Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

6560-50-P 

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- ] 

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 rules. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the heat exchange 

system requirements of the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutant (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 are also

proposing other clarifications and technical corrections, and we 

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. As a result, instead of retaining these heat 

exchanger requirements in the Refinery NESHAP, we are proposing 

to cross reference those provisions as they would be included in 

Deleted: ¶

EO12866_PetroleumRefineryHeatExchan

ge 2060 AP84 Proposal 20110701

Deleted: (1)

Deleted: amend

Deleted: petroleum refineries; (2) to 

create a new subpart in title 40, 

part 65 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations that would specify 

national uniform standards for heat 

exchange systems; and (3) to create 

a second subpart that would specify 

general provisions to the uniform 

standards. In part, we are 

proposing to amend the heat 

exchange system requirements of the 

national emission standards

Deleted: , for heat exchange systems 

at petroleum refineries. In 

addition to those issues on which 

we are granting reconsideration, we 

are 

Deleted: limited amendments, 

including 

Deleted: . This action also proposes 

to create a new subpart in title 

40, part 65 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations that would specify

Deleted: and that would be based

Deleted: . This action also proposes 

a second subpart that would specify

Deleted: to the uniform standards. 

Deleted: remove many of the specific 

requirements for heat exchange 

systems from the petroleum refinery 

standard in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC and, instead, 

Deleted: -
Page 2 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

the new uniform standards. The proposed uniform standards would 

allow refiners to reduce monitoring frequency and burden by 

meeting a lower leak definition. If finalized, these standards 

would also be referenced, as appropriate, as we revise in the 

future NESHAP or new source performance standards (NSPS) 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. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by [INSERT DATE 15 

DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION] requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

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 

Deleted: subparts

Deleted: , if

Deleted: national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants

Deleted: We believe that 

establishing

Deleted: The intent of establishing 

these requirements as part of a 

uniform standard is to ensure 

consistent requirements for heat 

exchange systems across multiple 

source categories to the extent 

allowable under the Clean Air Act. 
Page 3 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

uniform standards approach, such as general policy or legal 

comments, should be marked “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0870.” Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate 

Docket ID No., by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) 

to a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQOAR-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-HQOAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0870 (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 
Page 4 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQOAR-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-OAR2003-0146, 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 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov website 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 www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
Page 5 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 CDROM 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 

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 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. 
Page 6 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: proposed

Deleted: requirements for 

Refinery MACT 1?¶
Page 7 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During 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 
Page 8 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(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 

Deleted: In this rulemaking,

Deleted: from

Deleted: initially 

Deleted: ).
Page 9 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver 

information as CBI only to the following address: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

Deleted: State
Page 10 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. EPAHQ-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. 
Page 11 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 [INSERT DATE 15 

DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION], we will hold a public hearing on 

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 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 
Page 12 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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-and-comment 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, 

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

Deleted: , apply

Deleted: regulated pursuant to

Deleted: part

Deleted: application of

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Deleted: ,
Page 13 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: ¶

B. What is the statutory authority 

and regulatory background for this 

proposal?¶

Deleted: (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CC)

Deleted: (40 CFR part 63, subpart L) 

Deleted: ,
Page 14 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 best-performing 12 percent of 

existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming 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 

Deleted: ,
Page 15 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

Refinery MACT 1 on October 28, 2009 (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-and-comment 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. 

Deleted: the final MACT standards

Deleted: 

Deleted: The statutory authority for 

the proposal of Heat Exchange 

System Uniform Standards is 

provided by the sections of the CAA 

described in section II.B.1 of this 

preamble, as well as the CAA 

sections described in this section.¶
Page 16 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

technology-based 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. 

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

Deleted: Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the 

CAA calls for the EPA to identify 

at least 30 HAP that, as the result 

of emissions from area sources, 

pose the greatest threat to public 

health in the largest number of 

urban areas. The EPA implemented 

this provision in 1999 in the 

Integrated Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 

1999). In the Strategy, the EPA 

identified 30 HAP that pose the 

greatest potential health threat in 

urban areas; these HAP are referred 

to as the “30 urban HAP.” CAA 

section 112(c)(3) requires the EPA 

to list sufficient categories or 

subcategories of area sources to 

ensure that area sources 

representing 90 percent of the 

emissions of the 30 urban HAP are 

subject to regulation. We 

implemented these requirements 

through the Strategy and subsequent 

updates to the source category 

list. ¶
Page 17 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 18 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

 

1

 Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity Data, From 

Form EIA-820 “Annual Refinery Report” January, 2011. 

Deleted: We anticipate proposing 

additional uniform standards for 

other types of emissions sources 

that are common to a number of 

industry sectors in the future. At 

this time, we anticipate proposing 

uniform standards for storage 

vessels and transfer operations, to 

be codified under 40 CFR part 65 as 

subpart I; uniform standards for 

equipment leaks and ancillary 

systems, to be codified under 40 

CFR part 65 as subpart J; uniform 

standards for wastewater collection 

and treatment systems, to be 

codified under 40 CFR part 65 as 

subpart K; and uniform standards 

for control devices, to be codified 

under 40 CFR part 65 as subpart M. 

If we promulgate uniform standards, 

the determination of whether a 

specific uniform standard is in 

full or part equivalent to MACT, 

GACT or BDT and otherwise 

sufficient to comply with the 

relevant applicable statutory 

requirement would be made through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking for 

the individual source category for 

each statutory program.¶

Deleted: States

Deleted: .
Page 19 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

recirculation systems with cooling towers and once-through 

systems that receive non-contact 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-andcomment rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we will explain that 

Deleted: Cooling towers may be 

designed as either natural draft or 

mechanical draft. Natural draft 

cooling towers are large hyperbolic 

structures that use natural 

convection of warmed air to create 

air flow across the water, thereby 

cooling the water. This type of 

cooling tower is typically located 

at nuclear power plants and not at 

petroleum refineries or chemical 

plants. Refineries

Deleted: 

Deleted: arising

Deleted: Heat

Deleted: could become subject to 40 

CFR part 65, subpart L if the EPA 

determines 
Page 20 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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, cross-reference those standards. As previously 

noted, any such evaluation would take place through notice-andcomment rulemaking. 

D. What is the EPA’s response to petitions for reconsideration 

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

Deleted: or could reduce residual 

risk.
Page 21 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 once-through 

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 once-through 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 
Page 22 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Petitioners’
Page 23 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: .

Deleted: Agency

Deleted: . 
Page 24 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: address

Deleted: we feel
Page 25 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 63.655 

of Refinery MACT 1 cross-references 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 

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

Deleted: propose to
Page 26 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: also
Page 27 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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). 

Deleted: clarify
Page 28 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: Although we are proposing to 

include a different definition of 

that phrase in the uniform standard 

in subpart L, we are not proposing 

to amend the Refinery MACT 1 

definition and we are not proposing 

that the uniform standard 

definition would apply for heat 

exchange systems at a Refinery MACT 

1 source.
Page 29 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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-

954 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 

 

2 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 TCEQ, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--

see §65.265). 

3

 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). 

4

 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). 

Deleted: of 

Deleted: . For
Page 30 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: We are proposing to revise 

the
Page 31 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 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 

Deleted: ) in order to be considered 

part of the same heat exchange 

system. This issue was raised
Page 32 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

Deleted: 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 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, SW-846 Methods 5030B and 

8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95. ¶

Deleted: default 

Deleted: a default 

Deleted: frequency
Page 33 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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

Moved (insertion) [1]

Deleted: The default leak action 

level

Deleted: 3.1 ppmv total strippable 

hydrocarbons (as methane) in the 

stripping gas collected via
Page 34 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 cross-reference

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 

Deleted: 40 ppbw of total strippable 

hydrocarbons in the cooling water 

collected and analyzed according to 

Deleted: default 

Deleted: 

Moved down [2]: 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.

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: . The

Deleted: delay of repair action 

Deleted: would be
Page 35 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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., closed-loop 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 
Page 36 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

sampling locations: (1) Monitor only the heat exchangers “in 

regulated material 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 
Page 37 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 once-through 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 oncethrough 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 oncethrough system would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the 

Deleted: definition. We

Deleted: However, if
Page 38 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 oncethrough 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 

Deleted: and included 

Deleted: treated
Page 39 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline

Moved (insertion) [2]
Page 40 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

Moved up [1]: 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

Deleted: is amended. ¶

Deleted: These general provisions are 

intended to promote consistency 

between the individual uniform 

standard subparts. 
Page 41 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 
Page 42 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: for
Page 43 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: lower
Page 44 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

 

5

 However, 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. 

Deleted: for existing sources 
Page 45 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

Deleted: Federal

Deleted: The EPA’s proposed rule
Page 46 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: method
Page 47 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: there are

Deleted: sample 

Deleted: volatilized
Page 48 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 49 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 50 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: standards

Deleted: ,
Page 51 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 point- and 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 point-specific and emissions 

control-specific subparts ensured that all regulations that 

cross-referenced these subparts 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-and-comment rulemaking, to 

cross-reference subpart L from source category emission 

standards within at least two different parts of title 40 of the 

Deleted: 
Page 52 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

cross-reference 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 cross-referenced, we 

Deleted: 

Deleted: action level, delay of 

repair

Deleted: that revise

Deleted: cross-reference 

Deleted: Moreover, we would 

determine whether the referencing 

(source category-specific) subpart 

should include more or less 

stringent requirements than subpart 

L. Any subpart L

Deleted: category

Deleted: category
Page 53 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 source-specific 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 

Deleted: , as appropriate

Deleted: As stated previously, as

Deleted: category

Deleted: emission points

Deleted: . In

Deleted: /or

Deleted: or less
Page 54 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: when proposing a rulemaking 

for an individual subpart, we would 

provide 

Deleted: At that time we also 

Deleted: cost

Deleted: and specific statutory 

requirements 
Page 55 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

As described previously in this preamble, we are also 

planning to propose uniform standards for other emission points, 

including storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment 

leaks and ancillary systems, wastewater collection and treatment 

systems and control devices. We believe that the uniform 

standards will promote the EPA's ability to simplify, clarify 

and improve implementation of the rules with which source owners 

or operators must comply. 

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 

Deleted: State

Deleted: standards

Deleted: ,
Page 56 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 57 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: ,
Page 58 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

Deleted: 

Deleted: sources

Deleted: State
Page 59 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: .
Page 60 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

63, subpart CC, which is specific to petroleum refineries, to 40 

CFR part 65, subpart L, which would be cross-referenced by 

subpart CC. The intention is that subpart L would provide 

uniform standards such that other MACT standards, as well as 

NSPS, could cross-reference 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 
Page 61 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 62 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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 

Deleted: Agency’s
Page 63 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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-forprofit 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 

Deleted: Federal

Deleted: State
Page 64 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

Deleted: Federal

Deleted: State

Deleted: ,

Deleted: States

Deleted: States

Deleted: States
Page 65 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: State

Deleted: State

Deleted: Federal

Deleted: Federal
Page 66 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 No. 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). 

Deleted: Agency
Page 67 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 flow-through 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 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 140o 

Fahrenheit. 
Page 68 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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.h

tm 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 
Page 69 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

Deleted: 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: Federal

Deleted: Federal
Page 70 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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--Page 71 of 104

Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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: 

 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 72 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 Categories3

 * * * * * * * 

63.655 2060–0340, 2060-0619 

 * * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

3

 The ICR referenced in this section of the table encompass the 

applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, 
Page 73 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

subpart A, which are not independent information collection 

requirements. 

Part 63--[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED] 

2. Section 63.14 is amended by removing and reserving 

paragraph (n)(1). 

Subpart CC--[AMENDED] 

3. 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 
Page 74 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

* * * * * 

4. 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., non-contact heat exchanger) and to transport and/or 
Page 75 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 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. 

* * * * * 

5. 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. 
Page 76 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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 
Page 77 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

6. 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 
Page 78 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

this subpart. For heat exchange systems at existing sources, 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] 

7. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as 

follows: 

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

8. Part 65 is amended by adding subpart H to read as 

follows. 
Page 79 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General 

Provisions 

Sec. 

65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

65.270 What methods are incorporated by reference for subparts I 

through M of this part? 

65.275 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 
Page 80 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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_regulat

ions/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 
Page 81 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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.h

tm. 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, “Purge-and-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 
Page 82 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 
Page 83 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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), 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) 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. 
Page 84 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(ii) Demonstrate that the non-regulated 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 
Page 85 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 
Page 86 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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. 

Deleted: ,
Page 87 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

9. Part 65 is amended by adding subpart L to read as 

follows. 

Subpart L--National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 

Systems 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

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? 
Page 88 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 closed-loop 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 once-through heat exchange 

systems. For each once-through heat exchange system, you must 

collect and analyze a sample from the location(s) described in 
Page 89 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 

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 
Page 90 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 91 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 92 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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 
Page 93 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 
Page 94 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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 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. 
Page 95 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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. 
Page 96 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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 
Page 97 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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? 
Page 98 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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) 
Page 99 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 
Page 100 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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. 

(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. 
Page 101 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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? 
Page 102 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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). 

Deleted: State

Deleted: State

Deleted: State

Deleted: ,

Deleted: State
Page 103 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

(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., non-contact 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 
Page 104 of 104 Deleted: ***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review*** ¶

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. 

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.