美国炼油厂排放标准11年补充限值.pdf

《美国炼油厂排放标准11年补充限值.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《美国炼油厂排放标准11年补充限值.pdf（4页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、42052 Federal Register/Vol.76,No.137/Monday,July 18,2011/Rules and Regulations TABLE1 OFT010533Continued 4219.4 N,07102.9 W.8.2Celebrate the Clean Harbor Swim.Date:August 13,2011.Rain Date:following day.Time:9 a.m.to 12 p.m.Location:All waters of Gloucester Harbor within the following points(NAD 83)

2、:4235.3 N,07039.8 W.4235.9 N,07039.2 W.4235.9 N,07039.8 W.4235.3 N,07040.2 W.8.3Boston Light Swim.Date:August 13,2011.Time:6 a.m.to 12 p.m.Location:All waters of Boston Harbor between the L Street Bath House and Little Brewster Island within the following points(NAD 83):4219.7 N,07102.2 W.4219.9 N,0

3、7110.7 W 4219.8 N,07053.6 W.4219.6 N,07053.4 W.9 September 9.1Mayflower Triathlon.Date:September 3,2011.Time:7:30 a.m.to 8:30 a.m.Location:All waters of Plymouth Inner Harbor within the following points(NAD 83):4158.3 N,07040.6 W 4158.7 N,07039.1 W.4156.8 N,07037.8 W.4157.1 N,07039.2 W.9.2Duxbury Be

4、ach Triathlon.Date:September 24,2011.Time:9 a.m.to 10 a.m.Location:All waters of Duxbury Bay on the south side of the Powder Point Bridge within the following points(NAD 83):4202.8 N,07039.1 W.4203.0 N,07038.7 W.4202.8 N,07038.6 W.4202.7 N,07039.0 W.Dated:July 7,2011.J.N.Healey,Captain,U.S.Coast Gua

5、rd,Captain of the Port Sector Boston.FR Doc.201117983 Filed 71511;8:45 am BILLING CODE 911004P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63 EPAHQOAR20030146;FRL94392 RIN 2060AO55 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries AGENCY:Environmental Protecti

6、on Agency(EPA).ACTION:Final rule;partial withdrawal.SUMMARY:On October 28,2009,the EPA proposed to withdraw the residual risk and technology review portions of the final rule amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries.EPA is now providing final no

7、tice of the partial withdrawal.DATES:As of August 17,2011,EPA withdraws portions of the final rule signed by then Administrator Stephen Johnson on January 16,2009.ADDRESSES:The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.EPAHQOAR20030146.All documents in the docket are listed in

8、the http:/www.regulations.gov index.Although listed in the index,some information is not publicly available,e.g.,confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.Certain other material,such as copyrighted material,is not placed on the Internet and will

9、 be publicly available only in hard copy.Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,Environmental Protection Agency,EPA West Building,Room 3334,1301 Constitution Ave.,NW.,Washington,DC.The Public Reading Roo

10、m is open from 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays.The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is(202)5661744,and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is(202)5661742.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms.Brenda Shine,Office of Air Quality Planning

11、and Standards,Sector Policies and Programs Division,Refining and Chemicals Group(E14301),Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park,NC 27711,telephone number:(919)5413608;fax number:(919)5410246;e-mail address:shine.brendaepa.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I.Background Information Section

12、 112 of the Clean Air Act(CAA)establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants(HAP)from stationary sources.In the first stage,after the EPA has identified categories of VerDate Mar2010 15:32 Jul 15,2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00060Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:FRFM18JYR

13、1.SGM18JYR1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES42053 Federal Register/Vol.76,No.137/Monday,July 18,2011/Rules and Regulations 1We note that on January 30,2009,the litigants notified EPA by letter that they believed the Agency had discharged its obligation under the Consent Decree,and that furthe

14、r review of the rule pursuant to the Emanuel memo will not violate the Consent Decree.(See Docket Item No.EPAHQ OAR200301460209.)2Letter to U.S.EPA Information Quality Guidelines staff from the Honorable Bill White,Mayor of Houston,July 9,2008,Docket Item No.EPAHQOAR200301460166.3;EPAs response is L

15、etter to Mayor Bill White,Houston,Texas,from Elizabeth Craig,Acting Assistant Administrator,Office of Air and Radiation,U.S.EPA,April 7,2009.(See Docket Item No.EPAHQOAR2003 01460210.)sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b)of the CAA,section 112(d)calls for the Administrator

16、 to promulgate national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for those sources.The EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards,and to revise them as necessary(taking into account developments in practices,processes,and control technologies)no less frequently than every

17、 8 years,under CAA section 112(d)(6).The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining residual risk according to CAA section 112(f).On January 16,2009,then Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a final rule amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Fr

18、om Petroleum Refineries,and the signed rule was made publicly available on the EPAs website.The signed rule included several different actions.First,it promulgated maximum achievable control technology(MACT)standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2)and(3)for heat exchange systems,which the EPA had not a

19、ddressed in the original Refinery MACT 1 rule(40 CFR part 63,subpart CC).Second,pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2),the rule addressed residual risk for all Refinery MACT 1 sources,including heat exchange systems.Third,it addressed the technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)for all sources

20、 addressed in the original Refinery MACT 1 rule.Finally,the rule updated the table in the Refinery MACT 1 standards(Table 6)that cross-references the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63,subpart A,and made a few additional clarifications to dates and cross-references in the Refinery MACT 1 standards

21、.The signed rule was submitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.Rahm Emanuel,Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff,issued a memorandum on January 20,2009,directing Agencies to withdraw from the Office of the Federal Register all proposed or final regulations that have no

22、t been published in the Federal Register so that they can be reviewed and approved by a department or agency head.Although there was an exception for regulations subject to statutory or judicial deadlines,the Agency chose not to apply the exception in this case.One portion of the final rule,the CAA

23、section 112(d)(6)review,was performed pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree,which,as modified,required that by January 16,2009,the EPA shall sign and promptly forward to the Federal Register for publication either final revisions to the standards for petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63,subpar

24、t CC pursuant to 42 U.S.C.7412(d)(6)or a final determination that no revisions are necessary.Then Administrator Stephen Johnson signed the rule on January 16,2009,and promptly forwarded it to the Office of the Federal Register,thus,fulfilling this obligation.1 Upon further review,the EPA determined

25、that the residual risk and technology reviews may not accurately characterize the risk posed by this source category.Shortly after the rule was signed,the EPA responded to a Request for Correction under the EPAs Information Quality Guidelines from the city of Houston.2In that response,we recognized

26、that we were currently taking action(and planned to take additional action)to gather better emissions information from the refining industry.Additionally,we noted that,during the comment period on the proposed rule,similar issues were raised concerning the representativeness of the emissions data an

27、d whether they provided an accurate basis for characterizing the risks posed.After consideration of the public comments on the proposal to withdraw portions of the final rule,we are providing final notice of the Agencys decision to partially withdraw the final rule.As stated in the preamble to the p

28、roposed withdrawal,the EPA will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any new proposed rule that may be issued addressing the residual risk and technology review requirements of the CAA for this source category.II.Summary of Comments and Responses The EPA received a total of six comme

29、nt letters concerning the proposed partial withdrawal.Comment letters were received from industry trade associations,local environmental organizations,environmental groups,and members of the public.Summaries of the comments and our complete responses are included in the following section.Comment:Fou

30、r commenters supported the EPAs proposed partial withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1 standards signed on January 16,2009,and supported further analysis leading to a revised set of proposed standards.Several of these commenters asserted that the withdrawal is necessary because the EPA failed to adequat

31、ely address their comments on the standards that were proposed on September 4,2007(72 FR 50716),and November 10,2008(73 FR 66694).Some of the comments submitted on those previous proposals and reiterated by the commenters included:(1)Objections to the EPAs interpretation of the CAA requirement that

32、the standards provide an ample margin of safety;(2)assertions that the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk allowed by the CAA is 1 in 1 million;(3)objections to the length of time allowed for compliance with standards for storage vessels with floating roofs;(4)identification of multiple deficien

33、cies in the risk assessment methodology,including use of actual emissions rather than allowable emissions and the estimation of emissions at census block centroids rather than property lines;and(5)assertions that the emissions data used in the risk assessment were underestimated and unrepresentative

34、.The commenters requested that the EPA collect more accurate emissions data and re-analyze the residual risk for Refinery MACT 1 using a methodology without the identified deficiencies.Response:We appreciate the four commenters support for the withdrawal of the residual risk and technology review po

35、rtions of the revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 standards.In this notice,the EPA is not making any decisions regarding the scope of residual risk and technology review standards under the CAA or on the specific data that would form the basis for a particular decision.Substantive comments on those iss

36、ues should be raised in the context of future proposed rules addressing the CAA residual risk and technology review for one or more specific source categories.Comment:Two commenters objected to the proposed withdrawal of the residual risk and technology review portions of the Refinery MACT 1 standar

37、ds that were signed on January 16,2009.These commenters noted that the EPA spent several years collecting data and considering stakeholder comments,finally reaching the conclusion that the Refinery MACT 1 standards provide an ample margin of safety based on data that the EPA judged to be representat

38、ive of the source category.The commenters asserted that VerDate Mar2010 15:32 Jul 15,2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00061Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:FRFM18JYR1.SGM18JYR1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES42054 Federal Register/Vol.76,No.137/Monday,July 18,2011/Rules and Regulations the docket for the Refiner

39、y MACT 1 rulemaking(Docket ID EPAHQOAR 20030146)does not include any specific support for the EPAs decision to reject that previous conclusion.According to the commenters,the only support for withdrawing the rule and redoing the analyses is provided in public comments submitted for the proposed rule

40、s,and the EPA considered those comments prior to finalizing the rule signed on January 16,2009.The commenters requested that the EPA present any additional data received or analyses performed since January 16,2009,to support withdrawal of the standards,and clearly explain any differences in assumpti

41、ons or methodologies used in the analyses.One commenter asserted that residual risk and technology review for Refinery MACT 1 has been a time-and resource-consuming process,and due to the EPAs other obligations under the CAA,it is not in the best interest of the public for the EPA to repeat the enti

42、re process without good cause.The commenter detailed a number of analyses in the docket showing that the EPA believed its emissions estimates and risk assessment methodologies were appropriate for the rulemaking.The commenter also noted that,if the EPA always postponed regulatory action because data

43、 may become available in the future,no regulatory actions would ever be completed.According to the commenter,refiners continue to make improvements in emissions reductions,and the heat exchange system standards will reduce emissions from cooling towers,so further data collection would only serve to

44、support the conclusion that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety.Two commenters addressed the EPAs responsibilities under the Data Quality Act(DQA)related to the Request for Correction filed by Mayor White of Houston(RFC 02003).The commenters stated that the EPA fulfilled its DQA

45、obligations through its response to Mayor White on April 7,2009(Docket Item No.EPAHQOAR20030146 0210),which describes the steps that the EPA plans to take to improve annual emissions estimates.Since the EPA has addressed the DQA concerns raised by Mayor White,the commenters asserted that it is not n

46、ecessary for the Agency to take action on the proposed withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1 standards to further address those concerns.Response:As the commenters noted,we did reach the conclusions presented in the rule that was signed on January 16,2009,through analysis of the data we had at the time.

47、The commenters are correct that,as of the time of the proposed withdrawal,we had not yet received any specific,additional data to support changing the conclusions reached in the final rule.However,our proposal was not based on the receipt of such information.Our decision to withdraw the residual ris

48、k and technology review portions of the January 16,2009,rule does not mean that we have made a decision to change our conclusions regarding what requirements are necessary and appropriate for the Refinery MACT 1 standards.Instead,as we noted when we proposed the withdrawal,we believe it is necessary

49、 to develop a more robust analysis based on the improved information we are in the process of gathering and developing.With respect to duplicating the time-and resource-consuming process associated with the risk and technology review,we note that the EPA is now initiating the risk and technology rev

50、iew for the Refinery MACT 2 standards(40 CFR part 63,subpart UUU)and plans to conduct the Refinery MACT 1 and 2 reviews at the same time.Thus,our data collection efforts for purposes of the Refinery MACT 2 risk and technology review will also provide a significant portion of the information we will