960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9, 63 and 65 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870, EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0002; 

FRL–9502–9] 

RIN 2060–AP84 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries; National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 

Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amendments to the heat exchange 

system requirements of the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for petroleum 

refineries in response to a petition for 

reconsideration filed by the American 

Petroleum Institute on the maximum 

achievable control technology standards 

we promulgated on October 28, 2009. 

We also are creating national uniform 

standards for heat exchange systems, 

largely based on the heat exchange 

system provisions that we adopted for 

petroleum refineries, and accompanying 

general provisions. We are proposing to 

revise the existing Petroleum Refinery 

NESHAP to cross-reference the uniform 

standard to allow an alternative option 

for complying with the standards for 

heat exchange systems. The proposed 

uniform standards would allow refiners 

to reduce monitoring frequency and 

burden by meeting a lower leak 

definition. If finalized, these national 

uniform standards would also be 

referenced, as appropriate, as we revise 

in the future NESHAP or new source 

performance standards for individual 

source categories that have heat 

exchange systems. Establishing a 

uniform standard for heat exchange 

systems is consistent with the objectives 

of Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, 

issued on January 18, 2011. We are also 

proposing other clarifications and 

technical corrections to the Petroleum 

Refineries NESHAP. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

must be received on or before March 6, 

2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA by January 23, 2012 requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, a public 

hearing will be held on February 6, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: All technical comments 

pertaining to the petroleum refinery 

amendments (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC) should be marked ‘‘Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0146.’’ All technical comments 

pertaining to the Heat Exchange System 

Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L) should be marked ‘‘Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0002.’’ Comments regarding the 

proposed Uniform Standards General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 65, subpart H) 

or comments that are applicable to the 

uniform standards approach, such as 

general policy or legal comments, 

should be marked ‘‘Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0870.’’ 

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate Docket ID No., by one of 

the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (email) to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0002; or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0870 (as appropriate). 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0002; or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870 (as appropriate). 

• Mail: Send your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0002; or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870 (as appropriate). Please 

include a total of two copies. We request 

that a separate copy also be sent to the 

contact person identified below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0002; or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870 (as appropriate). Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0002, or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0870 (as appropriate). The EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the dockets 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 961 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3608; fax number: (919) 541–0246; 

email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information 

A. General Background 

B. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory background for this proposal? 

C. What source category is affected by this 

action? 

D. What is the EPA’s response to petitions 

for reconsideration on Refinery MACT 1 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)? 

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards and 

Amendments 

A. What amendments are we proposing for 

Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC)? 

B. What requirements for heat exchange 

systems are we proposing to include in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart L? 

C. What general provisions for uniform 

standards are we proposing to include in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart H? 

IV. Rationale for Proposed Heat Exchange 

System Uniform Standards and 

Petroleum Refinery Amendments 

A. What is the rationale for the 

amendments to the heat exchange system 

requirements and the amendments to 

Refinery MACT 1? 

B. What is the rationale for the proposed 

uniform standards? 

C. What is the rationale for the proposed 

general provisions to the uniform 

standards? 

V. Summary of Impacts 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated category and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action include: 

Category NAICS1 code Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 324110 Petroleum refineries located at a major source that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

potentially affected by this action. To 

determine whether your petroleum 

refinery would be regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 

63.640 of subpart CC (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Petroleum Refineries). If you have 

any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, contact either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative, as listed in 

40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

The provisions of the proposed 

uniform standards would apply initially 

only to the facilities subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC (petroleum 

refineries), which are the subject of this 

rulemaking. However, we expect in 

future rulemaking actions to propose 

that new source performance standards 

(NSPS) and NESHAP for other source 

categories will also reference and 

require compliance with uniform 

standards, as appropriate. Examples of 

categories and entities potentially 

affected in the future by the proposed 

uniform standards for heat exchange 

systems include: 

Category NAICS1 code Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 325 Manufacturing industries, particularly petrochemical, chemical, polymers, plastics 

and specialty chemicals manufacturing. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities the EPA 

anticipates are likely to be potentially 

affected by this action through a future, 

separate rulemaking action. The entities 

listed in the above table are not affected 

by this action unless and until the EPA 

proposes in a separate notice to apply 

the uniform standards for heat exchange 

systems to a specific source category. 

The list of categories and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action in the future is provided solely to 

inform owners and operators of facilities 

in those categories of the potential for 

future rulemaking and to solicit 

comments from these entities at this 

time. If, in a future rulemaking, the EPA 

proposes to apply these uniform 

standards to a particular source 

category, you would have another 

opportunity to comment on the specific 

application to your industry. Because 

we feel that establishing uniform 

standards for types of equipment found 

in a variety of industries will be 

efficient for facilities, state, local and 

tribal governments and the public, we 

seek broad input at this time. In the 

future, you would determine whether 

your facility, company, business or 

organization would be regulated by a 

proposed action by examining the 

applicability criteria in the referencing 

subpart. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult either the 

air permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative, as 

listed in the referencing subpart. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Send or deliver information as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

CBI only to the following address: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404– 

02), Attn: Mr. Roberto Morales, 

Document Control Officer, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0002; or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0870 (as appropriate). 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI, 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

World Wide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of this 

proposed action will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

The EPA has created a redline 

document comparing the existing 

regulatory text of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC and the proposed 

amendments to aid the public’s ability 

to comment on the regulatory text. This 

document has been placed in the docket 

for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0146). 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts the EPA requesting 

to speak at a public hearing concerning 

the proposed amendments by January 

23, 2012, we will hold a public hearing 

on February 6, 2012. If you are 

interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Brenda Shine at (919) 

541–3608 to verify that a hearing will be 

held. If a public hearing is held, it will 

be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA’s 

Environmental Research Center 

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, or an alternate site nearby. 

II. Background Information 

A. General Background 

In this action, we are proposing as 

‘‘uniform standards’’ control 

requirements for hydrocarbon emissions 

from heat exchange systems, including 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP). The proposed uniform 

standards reflect the EPA’s regulatory 

experience from previous NESHAP and 

NSPS rulemakings involving similar 

kinds of sources and emission points, 

and they incorporate our review of the 

most current technology and emission 

reduction practices, as detailed in 

section IV.B of this preamble. These 

proposed uniform standards would be 

set forth in a newly created subpart L to 

40 CFR part 65 and would then be 

referenced, as appropriate, from NSPS 

or NESHAP for individual source 

categories. The uniform standards 

would not apply to a source category 

addressed in an NSPS or NESHAP until 

the EPA completes a notice-andcomment rulemaking to make it apply to 

that source category. Thus, if this 

rulemaking is finalized, the uniform 

standard would apply, at that time only, 

to petroleum refineries under 40 CFR 

Part 63, subpart CC. We anticipate 

undertaking additional rulemakings in 

the future to propose that subpart L 

apply to other NSPS and NESHAP. This 

action is consistent with the EPA’s 

interest in promoting efficient use of 

public and private sector resources and 

in improving consistency, compliance 

and enforceability of NSPS and 

NESHAP standards, consistent with 

Executive Order 16563. Additional 

details about the purpose and benefits of 

proposing uniform standards are 

provided in section IV.B of this 

preamble. 

As stated above, in this action we are 

also proposing to amend 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC to remove the detailed 

requirements and, instead, reference 

these requirements as they would be 

included in the newly created 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart L. Finally, we are 

proposing clarifications to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart CC. The statutory authority 

for the portion of this proposal 

concerning the refinery MACT standard 

is contained in section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), while the authority for 

the uniform standards is provided by 

sections 111 and 112 of the CAA, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 

7414, 7416 and 7601). 

B. What is the statutory authority and 

regulatory background for this proposal? 

1. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart CC 

Section 112 of the CAA lists HAP and 

directs the EPA to develop rules to 

address emissions of HAP from 

stationary sources. After the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in section 

112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls 

for us to promulgate NESHAP for those 

sources. For ‘‘major sources’’ that emit 

or have the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per 

year, or any combination of HAP at a 

rate of 25 tons or more per year, these 

technology-based standards must reflect 

the maximum reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements and non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts), and 

are commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

For MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

floor requirements. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

standards for existing sources can be 

less stringent than standards for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT, 

we must also consider control options 

that are more stringent than the floor. 

We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor based on the 

consideration of the cost of achieving 

the emissions reductions, any non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

We published the final MACT 

standards for petroleum refineries (40 

CFR part 63, subpart CC) on August 18, 

1995 (60 FR 43620). These standards are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Refinery 

MACT 1’’ standards because certain 

process vents were excluded from this 

source category and subsequently 

regulated under a second MACT 

standard specific to these petroleum 

refinery process vents (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUU, referred to as ‘‘Refinery 

MACT 2’’). We published final MACT 

standards for heat exchange systems at 

petroleum refineries in amendments to 

Refinery MACT 1 on October 28, 2009 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 963 

1Energy Information Administration, Refinery 

Capacity Data, From Form EIA–820, Annual 

Refinery Report, January, 2011. 

(74 FR 55670). This action proposes 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC for heat exchange systems at 

petroleum refineries, and does not 

amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU. 

2. Uniform Standards 

This action proposes uniform 

standards for heat exchange systems (40 

CFR part 65, subpart L). We are 

proposing to establish the uniform 

standards under 40 CFR part 65 and 

anticipate, through future notice-andcomment rulemaking, to cross-reference 

subpart L from source category emission 

standards within at least two different 

parts of title 40 of the CFR, parts 60 and 

63, which establish NSPS and MACT 

standards according to CAA sections 

111 and 112, respectively. 

Section 111 of the CAA requires that 

NSPS reflect the application of the best 

system of emission reductions that 

(taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as best 

demonstrated technology (BDT). Section 

111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the 

EPA to periodically review, and, as 

appropriate, revise the standards of 

performance to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. 

Once the EPA has established MACT 

standards for source categories under 

CAA section 112(d), as described in 

section II.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA 

is required to review these technologybased standards and to revise them ‘‘as 

necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 

elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices (GACT) by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Additional 

information on GACT is found in the 

Senate report on the legislation (Senate 

Report Number 101–228, December 20, 

1989), which describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices, and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories that 

may have many small businesses. 

Uniform standards would be 

referenced, as appropriate, by future 

NESHAP for major or area source 

categories in new proposed 40 CFR part 

63 subparts or revisions to existing 

individual subparts in 40 CFR part 61 

and 40 CFR part 63. Additionally, we 

expect to promulgate or revise NSPS in 

individual subparts in 40 CFR part 60 in 

the future, which would reference, as 

appropriate, promulgated uniform 

standards. The rationale for each 

determination of whether the uniform 

standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L are consistent with the 

applicable statutory requirements for 

which we were undertaking rulemaking 

action would be presented in that 

rulemaking for the individual source 

category. At that time, the public would 

be provided with an opportunity to 

comment on whether the specific 

requirements of the uniform standards 

should apply, as promulgated, or should 

be revised for purposes of the specific 

source category at issue in that 

rulemaking action. For example, if the 

uniform standards for heat exchange 

systems are finalized, then, when 

reviewing NSPS for a specific source 

category that includes heat exchange 

systems, we would consider whether 

the uniform standards include the 

current best demonstrated technology 

for heat exchange systems in that source 

category and the public would be 

provided an opportunity to comment on 

our proposed conclusion that either the 

uniform standards or alternative 

standards are the best demonstrated 

technology. Additionally, we would 

evaluate and take comment on whether 

the recordkeeping, reporting and other 

requirements were appropriate. If we 

take final action determining for that 

source category that the uniform 

standard is the best demonstrated 

technology, we would amend the NSPS 

to reference the uniform standards 

rather than duplicating the requirements 

in the section of the CFR addressing the 

NSPS for that source category. 

C. What source category is affected by 

this action? 

This action directly affects only the 

petroleum refineries source category. 

Petroleum refineries are facilities 

engaged in refining and producing 

products made from crude oil or 

unfinished petroleum derivatives. Based 

on the Energy Information 

Administration’s Refinery Capacity 

Report 2009, there are 152 operable 

petroleum refineries in the United 

States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories, all 

of which are expected to be major 

sources of HAP and VOC emissions. 

Petroleum refineries are located in 35 

states, as well as Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Texas, Louisiana 

and California are the states with the 

most petroleum refining capacity (with 

27 percent, 18 percent and 11 percent of 

U.S. capacity, respectively).1

This action specifically affects heat 

exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries. Heat exchange systems 

include closed-loop recirculation 

systems with cooling towers and oncethrough systems that receive noncontact cooling water from a heat 

exchanger for the purposes of cooling 

the water prior to returning the water to 

the heat exchanger or discharging the 

water to another process unit, waste 

management unit, or to a receiving 

water body. Cooling towers typically at 

refineries and chemical plants employ 

mechanical draft cooling towers that use 

large fans to force air through or across 

the cooling water to cool the water. Heat 

exchangers occasionally develop leaks 

which result in process fluids entering 

the cooling water. The hydrocarbons 

(which may include VOC and air toxics) 

in these process fluids are then emitted 

to the atmosphere due to stripping. 

Cooling tower emissions resulting from 

the addition of chemicals to the cooling 

water to prevent fouling or to 

decontaminate the water are not covered 

by this standard, but are instead covered 

under the Industrial Process Cooling 

Tower NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart Q). 

This action may affect other source 

categories with heat exchange systems if 

the EPA takes action in the future to 

propose to apply the uniform standards 

for heat exchange systems to one or 

more other source categories. However, 

EPA will determine applicability of the 

uniform standards for heat exchange 

systems in another source category 

through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we 

will explain that all or a portion of 

subpart L is consistent with the CAA 

requirements at issue in such 

rulemaking. For example, in the context 

of an NSPS rulemaking, we could 

determine that subpart L is BDT for the 

source category at issue or, alternatively, 

we could determine that different 

emission standards should apply, but 

that recordkeeping, reporting and other 

requirements of subpart L are 

appropriate. As another example, for 

heat exchange systems in a source 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

category already subject to regulation 

(e.g., facilities subject to National 

Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (‘‘HON,’’ 40 

CFR part 63, subpart F)), a review of the 

existing requirements may result in a 

determination that the subpart L 

requirements constitute a development 

in processes, practices or control 

technologies since the original standard 

was issued. Before amending any 

specific standard to reference 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart L, we would evaluate 

the appropriateness of the subpart L 

requirements for the source category in 

light of the specific statutory 

obligation(s) at issue, and, if the subpart 

L requirements are appropriate, crossreference those standards. As previously 

noted, any such evaluation would take 

place through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

D. What is the EPA’s response to 

petitions for reconsideration on Refinery 

MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)? 

As mentioned previously in this 

preamble, we published final MACT 

standards for heat exchange systems at 

petroleum refineries in amendments to 

Refinery MACT 1 on October 28, 2009 

(74 FR 55670). On December 23, 2009, 

the American Petroleum Institute (API) 

requested an administrative 

reconsideration under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) of certain provisions of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CC that they had 

identified in an April 7, 2009, letter to 

the EPA. Specifically, API requested 

that the EPA reconsider: (1) The 

compliance schedule and applicability 

provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(h); (2) the 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange system’’ in 

40 CFR 63.641 as it relates to oncethrough heat exchange systems and 

refinery process units; (3) the 

monitoring procedures for once-through 

heat exchange systems in 40 CFR 

63.654(c); (4) the determination of the 

cooling water flow rate in 40 CFR 

63.654(g); (5) the overlap provisions for 

storage vessels in 40 CFR 63.640(n); (6) 

the deck fitting control requirements for 

storage vessel internal floating roofs in 

40 CFR 63.646; (7) reports required for 

storage vessels also subject to 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart Y; (8) the definition of 

‘‘heat exchange system’’ in 40 CFR 

63.641 as it relates to cooling towers; (9) 

the monitoring procedures for oncethrough heat exchange systems in 40 

CFR 63.654(e); and (10) the application 

of the rule to heat exchanger systems 

which use salt water. In addition, API 

identified eight incorrect references and 

other typographical errors that they 

requested the EPA correct. 

In this action, the EPA is granting 

reconsideration on petitioner’s Issues 

Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In addition, with regard 

to petitioner’s Issue No. 1, we are 

granting reconsideration on the use of 

the promulgation date to describe the 

applicability for new sources in 40 CFR 

63.640(h)(1). Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 

CAA provides that the EPA shall 

convene a proceeding to reconsider a 

rule if a person raising an objection can 

demonstrate: (1) That it was 

impracticable to raise the objection 

during the comment period, or that the 

grounds for such objection arose after 

the comment period, but within the 

time specified for judicial review (i.e., 

within 60 days after publication of the 

final rulemaking notice in the Federal 

Register), and (2) that the objection is of 

central relevance to the outcome of the 

rule. We are granting reconsideration on 

these specific issues because the 

grounds for petitioner’s objections arose 

after the public comment period (but 

within the time specified for judicial 

review) and the objections are of central 

relevance to the outcome of the final 

rule pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). 

The EPA is denying API’s request for 

reconsideration on petitioner’s Issue 

Nos. 5, 6 and 7 identified in the 

previous paragraph, and on the 

incorrect references and other 

typographical errors that were identified 

in sections describing specific 

requirements for storage vessels. The 

regulatory text that API reviewed when 

developing their April 7, 2009, letter 

was included in a final rule that was 

signed, but never published in the 

Federal Register. On October 28, 2009, 

the EPA proposed to withdraw the 

portions of that signed rule that 

includes the regulatory text identified in 

Issue Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and that included 

the incorrect references and 

typographical errors related to storage 

vessels (see 74 FR 55505). The agency 

recently published a final action on the 

proposed withdrawal of the 

amendments to the Refinery MACT 1 

rule storage vessel requirements (see 76 

FR 42052, July 18, 2011). Therefore, 

reconsideration of these provisions is 

not necessary. 

The EPA is also denying API’s request 

for reconsideration of certain language 

that we finalized as proposed, 

including: (1) The definition of ‘‘heat 

exchange system’’ as it relates to cooling 

towers (Issue No. 8 above), and (2) the 

ability to perform additional monitoring 

to verify that a leak is in a heat 

exchanger in HAP service at 40 CFR 

63.654(e) (Issue No. 9 above). These 

issues could have been raised during the 

public comment period for the rule. API 

did not submit comments on this issue 

during the comment period on the 

proposal, nor did API’s petition show 

why these issues could not have been 

presented during the comment period, 

either because it was impracticable to 

raise the issue during that time, or 

because the grounds for the issue arose 

after the comment period. Nevertheless, 

we did attempt to address some of these 

issues where we felt it was important to 

do so. 

Similarly, the EPA is denying the 

request for reconsideration of the 

application of the rule to heat exchanger 

systems which use salt water (Issue No. 

10 above). The proposed rule language 

required monitoring for all heat 

exchange systems in HAP service. API’s 

petition for reconsideration did not 

explain why suggestions to limit the 

applicability of the rule to certain types 

of heat exchange systems were not and 

could not have been raised during the 

public comment period. 

However, we note that, while we are 

not granting reconsideration on these 

issues, the proposed uniform standards 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L and our 

proposed amendments to the Refinery 

MACT 1, as described below, do attempt 

to clarify some of these issues and 

concerns where it is appropriate to do 

so. 

Finally, the EPA is not granting 

reconsideration on the miscellaneous 

incorrect references and other 

typographical errors that API identified 

in their petition. We note that four of 

the incorrect references and other 

typographical errors identified by API 

were corrected in a corrections notice 

published on June 30, 2010 (75 FR 

37730). Although we are not granting 

reconsideration on the remaining 

incorrect references and typographical 

errors identified by API, because these 

corrections are not issues of central 

relevance to the outcome of the final 

rule, we are, nevertheless, proposing to 

correct those errors in this notice where 

appropriate. 

III. Summary of the Proposed 

Standards and Amendments 

A. What amendments are we proposing 

for Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC)? 

1. Structural Changes 

We are proposing to remove from 

Refinery MACT 1 the general 

monitoring, delay of repair, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements that we are proposing to 

add to 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, as 

described in section III.B of this 

preamble. In their place, we would 

include in 40 CFR 63.654 and 40 CFR 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 965 

2Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) 

for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Water Sources, Revision Number 

One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 

Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, 

prepared by TCEQ, January 31, 2003 (incorporated 

by reference—see § 65.265). 

3SW–846 Method 5030B, Purge-and-Trap for 

Aqueous Samples, and SW–846 Method 8260C, 

Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by Gas 

Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or 

Electrolytic Conductivity Detectors, dated December 

1996 (incorporated by reference—see § 65.265). 

4ASTM Method D5790–95, Standard Test 

Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic 

Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, reapproved 

2006, incorporated by reference—see § 65.265). 

63.655 of Refinery MACT 1 crossreferences to the requirements as 

specified in subpart L. Thus, this change 

would maintain these requirements for 

heat exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries, but the specifics of the 

requirements would be included in a 

different subpart. We would retain in 40 

CFR 63.654 the requirements for heat 

exchange systems that are specific to the 

petroleum refining industry. 

Specifically, Refinery MACT 1 would 

continue to specify the monitoring 

frequency and the leak action level for 

existing and new sources. Refinery 

MACT would also continue to specify 

the delay of repair action level. These 

action levels would continue to be 

specified in 40 CFR 63.654 because they 

are specific levels established in our 

final rule for Refinery MACT 1 sources. 

74 FR 55669. 

We are proposing to restructure 40 

CFR 63.640(h)(1) to remove the reserved 

paragraphs and renumber the remaining 

paragraphs. These paragraphs are not 

directly referenced anywhere else in 

Refinery MACT 1, so we are not 

proposing any other amendments 

related to this restructuring. We are also 

proposing to reword newly renumbered 

40 CFR 63.640(h)(1)(i) and (ii) to clarify 

that the compliance and applicability 

dates in those paragraphs refer to the 

new source at which a heat exchange 

system is located. These proposed 

changes address the relevant portions of 

API’s reconsideration Issue No. 1 to 

clearly reflect our intent regarding the 

compliance schedule and, specifically, 

the applicability of new source 

requirements for heat exchange systems. 

The previously promulgated language 

could have been interpreted to mean 

that heat exchange systems themselves 

could be considered new sources, which 

is inconsistent with the description of 

an affected source at 40 CFR 63.640(c), 

that includes all emission points located 

at a single plant site. 

We are proposing to clarify the 

applicability date in 40 CFR 

63.640(h)(1)(ii), based on CAA section 

112(a)(4), which defines ‘‘new source’’ 

as a source that commences 

construction or reconstruction ‘‘after the 

Administrator first proposes regulations 

under [section 112] establishing an 

emission standard applicable to such 

source.’’ Because the referenced 

provision applies to new sources, we are 

proposing to correct the date to be the 

date we first proposed regulations 

establishing emissions standards, rather 

than the compliance date for such 

standards. These changes also address 

reconsideration issue No. 1 to clearly 

and properly reflect our intent with 

regard to the compliance schedule and 

applicability provisions. 

Finally, we are proposing to add 

clarity to 40 CFR 63.640(a). Section 

63.640(a) states that ‘‘[t]his subpart 

applies to petroleum refining process 

units and to related emission points 

specified in paragraphs (c)(5) through 

(8) of this section * * *’’ However, 

upon review, we have determined that 

there is not a clear distinction between 

petroleum refining process units and 

related emission points. Specifically, 

paragraph (c)(1) through (4) could also 

be considered ‘‘related emission 

points.’’ Therefore, we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 63.640(a) to read: ‘‘This 

subpart applies to petroleum refining 

process units and to related emission 

points specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (8) of this section * * *’’ As 

amended, this statement more clearly 

reflects that Refinery MACT 1 addresses 

all emissions points described in 

paragraphs (c)(1) though (8). 

We are also proposing to remove the 

definitions of ‘‘cooling tower return 

line’’ and ‘‘heat exchange exit line’’ 

from the Refinery MACT 1 regulations 

(40 CFR 63.641). All references to these 

terms would appear in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L, so the definitions are no 

longer needed in Refinery MACT 1. We 

note that the phrase ‘‘in regulated 

material service’’ is defined in Refinery 

MACT 1 as ‘‘in organic HAP service.’’ 

The proposed uniform standard in 

subpart L is designed so that both 

NESHAP and NSPS can point to it. As 

such, the proposed uniform standard 

includes a definition of ‘‘in regulated 

material service.’’ However, since the 

Refinery MACT 1 uses the term, ‘‘in 

organic HAP service,’’ to determine 

whether certain equipment is subject to 

the MACT standards, we are retaining 

that term for refineries and not relying 

on the more general term in the 

proposed uniform standard. The 

existing Refinery MACT 1 definition 

would continue to apply to heat 

exchange systems at Refinery MACT 1 

sources for determining whether a heat 

exchange system is in regulated material 

service. 

2. Substantive Revisions 

Refinery MACT 1 would continue to 

specify that, when monthly monitoring 

is conducted, the leak action level for 

existing sources is 6.2 parts per million 

by volume (ppmv) total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) in the 

stripping gas collected via the Texas 

Commission on Environmental 

Quality’s (TCEQ) Modified El Paso 

Method, Revision Number One, dated 

January 2003,2 and the leak action level 

for new sources is 3.1 ppmv total 

strippable hydrocarbons (as methane) 

collected via the Modified El Paso 

Method. We are also proposing to 

include alternative leak action levels for 

direct water sampling. For existing 

sources, the proposed leak action level 

is 80 parts per billion by weight (ppbw) 

of total strippable hydrocarbons in the 

cooling water collected and analyzed 

according to either a combination SW– 

846 Methods 5030B and 8260C3 or 

ASTM Method D5790–95 4 and for new 

sources, the proposed leak action level 

is 40 ppbw of total strippable 

hydrocarbons in the cooling water 

collected and analyzed according to 

SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or 

ASTM Method D5790–95. The delay of 

repair action level would be either 62 

ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as 

methane) collected via the Modified El 

Paso Method, as currently required, or 

an alternative of 800 ppbw of total 

strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling 

water collected and analyzed according 

to SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C 

or ASTM Method D5790–95. 

Based on an expanded technology 

review and impacts analysis we 

performed to determine whether to 

apply this proposed uniform standard to 

heat exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries, we have determined that 

quarterly monitoring using a lower leak 

definition would achieve equivalent 

emissions reductions (see technical 

memorandum, Revised Impacts for Heat 

Exchange Systems at Petroleum 

Refineries, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0146). Therefore, we are 

proposing to allow affected facilities an 

alternative compliance option: To 

monitor quarterly, using a leak action 

level of either 3.1 ppmv total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) in the 

stripping gas collected via the Modified 

El Paso Method, or 40 ppbw of total 

strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling 

water collected and analyzed according 

to SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C 

or ASTM Method D5790–95. The owner 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

or operator would select which 

alternative they will use to monitor each 

heat exchange system; different 

monitoring alternatives may be selected 

for different heat exchange systems at 

the facility. 

In Refinery MACT 1, we finalized a 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange system’’ as 

follows, ‘‘a device or series of devices 

used to transfer heat from process fluids 

to water without intentional direct 

contact of the process fluid with the 

water (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger) 

and to transport and/or cool the water 

in a closed-loop recirculation system 

(cooling tower system) or a oncethrough system (e.g., river or pond 

water). For closed-loop recirculation 

systems, the heat exchange system 

consists of a cooling tower, all heat 

exchangers that are serviced by that 

cooling tower, and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). For once 

through systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of one or more heat 

exchangers servicing an individual 

process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional 

direct contact with process fluids results 

in the formation of a wastewater.’’ This 

definition covers both heat exchange 

systems that recirculate the cooling 

water within the plant, relying on a 

cooling tower to cool the water after it 

has passes through the process areas, as 

well as once-through systems that bring 

in cooling water from a water body and 

then return the water back to the water 

body after it has passed through the 

process. We are proposing to revise that 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange system’’ 

from what was finalized for Refinery 

MACT 1 and replace the word ‘‘series’’ 

with ‘‘collection’’ to avoid any 

confusion that heat exchangers must be 

arranged in a series configuration (as 

opposed to a parallel configuration). 

This edit was requested in the 

reconsideration petition (Issue No. 8) 

and, although we did not grant 

reconsideration on it specifically, we 

believe it is appropriate to clarify the 

definition to reflect our intent. The 

proposed definition in the uniform 

standard (40 CFR part 65, subpart L) 

includes this same definition. 

B. What requirements for heat exchange 

systems are we proposing to include in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart L? 

We are proposing to add to 40 CFR 

part 65 a new subpart L, which would 

include requirements for monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting for heat 

exchange systems subject to a facilityspecific referencing subpart. These 

requirements are the same as the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements issued as part of 

the revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 

standard, which established the MACT 

floor for heat exchange systems at 

petroleum refineries (74 FR 55670, 

October 28, 2009). The preamble to the 

final rule and the preamble to the 

supplemental proposal (73 FR 66694, 

November 10, 2008) provide more detail 

on the basis for those requirements. 

We are proposing default leak action 

levels, delay of repair action levels and 

monitoring frequencies in the uniform 

standards that would apply if the 

referencing subpart does not specify 

these details. These default action levels 

and monitoring frequencies are based on 

our general technology review for heat 

exchange systems (see technical 

memorandum, Technology Review for 

Heat Exchange Systems, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0002) and 

represent a heat exchange system 

monitoring program that is expected to 

be cost effective in a wide variety of 

applications. The default leak action 

level is either 3.1 ppmv total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) in the 

stripping gas collected via the Modified 

El Paso Method, or 40 ppbw of total 

strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling 

water collected and analyzed according 

to SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C 

or ASTM Method D5790–95 and the 

monitoring frequency is quarterly. 

However, we anticipate that these action 

levels and the monitoring frequency 

may vary for heat exchanger systems in 

different source categories. In those 

cases, the action levels and monitoring 

frequencies would be defined in the 

appropriate referencing subpart. 

We are not proposing to specify a 

compliance timeline in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L because the compliance 

timeline may vary for different source 

categories. Instead, we expect that the 

compliance timeline would be specified 

in each source-specific subpart 

whenever that subpart is amended. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators of heat exchange systems that 

are ‘‘in regulated material service’’ (as 

defined by either the referencing 

subpart, if it provides a definition of 

that term, or in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

L) at an affected source would be 

required to conduct sampling and 

analyses using the Modified El Paso 

Method, or SW–846 Methods 5030B and 

8260C or ASTM Method D5790–95. 

We are also including provisions 

specifying the frequency of sampling 

and analyses; however, a referencing 

subpart could specify alternative 

provisions for the frequency of sampling 

and analyses which would apply in 

place of those provisions in 40 CFR part 

65, subpart L. For each NSPS or MACT 

rule that, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, we determine will crossreference subpart L, this limit would 

apply unless an alternative limit is 

established in the cross-referencing 

subpart through that rulemaking 

process. The proposed standards under 

subpart L would require the repair of 

leaks in heat exchangers in regulated 

material service within 45 days of the 

sampling event in which the leak is 

detected, unless a delay in repair is 

allowed. Delay in repair of the leak 

would be allowed until the next 

shutdown if the repair of the leak 

requires the process unit served by the 

leaking heat exchanger to be shut down 

and if the total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration is less than the delay of 

repair action level, which would be, as 

a default level, 62 ppmv total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) collected via 

the Modified El Paso Method or 800 

ppbw of total strippable hydrocarbons 

in the cooling water collected and 

analyzed according to SW–846 Methods 

5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method 

D5790–95. Delay in repair of the leak 

would also be allowed for up to 120 

days if the total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration is less than the delay of 

repair action level, and if critical parts 

or personnel are not available. The 

owner or operator would be required to 

continue monitoring, at least monthly, 

and to repair the heat exchanger within 

30 days if sampling results show that 

the leak exceeds the delay of repair 

action level. 

We are proposing different sampling 

locations for heat exchange systems 

based on whether the system includes a 

cooling tower or is a once-through heat 

exchange system. We are granting 

reconsideration on these issues (Issue 

Nos. 2 and 3) identified by API. We are 

proposing to clarify these requirements 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L and we are 

proposing that 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC would cross-reference these 

provisions for heat exchange systems at 

refineries. For heat exchange systems 

that include a cooling tower (i.e., closedloop recirculation systems), we are 

proposing that sampling would be 

conducted at the combined cooling 

tower inlet water location prior to 

exposure to the atmosphere or, 

alternatively, that sampling would be 

conducted in the return or ‘‘exit’’ lines 

(i.e., water lines returning the water 

from the heat exchangers to the cooling 

tower) from an individual heat 

exchanger or bank of heat exchangers. 

That is, if the cooling tower services 

multiple heat exchangers, the owner or 

operator could choose among several 

sampling locations: (1) Monitor only the 

heat exchangers ‘‘in regulated material 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 967 

service’’; (2) monitor at branch points 

that combine several heat exchanger exit 

lines; or (3) monitor at the combined 

stream for the entire closed-loop 

recirculation system. If a leak is 

detected (i.e., the measured 

concentration exceeds the applicable 

leak action level) at an individual heat 

exchanger ‘‘in regulated material 

service,’’ that leak would need to be 

repaired (i.e., appropriate action taken 

to reduce the hydrocarbon 

concentration to less than the applicable 

leak action level). If a leak is detected 

at the combined cooling tower inlet, the 

owner or operator could either fix the 

leak or leaks so that the hydrocarbon 

concentration measured at the 

combined cooling tower inlet is less 

than the applicable leak action level or 

sample heat exchanger exit lines for 

each individual or combination of heat 

exchangers ‘‘in regulated material 

service,’’ as necessary, to document that 

the leak is not originating from any heat 

exchanger within the closed-loop 

recirculation systems that is ‘‘in 

regulated material service.’’ If a leak is 

detected in an individual heat 

exchanger ‘‘in regulated material 

service’’ during this process, that leak 

would need to be repaired. We are also 

proposing to clarify the regulatory text 

we are moving from 40 CFR 

63.654(g)(4)(ii) of subpart CC to 40 CFR 

65.640(g)(4)(ii) of subpart L to indicate 

that the flow rate for calculation of 

emissions from heat exchanger leaks 

may be based on direct measurement, 

pump curves, heat balance calculations 

or other engineering methods 

(reconsideration Issue No. 4). 

We are proposing to define a oncethrough heat exchange system as a 

system that ‘‘consists of one or more 

heat exchangers servicing an individual 

process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s).’’ This 

definition has not been substantively 

changed from the Refinery MACT 1 

definition. We are not adopting the 

petitioner’s suggested edits to say ‘‘one 

or more individual process units.’’ 

Rather, we are proposing that sampling 

for once-through heat exchange systems 

must be conducted in exit lines from 

individual heat exchangers, or a group 

of heat exchangers ‘‘in regulated 

material service’’ associated with a 

single process unit. In closed-loop 

recirculation heat exchange systems, the 

potential dilution of the leak by 

including cooling waters from other 

processes is minimized due to the 

physical limitations of the quantity of 

water that can be processed by a single 

cooling tower. If once-through heat 

exchange systems are not limited by 

definition to a single process unit, then 

a once-through heat exchange system 

could include all heat exchangers at the 

entire facility. The potential to aggregate 

all cooling water at a facility (as 

opposed to a single process unit) prior 

to sampling for a once-through system 

would greatly reduce the effectiveness 

of the leak monitoring methods and 

would allow HAP or VOC leaks to 

remain undetected, based solely on the 

dilution effect from the vast quantity of 

water processed at the facility. We 

request comment on the proposed 

definition and sampling method for 

once-through heat exchange systems. 

Commenters are encouraged to provide 

additional information and suggestions 

for sampling alternatives that would 

allow flexibility, but would include a 

small enough number of individual heat 

exchangers to provide meaningful 

measurements in once-through systems. 

In addition, we are proposing to allow 

the owner or operator of a once-through 

heat exchange system to monitor both 

the inlet and outlet of an individual heat 

exchanger or group of heat exchangers 

associated with a single process unit 

and compare the difference between 

those two measurements to the leak 

action level to determine if a leak is 

detected. This provision was contained 

in 40 CFR 63.654(c)(1), but has been 

clarified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L. The use of a differential leak 

is provided for once-through systems 

because the water supply for these 

systems (often river water or ocean 

water) may contain higher background 

concentrations of hydrocarbons than the 

purchased water that is used in closedloop recirculation systems. 

We propose to define ‘‘in regulated 

material service’’ in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L and to include procedures for 

determining whether a heat exchanger is 

‘‘in regulated material service’’ in 40 

CFR 65.275 of the Uniform Standards 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 65, 

subpart H) (see section III.C of this 

preamble for more detail on the Uniform 

Standards General Provisions). 

All affected sources with a heat 

exchange system in regulated material 

service would be required to maintain 

records of: (1) All heat exchangers at the 

facility and which of those heat 

exchangers are in regulated material 

service subject to 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L; (2) the cooling towers and 

once-through systems associated with 

heat exchangers in regulated material 

service; (3) all monitoring results; and 

(4) information documenting the 

reasons for any delays in repair of a 

leak. These requirements are the same 

as the requirements finalized for 

refinery heat exchange systems. 

As proposed, 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

L specifies a default monitoring 

frequency of quarterly. This default 

monitoring frequency is based on a 

general analysis of the costs of 

monitoring at various frequencies. The 

initial equipment costs associated with 

the Modified El Paso sampling method 

are about $14,000, but one stripping 

column can be used to monitor several 

heat exchange systems at the facility. 

For continuous monitoring, a stripping 

column and hydrocarbon analyzer 

would be required for each affected heat 

exchange system, which would increase 

the costs if more than one heat exchange 

system exists at a given facility. We note 

that the monitoring frequency is a 

minimum required frequency; an owner 

or operator conducting more frequent 

monitoring than required would still be 

in compliance with subpart L or the 

source-specific subpart that establishes 

an alternative monitoring frequency. 

C. What general provisions for uniform 

standards are we proposing to include 

in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H? 

We are proposing to include general 

provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H 

that would apply to all sources subject 

to uniform standards. We note that these 

general provisions are not intended to 

take the place of the general provisions 

provided in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 

for NESHAP and that are referenced in 

many MACT standards. Similarly, these 

general provisions are not intended to 

take the place of the general provisions 

provided in subpart A of 40 CFR part 60 

for NSPS. The specific provisions we 

are proposing to include in 40 CFR part 

65, subpart H are described below. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.270 is a 

centralized section for incorporations by 

reference, such as test methods. This 

provision would be similar to 

provisions in other general provision 

subparts (e.g., 40 CFR 63.14). We 

anticipate that we would add methods 

to this section as we propose new 

uniform standards. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.275 describes 

procedures for determining whether a 

source is ‘‘in regulated material 

service.’’ We anticipate some of the 

uniform standards, including 40 CFR 

part 65, subpart L, would include 

requirements for regulated sources ‘‘in 

regulated material service.’’ In many 

cases, referencing subparts would define 

the ‘‘regulated material’’ and explain 

how to determine whether a source is 

‘‘in regulated material service’’ for the 

source category addressed by that 

referencing subpart. However, in the 

event that a referencing subpart does not 

provide an explanation of how to 

determine whether a source is ‘‘in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5However, we know that several refineries in 

Texas are currently required to monitor monthly 

using the higher leak action level and may desire 

to keep their current monitoring program. 

regulated material service,’’ we are 

proposing procedures for making that 

determination under the proposed 

40 CFR part 65, subpart H. The 

proposed requirements are based on the 

procedures in 40 CFR 63.180(d), and are 

provided for clarification for the sources 

subject to the uniform standards. 

Proposed 40 CFR 65.280 contains 

requirements for determining 

compliance with periodic requirements. 

The proposed requirements specify that 

weekly, monthly and annually refer to 

the standard calendar periods and 

sources would have to complete 

periodic requirements within each 

standard calendar period with a 

minimum amount of time or 

‘‘reasonable interval’’ between each 

event. We have also included a 

provision clarifying that the reasonable 

interval requirement would not prevent 

a source from conducting the periodic 

requirement more frequently. In other 

words, if a source is required to monitor 

quarterly, but elects to monitor monthly 

instead, it would still be considered in 

compliance with the requirement to 

monitor quarterly. 

Finally, proposed 40 CFR 65.295 

includes definitions for terms that we 

expect will be used across multiple 

uniform standard subparts, so that those 

terms are defined consistently. In this 

action, we are proposing to define 

‘‘owner or operator,’’ ‘‘regulated 

material,’’ and ‘‘regulated source.’’ We 

intend to propose other definitions for 

inclusion in this section, as needed, 

when we propose requirements for other 

uniform standards. 

IV. Rationale for Proposed Heat 

Exchange System Uniform Standards 

and Petroleum Refinery Amendments 

A. What is the rationale for the 

amendments to the heat exchange 

system requirements and the 

amendments to Refinery MACT 1? 

When we developed the MACT 

requirements for heat exchange systems 

at petroleum refineries, we primarily 

evaluated permits in order to identify 

the MACT floor monitoring 

requirements for heat exchange systems 

at new and existing sources. We then 

developed impacts for the monitoring 

alternatives identified during the permit 

review process. In evaluating 

monitoring alternatives for the uniform 

standards, we developed a more 

detailed modeling approach to better 

understand the relative impacts of the 

monitoring frequency, leak action level, 

delay of repair threshold and other 

model variables. Through this analysis, 

we discovered that the leak action level 

is often more critical to achieving 

emission reductions than the 

monitoring frequency. The relative 

importance of the monitoring frequency 

versus leak action level depends on the 

baseline monitoring frequency and 

action level to which one is comparing 

results, but the results clearly indicate 

that more frequent monitoring at a high 

leak action level is not as effective at 

reducing emissions as less frequent 

monitoring at a low leak action level. 

Based on the generalized heat exchange 

system analysis (see technical 

memorandum, Technology Review for 

Heat Exchange Systems, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0002), 

quarterly monitoring at a leak action 

level of 40 ppbw in the cooling water 

(which is equivalent to 3.1 ppmv 

hydrocarbons as methane in the 

stripping gas) is as or more effective at 

reducing emissions as monthly 

monitoring at a leak action level of 80 

ppbw in the cooling water (or 6.2 ppmv 

hydrocarbons as methane in the 

stripping gas) for individual heat 

exchange systems. 

We then evaluated these two 

monitoring options specifically for heat 

exchange systems located at petroleum 

refineries, and determined that these 

two monitoring options are expected to 

achieve equivalent emission reductions. 

That is, we determined that a quarterly 

monitoring program using a leak action 

level of 40 ppbw would achieve the 

same emission limitation achieved by a 

monthly monitoring program using a 

leak action level of 80 ppbw; therefore, 

we believe it is equivalent to the MACT 

floor for existing sources. Based on our 

analysis, quarterly monitoring at the 

lower leak action level would result in 

a net cost savings compared to monthly 

monitoring, so we anticipate that, if 

given the option, most refineries would 

elect to use the quarterly monitoring 

alternative.5 Therefore, we are 

proposing to revise the existing MACT 

standard to include, as an alternative for 

existing sources, quarterly monitoring 

with a leak action level of 40 ppbw. To 

ensure each monitoring program is 

implemented as intended, the refinery 

owner or operator would choose the 

monitoring program with which they 

would comply at all times for each heat 

exchange system and notify the 

Administrator of that choice. The 

refinery owner or operator would notify 

the Administrator if a change in 

monitoring alternative is desired, but all 

‘‘leaks’’ identified prior to changing 

monitoring alternatives would be 

required to be repaired regardless of the 

change in leak definition for the newly 

elected alternative. Thus, the refinery 

owner or operator could not elect 

quarterly monitoring at 40 ppbw, 

identify a leak of 60 ppbw and then 

change the monitoring frequency to 

monthly with an action level of 80 

ppbw. 

In addition to fulfilling the mandate 

in CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) that 

sources be subject to requirements at 

least as stringent as the MACT floor, this 

revision is responsive to Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ issued on 

January 18, 2011, which directs each 

federal agency to ‘‘periodically review 

its existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded or repealed so as to make the 

agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ As 

discussed previously, we have 

determined that quarterly monitoring 

using a lower leak action level of either 

3.1 ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons 

(as methane) in the stripping gas 

collected via the Modified El Paso 

Method, or 40 ppbw of total strippable 

hydrocarbons in the cooling water 

collected and analyzed according to 

SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or 

ASTM Method D5790–95 would 

achieve equivalent emissions reductions 

as the monthly monitoring with a leak 

action level of 6.2 ppmv total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) that is 

currently in the Refinery MACT 1 rule 

for existing sources. This proposed 

alternative will increase flexibility for 

the regulated industry, and reduce the 

cost and administrative burden, while 

maintaining at least equivalent level of 

environmental and public health 

protection. 

In developing the uniform standards 

for heat exchange systems, we also 

considered more broadly the variety of 

heat exchange systems in use and 

whether the Modified El Paso Method 

should be the sole monitoring system 

identified in the uniform standard at 

this time. For some source categories, a 

limited number of compounds may be 

present in the process stream for which 

analytical methods are available that 

can detect these compounds at low 

concentrations. Additionally, for 

streams containing highly chlorinated 

organic compounds, these alternative 

methods may provide lower detection 

limits and better sensitivity than using 

the Modified El Paso Method (which 

uses a flame ionization detector). Our 

review indicated that the specific 

analytical method used was not critical 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 969 

to the emission limitations achieved, 

provided that the method could 

accurately quantify pollutant 

concentrations at levels far enough 

below the leak action level that the 

method could accurately indicate 

whether or not a leak exists. As such, 

we are proposing to include a direct 

water analysis method in the uniform 

standards. As previously stated, each 

referencing subpart could include 

different or alternative analytical 

methods if they are determined to be 

appropriate in the rulemaking on that 

referencing subpart. 

For petroleum refineries, we 

considered whether direct water 

sampling should be included as an 

alternative. Proponents of the Modified 

El Paso Method note that volatile 

compounds can be lost during the direct 

water sampling process, so that the 

Modified El Paso Method would be 

more accurate for samples that contain 

volatile compounds, such as those 

typically found at a petroleum refinery. 

However, in using direct water 

sampling, there are sampling methods 

for volatile or for highly reactive volatile 

compounds that, if followed, should 

minimize volatile loss during sampling 

and storage. Another potential issue 

with direct water sampling is that not 

all of the pollutants will be fully emitted 

from the cooling water and the 

concentrations of these chemicals will 

tend to build up in closed-loop 

recirculation heat exchange systems. For 

these reasons, a difference in the inlet 

and outlet of the cooling tower (or heat 

exchanger) is often proposed as the 

appropriate measure by which to define 

a leak. While the inlet and outlet 

measurements may provide a better 

estimate of the actual emissions, the fact 

that hydrocarbons are accumulating in 

the cooling water is evidence that there 

is a leak. Furthermore, our analysis 

indicates that small leaks are generally 

cost effective to repair. Thus, we are 

proposing to include language in the 

uniform standard that would allow 

direct water sampling as an alternative 

to the Modified El Paso Method, 

provided that the analysis can fully 

characterize all volatile compounds that 

could enter the cooling water from the 

process fluid in the heat exchanger. We 

are also proposing to reference this 

language from Refinery MACT 1. Where 

direct water sampling is used, we are 

proposing to require the determination 

of a leak to be based only on the 

concentration in the cooling tower 

return line or selected heat exchanger 

exit line(s) prior to exposure to the 

atmosphere (i.e., we would not allow 

determination of a leak as the difference 

from inlet to outlet for closed-loop 

recirculation systems). We anticipate 

that most petroleum refinery owners or 

operators would elect to use the 

Modified El Paso Method, but there may 

be certain process streams that have a 

limited number of volatile compounds 

where the direct water sampling 

approach would be a cost effective 

alternative. 

Finally, one of the issues for which 

API requested reconsideration (Issue 

No. 4) was the uncertainty in the 

requirements for monitoring cooling 

water flow or recirculation rates. This 

parameter is required as a means to 

determine the potential emissions 

during a delay of repair. As we 

indicated in the preamble to the final 

rule (74 FR 55675), ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that facilities will monitor at locations 

where the flow rate is known based on 

pump curves, heat balance calculations 

or other engineering methods. A 

continuous flow monitor is not 

required, but a flow rate at the 

monitoring location is needed to assess 

the potential mass emissions associated 

with a leak.’’ Although this issue was 

discussed in the preamble to the final 

rule, the rule language was silent on the 

allowable methods to determine the 

flow rate for the required calculation. 

Therefore, we are proposing to clarify 

our original intent by specifying in the 

regulatory text for the uniform standards 

for heat exchange systems that ‘‘the flow 

rate may be based on direct 

measurement, pump curves, heat 

balance calculations, or other 

engineering methods.’’ This provision 

would be cross-referenced for purposes 

of Refinery MACT 1. 

B. What is the rationale for the proposed 

uniform standards? 

In a number of cases, the EPA has 

established CAA standards for different 

source categories that regulate materials 

from the same kind of emission point. 

Standards for a given type of emission 

point may require application of 

controls with similar control efficiencies 

and include similar design, equipment 

or operating standards, even though 

these emission points may be located at 

different types of sources or facilities. 

Although many of the characteristics 

may be the same, some requirements 

may need to vary among the various 

source categories. 

To avoid duplicative or disjointed 

requirements, and to promote 

consistency among technical 

requirements for similar emission points 

in different source categories, the EPA 

has established several common control 

requirement subparts describing testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for certain 

emission points and emission controls 

that can be referenced from multiple 

source categories. For instance, we 

promulgated standard requirements for 

selected emission points (i.e., 

containers, surface impoundments, oilwater separators and organic-water 

separators, tanks, individual drain 

systems) in individual subparts under 

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery 

Operations NESHAP (61 FR 34158, July 

1, 1996) (referred to as the OSWRO 

MACT) and we promulgated subparts 

for other selected emission points (i.e., 

closed vent systems, control devices, 

recovery devices, and routing to a fuel 

gas system or a process; equipment 

leaks; and storage vessels) as part of the 

Generic MACT program (64 FR 34854, 

June 29, 1999). The Generic MACT 

standards for selected emission points, 

which were promulgated under 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW, 

were then referenced in NESHAP 

requirements for individual source 

categories. 

Consolidation of compliance 

requirements under these subparts 

allowed for ease of reference, provided 

administrative convenience and assured 

consistency in the technical 

requirements, where appropriate, of the 

air emission control requirements 

applied to similar emission points 

located at sources regulated under 

different source category regulations. 

The 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, 

UU and WW are emission point- and 

emissions control-specific. They specify 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, but generally do 

not specify emissions reduction 

performance requirements or 

applicability thresholds. Instead, the 

referencing subpart specifies the 

emissions reduction performance 

requirements and applicability 

thresholds. 

By establishing these emission pointand emissions control-specific subparts, 

other source-category-specific 

regulations were able to reference a 

common set of design, operating, 

testing, inspection, monitoring, repair, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for air emissions controls. 

This eliminated the potential for 

duplicative or conflicting technical 

requirements, and assured consistency 

of the air emission requirements applied 

to similar emission points, while 

allowing the specific emission standard 

to be set within the context of the 

source-specific regulations. 

Additionally, creating emission pointspecific and emissions control-specific 

subparts ensured that all regulations 

that cross-referenced these subparts 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

could be amended in a consistent 

manner through one regulatory action. 

This action proposes uniform 

standards for heat exchange systems (40 

CFR part 65, subpart L). We are 

proposing to establish the uniform 

standards under 40 CFR part 65 and 

anticipate, through future notice-andcomment rulemaking, to cross-reference 

subpart L from source category emission 

standards within at least two different 

parts of title 40 of the CFR, parts 60 and 

63, which establish NSPS and MACT 

standards, respectively. We anticipate 

that we will see the same benefits for 

this uniform standard as we have seen 

for previous emission point- and 

emissions control-specific subparts, as 

described above, including the ability to 

reference a common set of standards for 

the same type of emission point located 

at sources within different source 

categories, which will maximize 

consistency between source categories 

for that type of emission point. 

As with the common control 

requirement subparts previously 

promulgated, we are proposing that 40 

CFR part 65, subpart L would include 

technical requirements and would not 

specify applicability cutoffs or 

emissions reduction performance 

requirements, because these 

requirements are more properly 

established in source-specific rules. 

However, we are proposing a default 

leak action level and monitoring 

frequency that would apply if the 

referencing subpart does not specify 

these parameters. In the rulemaking 

actions revising standards to crossreference subpart L, we would address 

whether the referencing subpart should 

cross-reference subpart L in its entirety 

or only a subset of subpart L. For those 

provisions not cross-referenced by the 

source-specific subpart, the requirement 

would be specifically addressed in the 

source-specific subpart. Moreover, for 

those provisions that are crossreferenced, we could consider whether 

the source-specific subpart should 

include more stringent requirements. 

For example, the referencing subpart 

could specify continuous monitoring 

rather than periodic monitoring if it is 

determined that continuous monitoring 

is appropriate for the heat exchange 

systems in that source category. 

As we revise or promulgate sourcespecific standards that have sources 

addressed by a uniform standard, we 

would propose whether and to what 

extent we reference the uniform 

standards; in making that decision we 

would consider the applicable CAA 

requirements, analyses of the individual 

source category and the similarity of 

emission characteristics and applicable 

controls. We would consider factors 

such as: (1) The volume and 

concentration of emissions; (2) the type 

of emissions; (3) the similarity of 

emission points; (4) the cost and 

effectiveness of controls for one source 

category relative to the cost and 

effectiveness of controls for the other 

source category; (5) whether a source 

has unusual characteristics that might 

require different analytical methods; 

and (6) whether any of the sources have 

existing emission controls that are 

dissimilar and more stringent than 

controls required for similar sources 

outside the source category. These 

factors would be considered on a source 

category-specific basis to ensure that 

sources are appropriately similar, and 

that emissions control technologies and 

reductions demonstrated outside of a 

source category are achievable for new 

and existing sources in an applicable 

source category. 

As we noted previously in this 

preamble, the rationale for each 

determination that some or all of the 

provisions of 40 CFR part 65, subpart L 

should be cross-referenced for an 

individual referencing subpart in light 

of the applicable CAA requirements 

would be addressed in the rulemaking 

for the individual subpart at the time of 

proposal and we would provide an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Likewise, for each review of an existing 

standard that results in a determination 

that some or all of the provisions in 

subpart L should be cross-referenced 

and that it would be consistent with the 

applicable CAA requirements to do so, 

a description of the analyses performed 

as part of that review would be 

presented in the rulemaking for the 

individual subpart at the time of 

proposal and we would provide an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

would also conduct an assessment of 

the costs, emission reduction, economic 

and other impacts as they relate to the 

specific source category at issue at that 

time. 

We are aware that there are heat 

exchange systems at facilities other than 

just petroleum refineries (e.g., some 

chemical manufacturing facilities) in 

which the process fluid contains 

hydrocarbons that can leak into the 

cooling water. Some of these heat 

exchange systems are subject to the 

same state requirements as heat 

exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries (e.g., many cooling towers in 

Texas that are subject to the TCEQ 

Highly Reactive VOC rule are associated 

with ethylene production units). 

Therefore, we believe there are 

indications that the uniform 

requirements included in proposed 40 

CFR part 65, subpart L could be 

appropriate requirements for other 

source categories. We note that the 

Modified El Paso Method has been 

demonstrated at numerous sources as an 

effective means of identifying leaks in 

heat exchange systems and the method 

has been used extensively for over 20 

years. 

C. What is the rationale for the proposed 

general provisions to the uniform 

standards? 

We are currently proposing general 

provisions for the uniform standards in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart H. The existing 

General Provisions of subpart A of 40 

CFR part 65 would be renamed to reflect 

applicability only to the current 

Consolidated Federal Air Rules, which 

comprise subparts A through G of part 

65. The Uniform Standards General 

Provisions would apply to sources that 

must comply with the uniform 

standards for heat exchange systems in 

40 CFR part 65, subpart L, if finalized, 

as well as sources that must comply 

with any future uniform standards 

promulgated under 40 CFR part 65. 

The General Provisions of 40 CFR part 

65, subpart H would define the 

applicability of the uniform standards 

for proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart L 

and for any other uniform standards that 

may be codified in the future in 40 CFR 

part 65, subparts I through M. These 

provisions would include requirements 

or definitions that we anticipate would 

apply to two or more subparts of the 

uniform standards. The General 

Provisions of subpart H would apply 

when another subpart references the use 

of the uniform standards under subparts 

I through M. As proposed, subpart H 

also clarifies that the General Provisions 

applicable to the referencing subpart 

(i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR part 60 or 40 

CFR part 63) would continue to apply 

to sources as specified in the referencing 

subpart and that we are not proposing 

to include specific requirements already 

addressed in the General Provisions of 

40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 63 in the 

General Provisions of subpart H. In 

creating each of the uniform standards, 

we would determine which provisions 

in the General Provisions in subpart H 

should be referenced by that uniform 

standard. 

The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart 

H also contains requirements for 

determining compliance with periodic 

requirements established in a uniform 

standard in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I 

through M. Consistent with the HON (40 

CFR 63.100(k)(9)), we are proposing that 

terms such as weekly, monthly and 

annually refer to the standard calendar 

periods and that the owner or operator 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 971 

would have to complete periodic 

requirements within each standard 

calendar period. 

We are also proposing that there must 

be a ‘‘reasonable interval’’ between 

completion of two instances of the same 

task. This is necessary because an owner 

or operator could theoretically comply 

with monthly requirements by 

completing the task at the beginning of 

one month, the end of the next month 

and the beginning of a third month 

(which could be only a day after the end 

of the second month). This is not 

consistent with our intention in 

requiring the task to be completed 

monthly. The time periods we are 

proposing as reasonable intervals are 

consistent with the reasonable intervals 

for batch processes at 40 CFR 60.482– 

1(f)(3) (Standards of Performance for 

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals 

Manufacturing Industry; 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart VV) and 40 CFR 

63.100(k)(9)(ii)(A). The proposed 

language ensures that periodic 

requirements are conducted on a 

consistent and relatively uniform 

schedule from one period to the next, 

while also providing some degree of 

flexibility. We are not proposing to 

specify a reasonable interval for 

requirements that occur less frequently 

than annually; instead, if a uniform 

standard imposes a periodic 

requirement that must be performed less 

frequently than annually, that uniform 

standard would include requirements 

for determining compliance with that 

periodic obligation. 

We also note that the reasonable 

interval provisions are not intended to 

imply that periodic requirements cannot 

be conducted more frequently than 

required. For example, if a source is 

required to monitor a piece of 

equipment quarterly, but the owner or 

operator elects to monitor monthly or a 

state provision requires more frequent 

monitoring, the source is still in 

compliance with the quarterly 

monitoring requirement. Even though 

some of the monitoring events occur 

closer together than the reasonable 

interval, there would still be a 

reasonable interval between the 

monitoring events that could be relied 

on to meet the monitoring requirement. 

For the same reason, if a source has a 

continuous monitor in place, the source 

is still considered to be in compliance 

with the periodic monitoring 

requirement. 

Finally, we are proposing common 

definitions for terms that we expect will 

be used in two or more of the uniform 

standards. We have defined the term 

‘‘regulated source’’ to mean the 

stationary source, the group of 

stationary sources or the portion of a 

stationary source that is regulated by a 

relevant standard or other requirement 

established pursuant to a referencing 

subpart. Because we intend to propose 

rulemakings that would reference the 

uniform standards from 40 CFR part 60 

and/or 40 CFR part 63, we have 

proposed a definition of ‘‘regulated 

material’’ that is more inclusive of 

potential pollutants that would be 

regulated than previous definitions of 

this term (e.g., subpart SS of part 63). 

Specifically, we are proposing to define 

‘‘regulated material’’ as chemicals or 

groups of chemicals (such as VOC or 

HAP) that are regulated by the 

referencing subpart. 

V. Summary of Impacts 

This action will have no cost, 

environmental, energy, or economic 

impacts beyond those impacts presented 

in the October 2009 final rule for heat 

exchange systems at petroleum 

refineries and may result in a cost 

savings for refiners who select the 

proposed alternative monitoring 

frequency. The only sources affected by 

this action would be petroleum 

refineries and there would be no 

additional impacts for heat exchange 

systems at petroleum refineries beyond 

those presented in the October 2009 

final rule that established these 

requirements. This action largely moves 

those requirements from 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC, which is specific to 

petroleum refineries, to 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L, which would be crossreferenced by subpart CC. The intention 

is that subpart L would provide uniform 

standards such that other MACT 

standards, as well as NSPS, could crossreference those requirements for heat 

exchangers through future regulatory 

action. In addition to this structural 

change, we are proposing to provide an 

additional monitoring alternative for 

quarterly monitoring at a leak action 

level of total strippable hydrocarbons of 

3.1 ppmv in the stripping air (or 40 

ppbw in the cooling water). Sources 

could elect this monitoring alternative 

in place of the monitoring requirement 

that is currently provided. This 

alternative is expected to lower the costs 

associated with the October 2009 

requirements, while achieving the same 

environmental impacts. Finally, the 

clarifications and other changes we are 

proposing in response to 

reconsideration are cost neutral. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), this action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it may raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. We are 

proposing to move the information 

collection requirements from the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC) to the Heat 

Exchange System Uniform Standards 

(40 CFR part 65, subpart L), but we are 

not proposing to change the information 

collection requirements themselves. The 

other proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC would not affect the 

information collection requirements for 

petroleum refineries. Therefore, we have 

not revised the information collection 

request (ICR) for the existing petroleum 

refinery rule, nor have we developed an 

ICR for the Heat Exchange System 

Uniform Standards. However, OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements in the existing 

regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., 

and assigned OMB control numbers 

2060–0340 and 2060–0619. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

The EPA is proposing to amend the 

table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently 

approved ICR control numbers issued 

by OMB for various regulations to list 

the information requirements for heat 

exchange systems subject to the 

NESHAP for petroleum refineries 

promulgated October 28, 2009 (74 FR 

55670). 

The EPA will continue to present 

OMB control numbers in a consolidated 

table format to be codified in 40 CFR 

part 9 of the agency’s regulations, and 

in each CFR volume containing the EPA 

regulations. The table lists the section 

numbers with reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements and the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

current OMB control numbers. This 

listing of the OMB control numbers and 

their subsequent codification in the CFR 

satisfy the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq.) and OMB’s implementing 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business that meets the Small 

Business Administration size standards 

for small businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 

(a firm having no more than 1,500 

employees); (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC, and proposed 

uniform standards in 40 CFR part 65, 

subpart L would not change the existing 

heat exchange system requirements for 

any entity; therefore, they will not have 

a significant economic impact on any 

entity, including small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector, 

because it does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector in any one year. 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

these amendments have no impact on 

costs. Therefore, this proposed rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The proposed action 

contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments, and imposes no 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It would not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. It would not 

modify existing responsibilities or 

create new responsibilities among the 

EPA Regional offices, states or local 

enforcement agencies. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed action imposes no 

requirements on tribal governments and 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action,’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use ‘‘Air Stripping Method (Modified 

El Paso Method) for Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Water Sources,’’ Revision Number 

One, dated January 2003 and will 

incorporate the method by reference 

(see 40 CFR 65.265). This method is 

available at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/ 

assets/public/implementation/air/sip/ 

sipdocs/2002-12-HGB/ 

02046sipapp_ado.pdf or from the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, 

Austin, Texas 78711–3087, telephone 

number (512) 239–0028. This method 

was chosen because it is an effective 

means to determine leaks from heat 

exchangers and it is the method used in 

the best-performing facilities. This 

TCEQ method uses a dynamic or flowthrough system for air stripping a 

sample of the water and analyzing the 

resultant off-gases for VOC using a 

common flame ionization detector 

analyzer. While direct water analyses, 

such as purge and trap analyses of water 

samples using gas chromatography and/ 

or mass spectrometry techniques, have 

been shown to be effective for cooling 

tower measurements of heavier 

molecular weight hydrocarbons with 

relatively high boiling points, it has 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 973 

been determined that this approach may 

be ineffective for capture and 

measurement of VOC with lower boiling 

points, such as ethylene, propylene, 1,3- 

butadiene and butenes. The VOC with a 

low molecular weight and boiling point 

are generally lost in the sample 

collection step of purge/trap type 

analyses. Consequently, this TCEQ air 

stripping method is used for cooling 

tower and other applicable water matrix 

emission measurements of VOC with 

boiling points below 140 °Fahrenheit. 

To test water samples for purgeable 

VOC, the EPA proposes to use SW–846 

Method 5030B, Purge-and-Trap for 

Aqueous Samples, and SW–846 Method 

8260C, Aromatic and Halogenated 

Volatiles by Gas Chromatography Using 

Photoionization and/or Electrolytic 

Conductivity Detectors, dated December 

1996, and will incorporate these 

methods by reference (see 40 CFR 

65.265). These methods are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/ 

testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm or 

the National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605–6000 

or (800) 553–6847 or for purchase from 

the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800. 

A VCS, ASTM Method D5790–95, 

Standard Test Method for Measurement 

of Purgeable Organic Compounds in 

Water by Capillary Column Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 

reapproved 2006, is an acceptable 

alternative to SW–846 Methods 5030B 

and 8260C and will be incorporated by 

reference (see 40 CFR 65.265). This 

method is available from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428, (610) 832–9585 or (877) 909– 

2786 or at http://www.astm.org/ 

index.shtml. 

These methods were chosen because 

purge-and-trap analyses of water 

samples using gas chromatography and/ 

or mass spectrometry techniques, have 

been shown to be effective for cooling 

tower measurements of heavier 

molecular weight hydrocarbons with 

boiling points as low as ¥13 °Celsius 

(9 °Fahrenheit). These methods measure 

a wide range of VOC, and we expect that 

these methods are applicable for 

analysis of the majority of compounds 

that will need to be analyzed at the 

facilities covered by this subpart. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

63.8(f) of subpart A of the NESHAP 

General Provisions or under 40 CFR 

60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

as applicable, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures in the 

proposed rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it would not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The proposed action 

would not relax the control measures on 

regulated sources and therefore, would 

not cause emissions increases from 

these sources. 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries; National Uniform 

Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 

Systems 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 65 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporations by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251, et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857, et seq., 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

2. The table in § 9.1 is amended by 

revising the entry for 63.655 under the 

heading, ‘‘National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB Approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control No. 

*******

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3

*******

63.655 .............................................................................................................................................................. 2060–0340, 2060–0619 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

40 CFR citation OMB control No. 

*******

*******

3The ICR referenced in this section of the table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, which 

are not independent information collection requirements. 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

3. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

4. Section 63.14 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(n)(1). 

Subpart CC—[Amended] 

5. Section 63.640 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text and 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.640 Applicability and designation of 

affected source. 

(a) This subpart applies to petroleum 

refining process units and to related 

emissions points that are specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this 

section that are located at a plant site 

and that meet the criteria in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section: 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, new 

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction after July 14, 1994, shall 

be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup or August 18, 1995, 

whichever is later. 

(i) At new sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after July 

14, 1994, but on or before September 4, 

2007, heat exchange systems shall 

comply with the existing source 

requirements for heat exchange systems 

specified in § 63.654 no later than 

October 29, 2012. 

(ii) At new sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

September 4, 2007, heat exchange 

systems shall be in compliance with the 

new source requirements in § 63.654 

upon initial startup or October 28, 2009, 

whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.641 is amended by: 

a. Removing the definitions of 

‘‘Cooling tower return line’’ and ‘‘Heat 

exchanger exit line’’ and 

b. Revising the definition of ‘‘Heat 

exchange system’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.641 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Heat exchange system means a device 

or collection of devices used to transfer 

heat from process fluids to water 

without intentional direct contact of the 

process fluid with the water (i.e., noncontact heat exchanger) and to transport 

and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 

recirculation system (cooling tower 

system) or a once-through system (e.g., 

river or pond water). For closed-loop 

recirculation systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of a cooling tower, all 

heat exchangers that are serviced by that 

cooling tower and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). For oncethrough systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of one or more heat 

exchangers servicing an individual 

process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional 

direct contact with process fluids results 

in the formation of a wastewater. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.654 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.654 Heat exchange systems. 

(a) The owner or operator of a heat 

exchange system that meets the criteria 

in § 63.640(c)(8) must comply with the 

requirements of § 65.610 as specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. 

(b) For purposes of compliance with 

§ 65.610, the following terms have the 

meanings specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2). 

(1) ‘‘Regulated material’’ means any 

‘‘hazardous air pollutant’’ as defined by 

§ 63.641 of this subpart. 

(2) ‘‘In regulated material service’’ 

means ‘‘in organic hazardous air 

pollutant service’’ as defined by 

§ 63.641 of this subpart. 

(c) For a heat exchange system at an 

existing source, the owner or operator 

must comply with the monitoring 

frequency and leak definition as defined 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or 

comply with the monitoring frequency 

and leak definition as defined in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The 

owner or operator of an affected heat 

exchange system may choose to comply 

with paragraph (c)(1) for some heat 

exchange systems at the petroleum 

refinery and comply with paragraph 

(c)(2) for other heat exchange systems. 

However, for each affected heat 

exchange system, the owner or operator 

of an affected heat exchange system 

must elect one monitoring alternative 

that will apply at all times. If the owner 

or operator intends to change the 

monitoring alternative that applies to a 

heat exchange system, the owner or 

operator must notify the Administrator 

30 days in advance of such a change. All 

‘‘leaks’’ identified prior to changing 

monitoring alternatives must be 

repaired. 

(1) Monitor monthly using a leak 

action level defined as either a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration 

(as methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 

parts per million by volume or a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration in 

the cooling water of 80 parts per billion 

by weight. 

(2) Monitor quarterly using a leak 

action level defined as either a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration 

(as methane) in the stripping gas of 3.1 

parts per million by volume or a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration in 

the cooling water of 40 parts per billion 

by weight. 

(d) For a heat exchange system at a 

new source, the owner or operator must 

monitor monthly using a leak action 

level defined as either a total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) 

in the stripping gas of 3.1 parts per 

million by volume or a total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration in the 

cooling water of 40 parts per billion by 

weight. 

(e) For the purposes of § 65.610(f), the 

delay of repair action level is a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration 

(as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 

parts per million by volume or a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration in 

the cooling water of 800 parts per 

billion by weight. 

8. Section 63.655 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(vi); 

b. Revising paragraph (g)(9); 

c. Adding paragraph (h)(7); and 

d. Revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.655 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vi) For each heat exchange system, 

identification of the heat exchange 

systems that are subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. For heat 

exchange systems at existing sources, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 975 

the owner or operator shall indicate 

whether monitoring will be conducted 

as specified in § 63.654(c)(1) or 

§ 63.654(c)(2). 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(9) For heat exchange systems, 

Periodic Reports must include the 

information specified in § 65.620. 

(h) * * * 

(7) The owner or operator of a heat 

exchange system at an existing source 

must notify the Administrator at least 30 

calendar days prior to changing from 

one of the monitoring options specified 

in § 63.654(c) to the other. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) The owner or operator of a heat 

exchange system subject to the 

monitoring requirements in § 63.654 

shall comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 65.625. 

* * * * * 

PART 65—[AMENDED] 

9. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C., 7401, et seq. 

10. Part 65 is amended by adding 

subpart H to read as follows. 

Subpart H—National Uniform Emission 

Standards General Provisions 

Sec. 

65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.265 What methods are incorporated by 

reference for subparts I through M of this 

part? 

65.270 How do I determine what regulated 

sources are in regulated material service? 

65.280 How do I determine compliance 

with periodic requirements? 

65.295 What definitions apply to subparts 

H through M of this part? 

Subpart H—National Uniform Emission 

Standards General Provisions 

§ 65.200 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

These provisions apply to you if a 

subpart of part 60, 61 or 63 of this 

chapter references the use of this 

subpart. The General Provisions 

applicable to the referencing subpart 

(subpart A of part 60, 61 or 63) apply 

to this subpart as specified in the 

referencing subpart. The General 

Provisions for the Consolidated Federal 

Air Rule (subpart A of this part) do not 

apply to subparts I through M of this 

part. 

§ 65.265 What methods are incorporated 

by reference for subparts I through M of 

this part? 

The materials listed in this section are 

incorporated by reference in the 

corresponding sections. These 

incorporations by reference (IBR) were 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These 

materials are incorporated as they exist 

on the date of the approval, and notice 

of any change in these materials will be 

published in the Federal Register. The 

materials are available for purchase at 

the corresponding addresses noted 

below, and all are available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA), at the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M St. 

SW., Washington, DC, and at the EPA 

Library (C267–01), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(a) The following material is available 

from the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, 

Post Office Box 13087, Austin, Texas 

78711–3087, telephone number (512) 

239–0028 or at http:// 

www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/ 

implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002- 

12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf: 

(1) ‘‘Air Stripping Method (Modified 

El Paso Method) for Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Water Sources,’’ Revision Number 

One, dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 

Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, January 31, 2003, IBR approved 

for §§ 65.610(a)(3)(i) and (g)(4)(i) and for 

§ 65.625(d)(4) of this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 

22161, (703) 605–6000 or (800) 553– 

6847 or for purchase from the 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512–1800 

or at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/ 

testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm. 

The following methods as published in 

the test methods compendium known as 

‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ 

EPA Publication SW–846, Third 

Edition. A suffix of ‘‘A’’ in the method 

number indicates revision one (the 

method has been revised once). A suffix 

of ‘‘B’’ in the method number indicates 

revision two (the method has been 

revised twice). 

(1) SW–846 Method 5030B, ‘‘Purgeand-Trap for Aqueous Samples,’’ dated 

December 1996, IBR approved for 

§§ 65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 65.625(d)(5) of 

this subpart, and 

(2) SW–846 Method 8260C, 

‘‘Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by 

Gas Chromatography Using 

Photoionization and/or Electrolytic 

Conductivity Detectors,’’ dated 

December 1996, IBR approved for 

§§ 65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 65.625(d)(5) of 

this subpart. 

(c) The following materials are 

available for purchase from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428, (610) 832–9585 or (877) 909– 

2786 or at http://www.astm.org/ 

index.shtml: 

(1) ASTM Method D5790–95, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Purgeable Organic 

Compounds in Water by Capillary 

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ reapproved 2006, IBR 

approved for §§ 65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 

65.625(d)(5) of this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 65.270 How do I determine what 

regulated sources are in regulated material 

service? 

If you are subject to a uniform 

standard that includes requirements for 

regulated sources ‘‘in regulated material 

service,’’ you must determine if 

regulated sources or equipment are in 

regulated material service using either 

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(a) If the referencing subpart includes 

a procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service,’’ you must 

use the procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service’’ in the 

referencing subpart. 

(b) If the referencing subpart does not 

include a procedure or definition of ‘‘in 

regulated material service,’’ you must 

use the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Regulated sources or equipment 

that can reasonably be expected to be in 

regulated material service are presumed 

to be in regulated material service 

unless you demonstrate that the 

regulated sources or equipment are not 

in regulated material service. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(1) and (3) of this section, you must 

use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–6 if the material is in the 

gas phase or either a combination of 

SW–846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or 

ASTM Method D5790–95 if the material 

in the liquid phase and either of the 

methods specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

or (b)(2)(ii) of this section to 

demonstrate that regulated sources or 

equipment are not in regulated material 

service. 

(i) Determine the weight percent 

regulated material content of the process 

fluid that is contained in or contacts the 

regulated source as the arithmetic sum 

of the weight percent concentration of 

each compound defined as regulated 

material. Demonstrate that the regulated 

material concentration is less than 5 

weight percent on an annual average 

basis. 

(ii) Demonstrate that the nonregulated material content exceeds 95 

percent by weight on an annual average 

basis. 

(3) You may use good engineering 

judgment rather than the procedures in 

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section 

to determine if regulated sources or 

equipment are not in regulated material 

service. However, when you and the 

Administrator do not agree on whether 

the regulated sources or equipment are 

in regulated material service, you must 

use the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section to resolve the disagreement. 

§ 65.280 How do I determine compliance 

with periodic requirements? 

Except as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section, if you are subject to a 

requirement in subpart I through M of 

this part to complete a particular task on 

a periodic basis, you must comply as 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) All terms in subparts I through M 

of this part that define a period of time 

for completion of required tasks (e.g., 

weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually), 

refer to the standard calendar periods. 

(b) You may comply with such 

periodic requirements by completing 

the required task any time within the 

standard calendar period, provided 

there is a reasonable interval between 

completion of two instances of the same 

task. Reasonable intervals are described 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Tasks that you are required to 

complete weekly must be separated by 

at least 3 calendar days. 

(2) Tasks that you are required to 

complete monthly must be separated by 

at least 14 calendar days. 

(3) Tasks that you are required to 

complete quarterly must be separated by 

at least 30 calendar days. 

(4) Tasks that you are required to 

complete semiannually (i.e., once every 

2 quarters) must be separated by at least 

60 calendar days. 

(5) Tasks that you are required to 

complete annually must be separated by 

at least 120 calendar days. 

(c) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section do not apply to 

reports that you are required to submit 

under the General Provisions applicable 

to the referencing subpart (e.g., subpart 

A of part 60, 61 or 63). 

(2) If the paragraph in subpart I, J, K, 

L or M that imposes a periodic 

requirement specifies a different 

schedule for complying with that 

requirement, you must follow that 

schedule instead of the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(3) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section shall be construed as 

prohibiting you from conducting a 

periodic task at a more frequent interval 

than required. 

§ 65.295 What definitions apply to 

subparts H through M of this part? 

All terms used in subparts H through 

M of this part shall have the meaning 

given them in the Clean Air Act and in 

this section. 

Owner or operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises a regulated source or a 

stationary source of which a regulated 

source is a part. 

Referencing subpart means the 

subpart that refers you to one or more 

applicable uniform standards (subparts I 

through M of this part). A referencing 

subpart for one uniform standard may 

also be a referencing subpart for another 

uniform standard as long as the 

referencing subpart specifically refers 

you to each of those uniform standards. 

Regulated material means chemicals 

or groups of chemicals (such as volatile 

organic compounds or hazardous air 

pollutants) that are regulated by the 

referencing subpart. 

Regulated source means the stationary 

source, the group of stationary sources 

or the portion of a stationary source that 

is regulated by a relevant standard or 

other requirement established pursuant 

to a referencing subpart. 

11. Part 65 is amended by adding 

subpart L to read as follows. 

Subpart L—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Heat Exchange Systems 

What This Subpart Covers 

Sec. 

65.600 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.605 Am I subject to this subpart? 

Work Practice Standards 

65.610 What monitoring and repair 

requirements must I meet? 

Notifications, Reports and Records 

65.615 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

65.620 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

65.625 What records must I keep? 

Other Requirements and Information 

65.630 What parts of the General Provisions 

apply to me? 

65.635 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

65.640 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Subpart L—National Uniform Emission 

Standards for Heat Exchange Systems 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 65.600 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

The provisions of this subpart apply 

to the control of air emissions from heat 

exchange systems for which another 

subpart references the use of this 

subpart for such air emission control. 

§ 65.605 Am I subject to this subpart? 

These air emission standards for heat 

exchange systems apply to you only if 

you own or operate a facility subject to 

a referencing subpart that specifies the 

use of this subpart. 

Work Practice Standards 

§ 65.610 What monitoring and repair 

requirements must I meet? 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, you must perform 

monitoring to identify leaks of total 

strippable hydrocarbons from each heat 

exchange system subject to the 

requirements of this subpart according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Monitoring locations for closedloop recirculation heat exchange 

systems. For each closed loop 

recirculating heat exchange system, you 

must collect and analyze a sample from 

the location(s) described in either 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Each cooling tower return line 

prior to exposure to air for each heat 

exchange system in regulated material 

service. 

(ii) Selected heat exchanger exit 

line(s) so that each heat exchanger or 

group of heat exchangers in regulated 

material service within a heat exchange 

system is covered by the selected 

monitoring location(s). 

(2) Monitoring locations for oncethrough heat exchange systems. For 

each once-through heat exchange 

system, you must collect and analyze a 

sample from the location(s) described in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. You 

may also elect to collect and analyze an 

additional sample from the location(s) 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) 

so that each heat exchanger or group of 

heat exchangers in regulated material 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 977 

service within a heat exchange system is 

covered by the selected monitoring 

location(s). 

(ii) The inlet water feed line for a 

once-through heat exchange system 

prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple 

heat exchange systems use the same 

water feed (i.e., inlet water from the 

same primary water source), you may 

monitor at one representative location 

and use the monitoring results for that 

sampling location for all heat exchange 

systems that use that same water feed. 

(3) Monitoring method. You must 

determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration (or surrogate 

pollutant concentration, as specified in 

the referencing subpart) at each 

monitoring location using any of the 

analytical methods specified in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration (in parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) as methane) 

from the air stripping testing system 

using ‘‘Air Stripping Method (Modified 

El Paso Method) for Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Water Sources,’’ Revision Number 

One, dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 

Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated 

by reference—see § 65.265) using a 

flame ionization detector (FID) analyzer. 

(ii) Determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration (in parts per 

billion by weight (ppbw)) in the cooling 

water using a combination of SW–846 

Method 5030B, ‘‘Purge-and-Trap for 

Aqueous Samples’’ and SW–846 

Method 8260C, ‘‘Aromatic and 

Halogenated Volatiles by Gas 

Chromatography Using Photoionization 

and/or Electrolytic Conductivity 

Detectors,’’ dated December 1996 

(incorporated by reference—see 

§ 65.265) or ASTM Method D5790–95, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Purgeable Organic 

Compounds in Water by Capillary 

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry,’’ reapproved 2006 

(incorporated by reference—see 

§ 65.265). Unless otherwise specified by 

the referencing subpart, the target list of 

compounds shall be generated based on 

a pre-survey sample and analysis by gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry and 

process knowledge, to include all 

compounds that can potentially leak 

into the cooling water. If SW–846 

Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM 

Method D5790–95 are not applicable for 

all compounds that can potentially leak 

into the cooling water for a given heat 

exchange system, you cannot use these 

monitoring methods for that heat 

exchange system. 

(iii) Determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration or surrogate 

pollutant concentration as specified in 

the referencing subpart (in ppbw) in the 

cooling water using the analytical 

methods specified in the referencing 

subpart. 

(4) Monitoring frequency. You must 

determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration (or surrogate 

pollutant concentration as specified in 

the referencing subpart) at each 

monitoring location at the frequencies 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 

(iii) of this section, unless otherwise 

provided in the referencing subpart. 

(i) For heat exchange systems for 

which you have not delayed repair of 

any leaks, monitor at least quarterly. 

(ii) For heat exchange systems for 

which you have delayed repair as 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section, 

monitor at least monthly. 

(iii) If you elect to monitor the inlet 

water feed line for a once-through heat 

exchange system as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, you 

must monitor the inlet water feed line 

at least quarterly. 

(b) A heat exchange system is exempt 

from the monitoring requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section if it meets 

any one of the criteria in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) All heat exchangers that are in 

regulated material service within the 

heat exchange system operate with the 

minimum pressure on the cooling water 

side at least 35 kilopascals greater than 

the maximum pressure on the process 

side. 

(2) The heat exchange system does not 

contain any heat exchangers that are in 

regulated material service, as defined in 

this subpart or as defined in the 

referencing subpart, as applicable. 

(3) The heat exchange system has a 

maximum cooling water flow rate of 

10 gallons per minute or less. 

(c) Unless otherwise specified by the 

referencing subpart, the leak action level 

is either a total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration (as methane) in the 

stripping gas of 3.1 ppmv or a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration in 

the cooling water of 40 ppbw. A leak is 

defined as described in paragraph (c)(1) 

or (c)(2) of this section, as applicable. 

(1) For once-through heat exchange 

systems for which you monitor the inlet 

water feed as described in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii) of this section, a leak is 

detected if the difference in the 

measurement value of the sample taken 

from a location specified in paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) of this section and the 

measurement value of the 

corresponding sample taken from the 

location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

of this section equals or exceeds the leak 

action level. 

(2) For all other heat exchange 

systems, a leak is detected if a 

measurement value taken according to 

the requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section equals or exceeds the leak action 

level. 

(d) If a leak is detected pursuant to the 

monitoring provisions of paragraph (a), 

you must repair the leak to reduce the 

measured concentration to below the 

applicable action level as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 45 days 

after identifying the leak, except as 

specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 

section. Repair includes re-monitoring 

as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section to verify that the measured 

concentration is below the applicable 

action level. Actions that you can take 

to achieve repair include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Physical modifications to the 

leaking heat exchanger, such as welding 

the leak or replacing a tube; 

(2) Blocking the leaking tube within 

the heat exchanger; 

(3) Changing the pressure so that 

water flows into the process fluid; 

(4) Replacing the heat exchanger or 

heat exchanger bundle; or 

(5) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise 

removing the leaking heat exchanger 

from service until it is otherwise 

repaired. 

(e) If you detect a leak when 

monitoring a cooling tower return line 

or heat exchanger exit line under 

paragraph (a) of this section, you may 

conduct additional monitoring 

following the requirements in paragraph 

(a) of this section to further isolate each 

heat exchanger or group of heat 

exchangers in regulated material service 

within the heat exchange system for 

which the leak was detected. If you do 

not detect any leaks when conducting 

additional monitoring for each heat 

exchanger or group of heat exchangers 

in regulated material service, the heat 

exchange system is excluded from the 

repair requirements in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(f) Unless otherwise specified by the 

referencing subpart, the delay of repair 

action level is defined as either a total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration 

(as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 

ppmv or a total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration in the cooling water of 

800 ppbw. If the repair action level is 

exceeded as specified under the 

referencing subpart or this paragraph, 

and unless specified otherwise in the 

referencing subpart, you may delay the 

repair of a leaking heat exchanger when 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

one of the conditions in paragraphs 

(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section is met. You 

must determine if a delay of repair is 

necessary as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 45 days after first identifying 

the leak. 

(1) If the repair is technically 

infeasible without a shutdown and the 

total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration is initially and remains 

less than the delay of repair action level 

for all monitoring periods during the 

delay of repair, you may delay repair 

until the next scheduled shutdown of 

the heat exchange system. If, during 

subsequent monitoring, the total 

strippable hydrocarbon concentration is 

equal to or greater than the delay of 

repair action level, you must repair the 

leak within 30 days of the monitoring 

event in which the total strippable 

hydrocarbon was equal to or exceeded 

the delay of repair action level. 

(2) If the necessary equipment, parts, 

or personnel are not available and the 

total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration (as methane) is initially 

and remains less than the delay of repair 

action level for all monitoring periods 

during the delay of repair, you may 

delay the repair for a maximum of 120 

calendar days from the day the leak was 

first identified. You must demonstrate 

that the necessary equipment, parts, or 

personnel were not available. If, during 

subsequent monthly monitoring, the 

total strippable hydrocarbon 

concentration is equal to or greater than 

the delay of repair action level, you 

must repair the leak within 30 days of 

the monitoring event in which the leak 

was equal to or exceeded the total 

strippable hydrocarbon delay of repair 

action level. 

(g) Unless otherwise specified in the 

referencing subpart, to delay the repair 

under paragraph (f) of this section, you 

must record the information in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The reason(s) for delaying repair. 

(2) A schedule for completing the 

repair as soon as practical. 

(3) The date and concentration of the 

leak as first identified and the results of 

all subsequent monitoring events during 

the delay of repair. 

(4) An estimate of the potential 

emissions from the leaking heat 

exchange system following the 

procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

(i) Determine the total strippable 

hydrocarbon concentration in the 

cooling water, in ppbw, using equation 

7–1 from ‘‘Air Stripping Method 

(Modified El Paso Method) for 

Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Water 

Sources,’’ Revision Number One, dated 

January 2003, Sampling Procedures 

Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower 

Monitoring, prepared by Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

January 31, 2003 (incorporated by 

reference—see § 65.265). 

(ii) Calculate the emissions for the 

leaking heat exchange system by 

multiplying the hydrocarbon 

concentration in the cooling water, 

ppbw, by the flow rate of the cooling 

water at the selected monitoring 

location and by the expected duration of 

the delay. The flow rate may be based 

on direct measurement, pump curves, 

heat balance calculations or other 

engineering methods. 

Notifications, Reports and Records 

§ 65.615 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

If the referencing subpart requires that 

a notification of compliance status be 

filed, then, at a minimum, you must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in 

the notification of compliance status. 

The notification of compliance status 

shall be transmitted to the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using either electronic 

reporting software available from the 

EPA or in an electronic file format 

specified by the EPA. The notification of 

compliance status shall also be 

submitted to the delegated authority in 

the form and/or format specified by the 

delegated authority. The notification of 

compliance status must be signed by the 

responsible official who shall certify its 

accuracy, attesting to whether the 

source has complied with the relevant 

standard. 

(a) The information specified in the 

referencing subpart. 

(b) Identification of the heat exchange 

systems that are subject to the 

requirements of the referencing subpart. 

§ 65.620 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

Unless otherwise specified in the 

referencing subpart, you must report the 

information specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (f) of this section, as applicable, 

in the periodic report specified in the 

referencing subpart. 

(a) The number of heat exchange 

systems in regulated material service. 

(b) The number of heat exchange 

systems in regulated material service 

found to be leaking. 

(c) A summary of the monitoring data 

that indicate a leak, including the 

number of leaks determined to be equal 

to or greater than the leak definitions 

specified in the referencing subpart. 

(d) If applicable, the date a leak was 

identified, the date the source of the 

leak was identified and the date of 

repair. 

(e) If applicable, a summary of each 

delayed repair, including the original 

date and reason for the delay and the 

date of repair, if repaired during the 

reporting period. 

(f) If applicable, an estimate of total 

strippable hydrocarbon emissions for 

each delayed repair over the reporting 

period. 

§ 65.625 What records must I keep? 

Unless otherwise specified in the 

referencing subpart, for a heat exchange 

system subject to the requirements of 

this subpart, you must keep the records 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of 

this section and you must retain these 

records for 5 years. 

(a) Identification of all heat 

exchangers at the facility and the 

measured or estimated average annual 

regulated material concentration of 

process fluid or intervening cooling 

fluid processed in each heat exchanger. 

(b) Identification of all heat exchange 

systems that are in regulated material 

service. For each heat exchange system 

that is subject to this subpart, you must 

include identification of all heat 

exchangers within each heat exchange 

system, identification of the individual 

heat exchangers in regulated material 

service within each heat exchange 

system and for closed-loop recirculation 

systems, the cooling tower included in 

each heat exchange system. 

(c) Identification of all heat exchange 

systems that are exempt from the 

monitoring requirements according to 

the provisions in § 65.610(b) and the 

provision under which the heat 

exchange system is exempt. 

(d) Results of the following 

monitoring data for each monitoring 

event: 

(1) Date/time of event. 

(2) Heat exchange exit line flow or 

cooling tower return line flow at the 

sampling location, gallons/minute. 

(3) Monitoring method employed. 

(4) If the ‘‘Air Stripping Method 

(Modified El Paso Method) for 

Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Water 

Sources’’ Revision Number One, dated 

January 2003, Sampling Procedures 

Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower 

Monitoring, prepared by Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

January 31, 2003 (incorporated by 

reference—see § 65.265) is used 

according to § 65.610(a)(3)(i): 

(i) Barometric pressure. 

(ii) El Paso air stripping apparatus 

water flow milliliter/minute (ml/min) 

and air flow, ml/min, and air 

temperature, °Celsius. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 979 

(iii) FID reading (ppmv). 

(iv) Length of sampling period. 

(v) Sample volume. 

(vi) Calibration information identified 

in Section 5.4.2 of the ‘‘Air Stripping 

Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 

Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Water 

Sources’’ Revision Number One, dated 

January 2003, Sampling Procedures 

Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower 

Monitoring, prepared by Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

January 31, 2003 (incorporated by 

reference—see § 65.265). 

(5) If SW–846 Methods 5030B and 

8260C or ASTM Method D5790–95 is 

used according to § 65.610(a)(3)(ii): 

(i) The type of detector used. 

(ii) The list of target analytes. 

(iii) The measured cooling water 

concentration for each of target analyte 

(ppbw). 

(iv) The method detection limit for 

each analyte. 

(v) Calibration and surrogate recovery 

information identified in the 

corresponding method. 

(6) If an alternative method is used 

according to § 65.610(a)(3)(iii): 

(i) Specific citation for the test 

method used. 

(ii) Analysis technique. 

(iii) The list of target analytes. 

(iv) The measured cooling water 

concentration for each of target analyte 

(ppbw). 

(v) Calibration and surrogate recovery 

information identified in test method 

used. 

(vi) Other records regarding the 

monitoring method or results as 

specified in the referencing subpart. 

(e) The date when a leak was 

identified and the date when the heat 

exchanger was repaired or taken out of 

service. 

(f) If a repair is delayed, the reason for 

the delay, the schedule for completing 

the repair and the estimate of potential 

emissions for the delay of repair. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 65.630 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

The General Provisions applicable to 

the referencing subpart apply to this 

subpart as specified in the referencing 

subpart. The provisions of subpart H of 

this part (General Provisions—Uniform 

Standards) also apply to this subpart. 

The provisions of subpart A of this part 

(General Provisions—Consolidated 

Federal Air Rule) do not apply to this 

subpart. 

§ 65.635 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). If the EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

a state, local or tribal agency, then that 

agency has the authority to implement 

and enforce this subpart. Contact the 

applicable EPA Regional Office to find 

out if this subpart is delegated to a state, 

local or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local or tribal agency under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities 

contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(4) of this section are retained by the 

EPA Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local or tribal 

agency. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in § 65.610, under 

§ 63.6(g). 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90 and as 

required in this subpart. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90 and as required in 

this subpart. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90 and 

as required in this subpart. 

§ 65.640 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

All terms used in this subpart shall 

have the meaning given them in the 

Clean Air Act and in this section. 

Cooling tower means a heat removal 

device used to remove the heat absorbed 

in circulating cooling water systems by 

transferring the heat to the atmosphere 

using natural or mechanical draft. 

Cooling tower return line means the 

main water trunk lines at the inlet to the 

cooling tower before exposure to the 

atmosphere. 

Heat exchange system means a device 

or collection of devices used to transfer 

heat from process fluids to water 

without intentional direct contact of the 

process fluid with the water (i.e., noncontact heat exchanger) and to transport 

and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 

recirculation system (cooling tower 

system) or a once-through system (e.g., 

river or pond water). For closed-loop 

recirculation systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of a cooling tower, all 

heat exchangers that are serviced by that 

cooling tower and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). For oncethrough systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of one or more heat 

exchangers servicing an individual 

process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional 

direct contact with process fluids results 

in the formation of a wastewater. 

Heat exchanger exit line means the 

cooling water line from the exit of one 

or more heat exchangers (where cooling 

water leaves the heat exchangers) to 

either the entrance of the cooling tower 

return line or prior to exposure to the 

atmosphere or mixing with non-cooling 

water streams, in, as an example, a 

once-through cooling system, whichever 

occurs first. 

In regulated material service means, 

unless specified otherwise in the 

referencing subpart, a heat exchanger 

that either contains or contacts a fluid 

(liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent 

by weight of regulated material (as 

defined in the referencing subpart) as 

determined according to the provisions 

of § 65.270 of this part. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31530 Filed 1–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3