75178 Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 230/Tuesday, December 1, 2015 .

75179Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulationsppmv parts per million by volumePRA Paperwork Reduction ActPRD pressure relief device 1psia pounds per square inch absolutepsig pounds per square inch gaugeREL reference exposure levelREM Model Refinery Emissions ModelRFA Regulatory Flexibility ActRTC response to commentRTR Risk and Technology ReviewSAB Science Advisory BoardSBA Small Business AdministrationSCAQMD South Coast Air QualityManagement DistrictSCR selective catalytic reductionSISNOSE significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesSO2 sulfur dioxideSRP sulfur recovery plantSRU sulfur recovery unitSSM startup, shutdown and malfunctionTOSHI target organ-specific hazard indextpy tons per yearUMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform ActURE unit risk estimateUV–DOAS ultraviolet differential opticalabsorption spectroscopyVCS voluntary consensus standardsVOC volatile organic compounds F degrees FahrenheitDC the concentration difference betweenthe highest measured concentration andthe lowest measured concentrationmg/m3 micrograms per cubic metertkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2Background Information. On June 30,2014, the EPA proposed revisions toboth of the petroleum refinery NESHAPbased on our residual risk andtechnology review (RTR). In that action,we also proposed to revise the NESHAPpursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and(3), to revise the SSM provisions in theNESHAP, and to make technicalcorrections to the NSPS to addressissues related to reconsideration of thefinal NSPS subpart Ja rule in 2008. Inthis action, we are finalizing decisionsand revisions for these rules. Wesummarize some of the more significantcomments received regarding theproposed rule and provide ourresponses in this preamble. A summaryof all other public comments on theproposal and the EPA’s responses tothose comments is provided in the‘‘Response to Comment’’ document,which is available in Docket ID No.EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682. The ‘‘trackchanges’’ version of the regulatorylanguage that incorporates the changesin this final action is also available inthe docket for this rulemaking.Organization of this Document. Thispreamble is organized as follows:I. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?B. Where can I get a copy of this documentand other related information?1 This term is common vernacular to describe thevariety of devices regulated as pressure relief valvessubject to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63subpart CC.VerDate Sep 11 201423:11 Nov 30, 2015Jkt 238001C. Judicial Review and AdministrativeReconsiderationII. BackgroundA. What is the statutory authority for thisaction?B. How do the NESHAP and NSPS regulateair pollutant emissions from refineries?C. What changes did we propose for thePetroleum Refinery NESHAP and NSPSin our June 30, 2014 RTR proposal?III. What is included in this final rule?A. What are the final NESHAPamendments based on the risk review forthe Petroleum Refinery sourcecategories?B. What are the final NESHAPamendments based on the technologyreview for the Petroleum Refinery sourcecategories?C. What are the final NESHAPamendments pursuant to section112(d)(2) & (3) for the PetroleumRefinery source categories?D. What are the final NESHAPamendments addressing emissionsduring periods of SSM?E. What other revisions to the NESHAPand NSPS are being promulgated?F. What are the requirements forsubmission of performance test data tothe EPA?G. What are the effective and compliancedates of the NESHAP and NSPS?H. What materials are being incorporatedby reference?IV. What is the rationale for our finaldecisions and amendments to thePetroleum Refinery NESHAP and NSPS?A. Residual Risk Review for the PetroleumRefinery Source CategoriesB. Technology Review for the PetroleumRefinery Source CategoriesC. Refinery MACT Amendments Pursuantto CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)D. NESHAP Amendments AddressingEmissions During Periods of SSME. Technical Amendments to RefineryMACT 1 and 2F. Technical Amendments to RefineryNSPS Subparts J and JaV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, andEconomic Impacts and AdditionalAnalyses ConductedA. What are the affected facilities, the airquality impacts and cost impacts?B. What are the economic impacts?C. What are the benefits?D. Impacts of This Rulemaking onEnvironmental Justice PopulationsE. Impacts of This Rulemaking onChildren’s HealthVI. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsA. Executive Orders 12866: RegulatoryPlanning and Review and ExecutiveOrder 13563: Improving Regulation andRegulatory ReviewB. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act(UMRA)E. Executive Order 13132: FederalismF. Executive Order 13175: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernmentsG. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety RisksPO 00000Frm 00003Fmt 4701Sfmt 4700H. Executive Order 13211: ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution or UseI. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFRpart 51J. Executive Order 12898: Federal ActionsTo Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulationsK. Congressional Review Act (CRA)I. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?Regulated Entities. Categories andentities potentially regulated by thisaction are shown in Table 1 of thispreamble.TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINALACTIONNAICS aCodeNESHAP and source categoryPetroleum Refining Industry .a ble 1 of this preamble is notintended to be exhaustive, but rather toprovide a guide for readers regardingentities likely to be affected by the finalaction for the source categories listed.To determine whether your facility isaffected, you should examine theapplicability criteria in the appropriateNESHAP or NSPS. If you have anyquestions regarding the applicability ofany aspect of these NESHAP or NSPS,please contact the appropriate personlisted in the preceding FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT section of thispreamble.B. Where can I get a copy of thisdocument and other relatedinformation?In addition to being available in thedocket, an electronic copy of this finalaction will also be available on theInternet through the TechnologyTransfer Network (TTN) Web site, aforum for information and technologyexchange in various areas of airpollution control. Following signatureby the EPA Administrator, the EPA willpost a copy of this final action g publication in the FederalRegister, the EPA will post the FederalRegister version and key technicaldocuments at this same Web site.Additional information is available onthe RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Thisinformation includes an overview of theRTR program, links to project Web sitesE:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM01DER2

75180Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulationsfor the RTR source categories, anddetailed emissions and other data weused as inputs to the risk assessments.C. Judicial Review and AdministrativeReconsiderationUnder CAA section 307(b)(1), judicialreview of this final action is availableonly by filing a petition for review inthe United States Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit byFebruary 1, 2016. Under CAA section307(b)(2), the requirements establishedby this final rule may not be challengedseparately in any civil or criminalproceedings brought by the EPA toenforce the requirements.Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAAfurther provides that ‘‘[o]nly anobjection to a rule or procedure whichwas raised with reasonable specificityduring the period for public comment(including any public hearing) may beraised during judicial review.’’ Thissection also provides a mechanism forthe EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f theperson raising an objection candemonstrate to the Administrator that itwas impracticable to raise suchobjection within [the period for publiccomment] or if the grounds for suchobjection arose after the period forpublic comment (but within the timespecified for judicial review) and if suchobjection is of central relevance to theoutcome of the rule.’’ Any personseeking to make such a demonstrationshould submit a Petition forReconsideration to the Office of theAdministrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.NW., Washington, DC 20460, with acopy to both the person(s) listed in thepreceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section, and the AssociateGeneral Counsel for the Air andRadiation Law Office, Office of GeneralCounsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,Washington, DC 20460.II. Backgroundtkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2A. What is the statutory authority forthis action?1. NESHAPSection 112 of the CAA establishes atwo-stage regulatory process to addressemissions of hazardous air pollutants(HAP) from stationary sources. In thefirst stage, we must identify categoriesof sources emitting one or more of theHAP listed in CAA section 112(b) andthen promulgate technology-basedNESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Majorsources’’ are those that emit, or have thepotential to emit, any single HAP at arate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more,or 25 tpy or more of any combination ofVerDate Sep 11 201423:11 Nov 30, 2015Jkt 238001HAP. For major sources, these standardsare commonly referred to as maximumachievable control technology (MACT)standards and must reflect themaximum degree of emission reductionsof HAP achievable (after consideringcost, energy requirements, and non-airquality health and environmentalimpacts). In developing MACTstandards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directsthe EPA to consider the application ofmeasures, processes, methods, systemsor techniques, including but not limitedto those that reduce the volume of oreliminate HAP emissions throughprocess changes, substitution ofmaterials, or other modifications;enclose systems or processes toeliminate emissions; collect, capture, ortreat HAP when released from a process,stack, storage, or fugitive emissionspoint; are design, equipment, workpractice, or operational standards; orany combination of the above.For these MACT standards, the statutespecifies certain minimum stringencyrequirements, which are referred to asMACT floor requirements, and whichmay not be based on costconsiderations. See CAA section112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACTfloor cannot be less stringent than theemission control achieved in practice bythe best-controlled similar source. TheMACT standards for existing sourcescan be less stringent than floors for newsources, but they cannot be lessstringent than the average emissionlimitation achieved by the bestperforming 12-percent of existingsources in the category or subcategory(or the best-performing 5 sources forcategories or subcategories with fewerthan 30 sources). In developing MACTstandards, we must also considercontrol options that are more stringentthan the floor, under CAA section112(d)(2). We may establish standardsmore stringent than the floor, based onthe consideration of the cost ofachieving the emissions reductions, anynon-air quality health andenvironmental impacts, and energyrequirements.In the second stage of the regulatoryprocess, the CAA requires the EPA toundertake 2 different analyses, whichwe refer to as the technology review andthe residual risk review. Under thetechnology review, we must review thetechnology-based standards and revisethem ‘‘as necessary (taking into accountdevelopments in practices, processes,and control technologies)’’ no lessfrequently than every eight years,pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).Under the residual risk review, we mustevaluate the risk to public healthremaining after application of thePO 00000Frm 00004Fmt 4701Sfmt 4700technology-based standards and revisethe standards, if necessary, to providean ample margin of safety to protectpublic health or to prevent, taking intoconsideration costs, energy, safety andother relevant factors, an adverseenvironmental effect. The residual riskreview is required within eight yearsafter promulgation of the technologybased standards, pursuant to CAAsection 112(f). In conducting theresidual risk review, if the EPAdetermines that the current standardsprovide an ample margin of safety toprotect public health, it is not necessaryto revise the MACT standards pursuantto CAA section 112(f).2 For moreinformation on the statutory authorityfor this rule, see 79 FR 36879.2. NSPSSection 111 of the CAA establishesmechanisms for controlling emissions ofair pollutants from stationary sources.Section 111(b) of the CAA providesauthority for the EPA to promulgateNSPS that apply only to newlyconstructed, reconstructed and modifiedsources. Once the EPA has elected to setNSPS for new and modified sources ina given source category, CAA section111(d) calls for regulation of existingsources, with certain exceptionsexplained below.Specifically, section 111(b) of theCAA requires the EPA to establishemission standards for any category ofnew and modified stationary sourcesthat the Administrator, in his or herjudgment, finds ‘‘causes, or contributessignificantly to, air pollution which mayreasonably be anticipated to endangerpublic health or welfare.’’ The EPA haspreviously made endangerment findingsunder this section of the CAA for morethan 60 stationary source categories andsubcategories that are now subject toNSPS.Section 111 of the CAA gives the EPAsignificant discretion to identify theaffected facilities within a sourcecategory that should be regulated. Todefine the affected facilities, the EPAcan use size thresholds for regulationand create subcategories based onsource type, class or size. Emissionlimits also may be established either forequipment within a facility or for anentire facility. For listed sourcecategories, the EPA must establish‘‘standards of performance’’ that apply2 The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed thisapproach of implementing CAA section112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083(D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that theexisting technology-based standards provide an‘ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free toreadopt those standards during the residual riskrulemaking.’’).E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM01DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulationsto sources that are constructed,modified or reconstructed after the EPAproposes the NSPS for the relevantsource category.3The EPA also has significantdiscretion to determine the appropriatelevel for the standards. Section 111(a)(1)of the CAA provides that NSPS are toreflect the degree of emission limitationachievable through the application ofthe best system of emission reductionwhich (taking into account the cost ofachieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmentalimpact and energy requirements) theAdministrator determines has beenadequately demonstrated. This level ofcontrol is commonly referred to as bestdemonstrated technology (BDT) or thebest system of emission reduction(BSER). The standard that the EPAdevelops, based on the BSER achievableat that source, is commonly a numericalemission limit, expressed as aperformance level (i.e., a rate-basedstandard). Generally, the EPA does notprescribe a particular technologicalsystem that must be used to complywith a NSPS. Rather, sources remainfree to elect whatever combination ofmeasures will achieve equivalent orgreater control of emissions.Costs are also considered inevaluating the appropriate standard ofperformance for each category orsubcategory. The EPA generallycompares control options and estimatedcosts and emission impacts of multiple,specific emission standard optionsunder consideration. As part of thisanalysis, the EPA considers numerousfactors relating to the potential cost ofthe regulation, including industryorganization and market structure,control options available to reduceemissions of the regulated pollutant(s)and costs of these controls.tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2B. How do the NESHAP and NSPSregulate air pollutant emissions fromrefineries?The EPA promulgated the petroleumrefinery NESHAP pursuant to CAAsection 112(d)(2) and (3) for refinerieslocated at major sources in two separaterules. On August 18, 1995, the first3 Specific statutory and regulatory provisionsdefine what constitutes a modification orreconstruction of a facility. 40 CFR 60.14 providesthat an existing facility is modified and, therefore,subject to an NSPS, if it undergoes any physicalchange in the method of operation which increasesthe amount of any air pollutant emitted by suchsource or which results in the emission of any airpollutant not previously emitted. 40 CFR 60.15, inturn, provides that a facility is reconstructed ifcomponents are replaced at an existing facility tosuch an extent that the capital cost of the newequipment/components exceed 50-percent of whatis believed to be the cost of a completely newfacility.VerDate Sep 11 201423:11 Nov 30, 2015Jkt 238001petroleum refinery MACT standard waspromulgated in 40 CFR part 63, subpartCC (60 FR 43620). This rule is knownas ‘‘Refinery MACT 1’’ and covers the‘‘Sources Not Distinctly Listed,’’meaning it includes all emissionssources from petroleum refinery processunits, except those listed separatelyunder the section 112(c) source categorylist and expected to be regulated byother MACT standards (for example,boilers and process heaters). Some ofthe emission sources regulated inRefinery MACT 1 include miscellaneousprocess vents (MPV), storage vessels,wastewater, equipment leaks, gasolineloading racks, marine tank vesselloading and heat exchange systems.On April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17762), EPApromulgated a second MACT standardregulating certain process vents thatwere listed as a separate source categoryunder CAA section 112(c) and that werenot addressed as part of the RefineryMACT 1. This standard, which isreferred to as ‘‘Refinery MACT 2’’,covers process vents on catalyticcracking units (CCU) (including FCCU),CRU and SRU and is codified as 40 CFRpart 63, subpart UUU.Finally, on October 28, 2009, werevised Refinery MACT 1 by addingMACT standards for heat exchangesystems, which the EPA had notaddressed in the original 1995 RefineryMACT 1 rule (74 FR 55686). In thissame 2009 action, we updated the crossreferences to the General Provisions in40 CFR part 63. On June 20, 2013 (78FR 37133), we promulgated minorrevisions to the heat exchangeprovisions of Refinery MACT 1.On September 27, 2012, Air AllianceHouston, California CommunitiesAgainst Toxics and other environmentaland public health groups filed a lawsuitalleging that the EPA missed statutorydeadlines to review and revise RefineryMACT 1 and 2. The EPA reached anagreement to settle that litigation andentered into a Consent Decree. TheConsent Decree provides for theAdministrator to sign a final action nolater than September 30, 2015.Refinery NSPS subparts J and Jaregulated criteria pollutant emissions,including particulate matter (PM), sulfurdioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX)and carbon monoxide (CO) from FCCUcatalyst regenerators, fuel gascombustion devices (FGCD) and sulfurrecovery plants. Refinery NSPS subpartJa also regulates criteria pollutantemissions from fluid coking units andDCU.The NSPS for petroleum refineries (40CFR part 60, subpart J) werepromulgated in 1974, amended in 1976and amended again in 2008, followingPO 00000Frm 00005Fmt 4701Sfmt 470075181a review of the standards. As part of thereview that led to the 2008 amendmentsto the Refinery NSPS subpart J, the EPAdeveloped separate standards ofperformance for new process units (40CFR part 60, subpart Ja). However, theEPA received multiple petitions forreconsideration on issues related tothose standards. The Administratorgranted the petitions forreconsideration. The EPA addressedpetition issues related to process heatersand flares by promulgating amendmentsto the Refinery NSPS subparts J and Jaon September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56422).In this action, we are finalizingtechnical corrections and clarificationsto NSPS subparts J and Ja raised byAmerican Petroleum Institute (API) intheir 2008 petition for reconsiderationthat were not addressed by the finalNSPS amendments of 2012.The petroleum refining industryconsists of facilities that engage inconverting crude oil into refinedproducts, including liquefied petroleumgas, gasoline, kerosene, aviation fuel,diesel fuel, fuel oils, lubricating oils andfeedstocks for the petrochemicalindustry. Currently, 142 facilities haveemission sources regulated by either orboth Refinery MACT 1 and 2.Petroleum refinery activities startwith the receipt of crude oil for storageat the refinery, include all the petroleumhandling and refining operations, andterminate with loading of refinedproducts into pipelines, tank or railcars, tank trucks, or ships or barges thattake products from the refinery todistribution centers. Petroleum-specificprocess units include FCCU and CRU.Other units and processes found atpetroleum refineries (as well as at manyother types of manufacturing facilities)include storage vessels and wastewatertreatment plants. HAP emitted by thisindustry include organics (e.g.,acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde,hexane, phenol, naphthalene, 2methylnaphthalene, dioxins, furans,ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene);reduced sulfur compounds (i.e.,carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide(CS2))); inorganics (e.g., hydrogenchloride (HCl), hydrogen cyanide(HCN), chlorine, hydrogen fluoride(HF)); and metals (e.g., antimony,arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury,manganese and nickel (Ni)). Thisindustry also emits criteria pollutantsand other non-HAP, including NOX,PM, SO2, volatile organic compounds(VOC), CO, greenhouse gases (GHG) andtotal reduced sulfur.E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM01DER2

75182Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulationstkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2C. What changes did we propose for thePetroleum Refinery NESHAP and NSPSin our June 30, 2014, RTR proposal?On June 30, 2014, the EPA publisheda proposed rule in the Federal Registeraddressing the RTR for the PetroleumRefinery NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,subparts CC and UUU. The proposalalso included changes pursuant tosection 112(d)(2) and (3) and technicalrevisions to the NSPS. Specifically, weproposed:(1) Pursuant to CAA sections112(d)(2) and (3):a. Refinery MACT 1: Adding MACT Standards for DCUdecoking operations. Adding operational requirementsfor flares used as APCD in RefineryMACT 1 and 2. Adding requirements andclarifications for vent control bypassesin Refinery MACT 1.b. Refinery MACT 2: Revising the CRU purge ventexemption.(2) Pursuant to CAA sections112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2): Revising Refinery MACT 1 to crossreference the corresponding storagevessel requirements in the GenericMACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, asapplicable), and revising the definitionof Group 1 storage vessels to includesmaller capacity storage vessels and toinclude storage vessels storing materialswith lower vapor pressures.(3) Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6):a. Refinery MACT 1: Allowing refineries to meet the leakdetection and repair (LDAR)requirements in Refinery MACT 1 bymonitoring for leaks using optical gasimaging in place of EPA Method 21,once the monitoring protocol set fo

A. Residual Risk Review for the Petroleum Refinery Source Categories B. Technology Review for the Petroleum Refinery Source Categories C. Refinery MACT Amendments Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) D. NESHAP Amendments Addressing Emissions During Periods of SSM E. Technical Amendments to Refinery MACT 1 and 2