No. 29665: R307-326. Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries

DAR File No.: 29665
Filed: 03/15/2007, 07:42
Received by: NL

NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUATION

Concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule:

Rule R307-326 establishes Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), as required by Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, for the control of hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum refineries that are located in any ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas. The rule is based on federal control technique guidance documents. The rule is required under the state implementation plan for ozone that is incorporated by reference under Section R307-110-13. The plan is required by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410, to maintain the federal health standard for ozone. Subsection 19-2-104(1)(a) authorizes the Air Quality Board to make rules "...regarding the control, abatement, and prevention of air pollution from all sources and the establishment of the maximum quantity of air contaminants that may be emitted by any air contaminants source...." Subsection 19-2-101(2) states "It is the policy of this state and the purpose of this chapter to achieve and maintain levels of air quality which will protect human health and safety...."

Summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule:

Rule R307-326 has been amended once since its last five-year review (under DAR No. 29006, effective 03/09/2007). Five comments were received. COMMENT 1: This requirement contains no provision for updating the procedure for minimizing VOC emissions during turnarounds. If the procedure is to be maximally effective, it should be reviewed and updated regularly. Significant equipment and procedural changes have taken place since 1990, and any plan prepared then is outdated and likely not useful. Besides being outdated, the lack of reporting requirements could lead a source to believe complying with the procedure is voluntary. Please insert appropriate updating and reporting requirements into this provision (Wasatch Clean Air Coalition). RESPONSE 1: The ozone RACT rules have been an effective part of the overall plan to bring the area into attainment. If future ozone problems occur then all of the ozone control strategies will be reviewed to identify the most effective ways to further reduce VOC emissions. No changes to the rules have been made at this time to increase the stringency of the rules. COMMENT 2: To make certain that the rule is not mistakenly applied to a copper refinery; KUCC suggests that DAQ add the word "petroleum" before the word "refinery" in the rule title, and before the word "refinery" in the rule purpose and applicability sections of Rule R307-326 (Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation). RESPONSE 2: Staff agreed and made the needed changes to the rule text. COMMENT 3: in Subsection R307-326-10(3): In order to fulfill the requirements of R307-326-10(1), the first sentence should be changed to read "...or approved by the Executive Secretary after obtaining concurrence from EPA" (EPA). RESPONSE 3: Subsection R307-326-10(1) describes the process that must be followed before a source could use alternate monitoring methodology, including a requirement for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurrence. It is not necessary to repeat these requirements in Subsection R307-326-10(3). The current language was approved by EPA and has been effective. COMMENT 4: This rule makes frequent and interchangeable use of "volatile organic compound" and "VOC." Readability and clarity would be improved if VOC were used consistently after the initial volatile organic compound (VOC) (Wasatch Clean Air Coalition). RESPONSE 4: Staff agreed and made the changes throughout Rule R307-326. COMMENT 5: Comment on rules regarding potential alternative requirements or deadlines: There are various instances in which the RACT rules allow sources to implement alternative requirements or to meet different deadlines with the executive secretary's or Board's approval. See, for example, R307-326-4(3), -6(3), -7, -9(1), -9(5)(a), 10(2); R307-327-4(1), -6(l)(a) and (c), -6(3)(d), -7(2); R307-328-4(6) and (9), -6(4), -8(2); and similar provisions in the other RACT rules. We recognize that this language appears in the existing EPA-approved SIP. However, as you know, we have expressed concern to State management and staff regarding these types of provisions within the Utah SIP and our belief that these provisions should be modified or removed. Because the Board will already be considering changes to these rules, we think it would be an appropriate time for the Board to rectify these problems in these rules. One possible approach would be to add language providing an approval or concurrence role for EPA. This would be consistent with some of the language regarding "alternate methods of control" that is already part of the EPA-approved SIP. For example, see the language in R307-326-10(1). If these rules are submitted to us without the requisite changes, we may be unable to act on them or approve them (EPA). RESPONSE 5: As explained in the comment, these requirements are part of the approved SIP. The ozone RACT rules have been in place, and have effectively reduced VOC emissions since the early 1980's. The provisions to allow sources to implement alternate requirements or to meet different deadlines are important to allow flexibility. These provisions have not been misused during the last 25 years. An extra layer of review would provide no additional air quality benefit. No other comments were received about this rule since the last review.

Reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any:

The rule is required under the state implementation plan for ozone, incorporated by reference under Section Section R307-110-13. The plan is required under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410; without the state plan, the EPA would be required to impose a Federal Implementation Plan. Therefore, this rule should be continued.

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Environmental Quality
Air Quality
150 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116-3085

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Mat E. Carlile at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4136, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Authorized by:

M. Cheryl Heying, Planning Branch Manager