RFA
review
are
not
necessary.
The
agency
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
requirements
of
the
rule
as
part
of
the
112(
d)(
6)
Clean
Air
Act
NESHAP
review
and
the
112(
f)
Clean
Air
Act
residual
risk
assessment.
As
we
conduct
these
two
Clean
Air
Act
reviews,
we
will
consider
the
comments
received
as
part
of
this
RFA
review,
and
we
will
continue
to
be
sensitive
to
small­
business
concerns.